Wikipedia talk:Wiki Loves Pride 2014

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

To Do[edit]

--Another Believer (Talk) 17:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

--Another Believer (Talk) 02:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You missed Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland - why? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I am sure it was not intentional. Piotr Puchalski, you promote Polish history. I am not sure if you met Jason/Another Believer at the conference last weekend, but he is organizing a day of LGBT editing later this month and Piotrus here is making a request that Polish people be invited to participate wherever in the world they may be. Would you be willing to post a notice of this international LGBT editing day in some Polish community talk forums? If you would, then in return if you also sent any Polish cultural LGBT documents to the NYC meetup then either I or someone else would work to integrate them into the encyclopedia. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
@Piotrus: I did not skip Poland... I simply have not gone through the Europe list yet! Please see above. I have sent invites to Africa, the Americas, Asia and Oceania. I hope to tackle Europe today! :) --Another Believer (Talk) 16:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry and Another Believer: Ah, I see. I just wanted to make sure Poland was not accidentally omitted from some list you might have been working from :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons photo challenge June 2014[edit]

Wiki Loves Pride will be a topic of the June Wikimedia Commons photo challenge. Please familiarise yourselves with the challenge, spread the word and participate in June. I will be posting some examples of suitable images around 1 June when the new challenge is officially launched, but basically it would be anything useful to this project. HelenOnline 10:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Helen. --Another Believer (Talk) 14:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
No problem Another Believer. The best way to thank me is to encourage people to participate otherwise it will be a wasted challenge and my fellow Commoners will be not be too happy with me. Face-smile.svg HelenOnline 07:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good! There are already photo campaigns in both Portland and Vancouver, so that should provide a good collection by itself. Looking forward to seeing what photos Commons contributors add as well! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately our area's Pride event was held in February, so I probably won't be able to contribute to it. HelenOnline 15:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
That's too bad, Helen, but what about LGBT culture or history? Images don't have to depict pride events specifically. I plan to hunt down some free images at Flickr to upload. Every bit helps! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I will do some research and see what I can find. I don't think Flickr images will count for the challenge though (must be own work). HelenOnline 16:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, of course! I guess I was just thinking of ways to contribute to Wiki Loves Pride in general. Sorry! I've been wearing multiple Wikipedia hats lately. :p --Another Believer (Talk) 16:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd appreciate comments which, if any, pictures I took in Seoul and that are now at commons:Category:Korea Queer Culture Festival would be suitable for this context. I was not able to say for the parade itself which sadly got delayed something like 6 hours... but I do have some interesting photos of anti-LGBT protesters, which may be quite useful in illustrating the controversy aspect of this topic, perhaps? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

