Wikimedia LGBT/2022-03-15

Wikimedia LGBT+
Communications
Talk page Telegram: @wmlgbt LGBTlists.wikimedia.org Twitter: @WikiLGBT Mastodon: @wmlgbt@tech.lgbt Bluesky: @wmlgbt.org Wiki99: Wiki99/LGBT+
Other links
Wikimedia thematic organizations Wikimedia user groups

This online videoconference is open to all participants of the LGBT+ User Group, and is intended as an opportunity to discuss shared opportunities, challenges, and issues.

• Date: Tuesday 15 March 1700 UTC (1700 UK, 1800 DE, 0900 PDT, 1200 EST)
• Location: ---- The meeting will have an entry lobby, please reach out on the Telegram group if you are left waiting.

An etherpad link will be shared during the meeting, please help us take rolling notes.

The Wikimedia Friendly Space Policy and Universal Code of Conduct will be followed for this meeting.

Agenda

Please feel free to add to the agenda!

1. Intro
2. QW Planning team status
3. UCoC Enforcement Guidelines vote

Attendees

• 3 participants

Notes

2. QW status

Status: Waiting to hear back from Funding team

We should bear in mind that the war in Ukraine will affect the amount of cognitive and emotional capacity that users in CEE or with connections to the region may have

It's worth us having meetings with Trust & Safety ahead of the conference Not least to consider about anonymity / pseudonymity recommendations for participants — especially for users in hostile jurisdictions Also around potential discussion topics regarding queer-hostile communities (and their internal processes) Also to solicit a presentation from T&S for the conference — probably a walk-through of their workflow and conversation about how they can (and the ways in which they can't) help minoritised users, possibly with some Q&A thereafter

We should get started on a risk log sometime soon — worth doing as a Google Sheet, so that we could share it with (for example) T&S O. has concerns about getting more volunteers (and more-diverse volunteers) to do the conference organising. He recognises this is mainly because he doesn't know how to do that and hasn't seen any plans on it, so he's just trusting that other people know how.

3. UCoC Enforcement Guidelines vote

Voting is open until Mon 21 March, at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines/Voter_information

Voting has 2 parts: a yes/no/indifferent option and a free-text field

People should consider what free-text responses people might wish to give. For example, not all wikis have UCoC-enthusiastic on-wiki processes; ruwiki (and its ArbCom) seem relatively unhappy about the existence of UCoC.

It's very difficult to make anonymous feedback here — consider the bewiki/ruwiki user recently arrested or possible zhwiki users in Hong Kong, for example.

4. Other funding discussions

We don't really have capacity to handle any of these other funding conversations

There are several projects we know we'd like to look at, at some point: Something like A+F's "Unreliable Guidelines", but for Queer topics, especially social sciences and biographies, with recommendations on how we'd like to see policies change and how users can get around problematic aspects of it. That could then become some draft guidelines for Meta, to be discussed with projects and maybe then turned into an RFC, as a second project

Possibly separate from this, best practice guidelines on deadnaming and the handling of sexuality in biographies — this might be different on Wikidata than on wikipedia instances Research around specific issues, such as transphobia on different wikis, the experiences of queer editors across different projects

We should put together a proper wishlist around project we might like to run, once we have the capacity to put in a rapid grant proposal

5. AOB

Non-English-language participation in UG meetings (and the UG more widely)

Worth trying to get specific participation from Spanish-speaking users in April, with a volunteer (or rapid grant?) to offer real-time interpretation.

Some discussion around Telegram and concerns around / for users in Russia and Belarus. We should be clear that one-to-one conversations can be encrypted (whether or not that is secure against state actors), but that group discussions are not.