These are all great! There is no limit on number of entries but if you would like me to select some for you to enter, bearing in mind how subjective that will be, let me know how many and I will get around to it later (you will need to nominate them personally though). HelenOnline 13:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
These images are so great! I would definitely add them to the Commons challenge. You may add them here, or do a combination of your favorites and the Commons challenge and the rest at the Results page. Another option would be to create the page Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2014/Korea Queer Culture Festival and put a gallery there, which we could then link to from the Images section of the Results page. Regardless of how they are displayed, thank you for contributing images! --Another Believer (Talk) 14:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
@HelenOnline and Another Believer: Thank you for your interest. My favorites include commons:File:Korea Queer Culture Festival 2014 11.JPG - an anti-LGBT protester on a rainbow background; commons:File:Korea Queer Culture Festival 2014 26.JPG - another example of an anti-LGBT protester disrupting the festival; commons:File:Korea Queer Culture Festival 2014 48.JPG - two attendees (to the right) mocking an anti-LGBT campaigner (to the left); one of the three commons:File:Korea Queer Culture Festival 2014 28.JPG, commons:File:Korea Queer Culture Festival 2014 29.JPG or commons:File:Korea Queer Culture Festival 2014 30.JPG pictures showing a group of religious youth supporting the festival; and festivals attendees commons:File:Korea Queer Culture Festival 2014 58.JPG; commons:File:Korea Queer Culture Festival 2014 59.JPG and commons:File:Korea Queer Culture Festival 2014 39.JPG. Are there any other pictures you think are interesting? Most of them are too "crowded"... PS. I asked the festival organizers to re-licence their existing galleries and/or release new pictures under a free license so that they can be shared with us. They were friendly in person, but are not replying to my emails. If anyone else could send emails to them asking them to release their media under a free license, it may spur them into acton. Their email is at kqcf@daum.net and you can see my email at User:Piotrus/sandbox (perhaps it may be useful to collect such emails to know who we contacted with such requests?). Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but I think the photo challenge is judged more on photo quality than editorial value (although both definitely matter). From that point of view, I like commons:File:Korea Queer Culture Festival 2014 05.JPG, commons:File:Korea Queer Culture Festival 2014 11.JPG, commons:File:Korea Queer Culture Festival 2014 13.JPG, commons:File:Korea Queer Culture Festival 2014 17.JPG, commons:File:Korea Queer Culture Festival 2014 27.JPG, commons:File:Korea Queer Culture Festival 2014 39.JPG, commons:File:Korea Queer Culture Festival 2014 57.JPG. HelenOnline 13:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I added all of the images that have been mentioned so far so the gallery at Commons. Feel free to remove any from the gallery and the corresponding category Photo challenge/2014 - June - Wiki Loves Pride 2014, if you wish. --Another Believer (Talk) 14:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Small technicality (which I suspect other Commoners will notice, thankfully we do have volunteers patrolling the challenge): Submissions must be the work of the nominator, so Piotrus should add them to the challenge personally before someone disqualifies them. HelenOnline 15:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, er, sorry. User:Piotrus, feel free to "undo" and "redo" my work, if you wish. I kind of took his image picking above as his nominating, but I will let the judges decide the technicalities. :) --Another Believer (Talk) 15:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
We are all the judges. Face-smile.svg People can be quite competitive and not following the "rules" can lead to disputes, so I would rather play it safe. HelenOnline 15:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Update: I also created Wikipedia:Meetup/Seoul/Wiki Loves Pride 2014, which you are free to edit as you see fit, Piotrus. -Another Believer (Talk) 15:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The June photo challenges have now closed. Thank you to everyone who submitted entries for the WLP2014 challenge. We have 51 submissions which I consider a success. You are allowed to vote for images submitted by others if your Commons account is at least ten days old and has more than 50 edits or if you participated in one of the challenges. I will post a link to the voting page when it is ready shortly. I will also post the top 3 winners here in early August. HelenOnline 07:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The voting page is now open. Please help us choose the winners. HelenOnline 09:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

One day left to vote. HelenOnline 10:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who participated and congratulations to the winners! HelenOnline 07:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
Image EuroPride 2010 Warsaw Poland 03.jpg EuroPride 2010 Warsaw Poland 15.jpg Life Ball 2014 red carpet 115 Conchita Wurst Jean Paul Gaultier Gery Keszler.jpg
Title EuroPride 2010
in Warsaw, Poland.
EuroPride 2010 in Warsaw, Poland. Life Ball 2014:
Jean Paul Gaultier, Conchita Wurst and Gery Keszler
Author Nikodem Nijaki Nikodem Nijaki Tsui
Score 13 12 9

General paper advertisement for LGBT stuff on Wikipedia[edit]

The international 2014 Wikimedia conference, Wikimania, will be in London in August. The hosts have offered to print paper advertisements for projects on Wikipedia. In Wiki Loves Pride month, the community should finalize the LGBT proposal at the leaflet page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible Seattle venue[edit]

The Seattle Attic Community Workshop might be able to host the Seattle edit-a-thon. --Fhocutt (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I am just curious, is this a suggestion or are you working on hosting an event there? --Another Believer (Talk) 01:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether any of our members are up for doing the organizing themselves, but this is the sort of event that we would love to support and help make happen. -Fhocutt (talk) 04:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I have sent a few messages to see if any Wikipedians in Seattle might be interested in a meetup. --Another Believer (Talk) 05:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Fhocutt, if I'm available that day I might be able to attend. Are there already participants planning to come, and what are their levels of Wikipedia experience? --Pine 07:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Pine, we don't have anyone planning to come yet--several of our members will actually be out of town that weekend, myself included. It is most likely that we can offer a venue (wireless, tables, couches, fridge, hot water for beverages, close to transit). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fhocutt (talkcontribs) 09:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Fhocutt, in that case let's try to set up an edit-a-thon some other day, perhaps in July. By the way, are you coming to the Seattle Wicnik? --Pine 08:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Pine, sounds like a plan. I can't make it to the Wiknic, unfortunately. --Fhocutt (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Fhocutt ok. Please email me so we can set up a time. --Pine 05:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

A Regrettable Undertaking[edit]

I realize that what I am about to post will not go over well here. But I think it needs to be said all the same, albeit with the utmost respect for those who with good intentions support this. In my opinion it is unfortunate that Wikipedia is undertaking a project that is certain, and not without good reason, to be seen as taking sides on a hot button political - cultural issue that has deeply divided much of the world. It is already widely believed by many editors and those not affiliated with the Encyclopedia that there is a deeply ingrained liberal bias here. It is inconceivable that this sort of thing will not lend weight to those perceptions. For the record, I have no dog in this fight. My own views are moderately libertarian, which is to say I have a live and let live approach to other people's personal lives. My concern here is the reputation of the Encyclopedia, particularly with respect to the imperative that Wikipedia avoid insofar as possible, anything that might impugn its objectivity and neutrality. With much respect... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I should point out that the people organizing this effort are not associated with the Wikimedia Foundation. We are volunteers who are interested in engaging with the global LGBT community and empowering people to help improve LGBT-related content on Wikipedia. This project is about improving Wikipedia. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I also want to say that the purpose of this campaign and these Edit-a-Thons is to improve content and we intend to teach and follow Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, reliable sources, etc. As Another Believer said, we are also not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation so the project represents the interests of a group of editors with no direct institutional or organizational affiliation. Thanks for your comment. OR drohowa (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ad Orientem, Wikimedia is a resource that works best when there is a wide diversity of participants. Wikipedians engage in outreach to universities, government institutions, museums, and countless other organizations, as well as outreach to women, speakers of diverse languages, and many other groups. I view the kind of outreach discussed on this page as one of these kinds of outreach, that we should ideally do whenever requested by a group of people or organization who are interested in understanding or contributing to Wikipedia. I am personally most interested in doing outreach to open source software, open data, government, and educational organizations at present, but I would give my moral support to Wikipedia outreach events of most kinds as long as the results are consistent with Wikipedia's Five Pillars. The kind of outreach that is coordinated on this page, so long as it is done in the same spirit as we do outreach to many other groups, in my opinion doesn't imply an endorsement or political support any more than it would imply an endorsement or political support if a Wikipedian hosted an edit-a-thon at the White House for the U.S. president and his or her staff. We need diverse voices for Wikipedia to work, and Wikipedians naturally will do outreach to the groups that most interest them. I am perhaps idealistic, but that's how I think about this page and countless diverse outreach efforts done throughout the Wikimedia community. --Pine 07:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Well said, Pine. --Another Believer (Talk) 14:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment I have read the above replies to my original post and thank the editors for their thoughtful responses. That said, my concerns remain. Assurances to the contrary, it is all but impossible to believe that any non-Wikipedian or newbie would not see the title alone of this undertaking as a giant flashing neon-sign, blinking the word Bias. Those already suspicious of liberal bias on the encyclopedia, and based purely on some anecdotal evidence and personal experiences, I count myself in that number, are almost certainly going to find their suspicions reinforced. In any event I am not looking to disrupt your project and having said my peace, will now move on. Respectfully... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

While I agree this project/initiative is biased... so what? Nothing we do is without bias. There are many initiative biased "for the other side". Would you criticize project Christianity for promoting picture taking of churches or religious ceremonies, for example? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I am surprised that the big title "Wiki loves Pride" is considered not to be promoting a cause. As Piotrus pointed out the parallel, other projects, such as one on Christianity, have their articles and pictures. But Wikipedia does not promote them with such advertising. Wikipedia does not so overtly promote projects documenting amateur theatrical companies, judo leagues, abortion providers, shooting clubs, activists working to legalize marijuana, or wine tasting circles in various cities. It seems that Wikipedia should not allow promotion of topics in this way. I imagine there would be more objections if the topic being promoted was gun rights promotion groups, support groups for Boko Haram fighters in Nigeria, churches celebrating the Tridentine mass, or other topics less endearing to current trends. I think Wikipedia is better off NOT promoting such editing campaigns for any cause.Pete unseth (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure I follow. Are you suggesting that a campaign like Wiki Loves Earth should not be allowed because it promotes environmentalism? Again, I will share that organizers are not affiliated with the Foundation, and you are not required to participate in Wiki Loves Pride or ever write about LGBT-related content at Wikipedia. Of course, you are welcome to! --Another Believer (Talk) 22:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Perhaps some people are not aware that the title format "Wiki Loves [whatever]" is not specific to this campaign? I think it is a wonderful way to get more people involved in Wikipedia. Its goal, like Wikipedia's, is to improve free access to knowledge. I don't see how that can be a bad thing. Wikipedia still has its NPOV policy, just better coverage. As for the topic in question, I don't see how anyone could object to improving coverage about a human rights issue. We have a wonderful constitution in my country, but lesbians still get raped and murdered by members of their own community and on the same continent homosexuals face very harsh penalties from the authorities. I am glad I can help in some small way. HelenOnline 06:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not support this kind of depravity in any way, shape or form. Wikipedia should do best to try and represent more viewpoints, rather than just a politically favorable one. No wonder they have trouble attracting and retaining editors like me. Elizium23 (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
You speak about Wikipedia as if it were a separate entity that you are not part of. This campaign is driven by individual Wikipedians just like you. We (that includes you) are Wikipedia. HelenOnline 06:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

We seem to have a couple of different issues of disagreement, of different sizes. First, as pointed out above "Perhaps some people are not aware that the title format 'Wiki Loves [whatever]' is not specific to this campaign." Yes, I was part of that group. But "Wiki Loves [whatever]" is an odd way to announce a campaign to promote editing articles on a broad topic. Imagine efforts to promote editing articles on climate change, genocides, colonialism -- this would give "Wiki loves climate change", "Wiki loves genocides", "Wiki love colonialism"! It would be more generically appropriate to say "Wiki welcomes editing articles on [whatever]"? Secondly, it's hard to understand how "Wiki loves Pride", even if following an existing template, comes close to being a neutral point of view.Pete unseth (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

So, what is your suggestion? --Another Believer (Talk) 14:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I have two suggestions, one immediate and the other longer term. First, change references to "Wiki loves Pride" to something like "Wikipedians are having an edit-a-thon on GLBT Pride" or "Wikipedians editing articles on GLBT Pride". Secondly, the template/policy for future article solicitations (edit-a-thons) should adopt some similar wording, e.g. "Wikipedians editing articles on [whatever]". This would prevent such horrible banners as "Wiki loves Malnutrition" or "Wiki loves Communism" (though both could be worthy topics). Hope this is all seen as constructive and within the spirit of Wikipedia.Pete unseth (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello Pete unseth! In response to your concerns, I made documentation about the general format of these "love" campaigns at Wikipedia:Wiki Loves X. This format for naming was chosen for this campaign because it has several years of precedent in being used for other campaigns. There might be other names which could be better, but the path of least resistance on Wikimedia projects is to continue whatever system already has community consensus to be acceptable. I hope that is what was done in this case. If not, and if there ought to be a rename, then the rename should happen thoughtfully so that the new name has more support than the old one, and so that any renaming does not immediately provoke calls for more renaming. Additionally, this "Wiki Loves Pride" campaign name is already being used in external media, so it is not trivial for just a few people to rename this suddenly because that would disrupt existing outreach efforts that will continue until the end of June. If there is to be a rename, I might recommend that someone propose a request for comment to get community consensus for whatever course of action is taken. I see no easy way to make a name change immediately because multiple people in multiple places have already adopted this name to run their local campaigns, but for next year any community decision could be followed.
If there are concerns about neutrality then again, a request for comment would likely be the best way to get community input on making this project more neutral. The concerns expressed above do not immediately suggest a solution except renaming the campaign, which is problematic while the campaign is active. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Bluerasberry, and I could not have said it any better myself. I would not be opposed to a RfC about "Wiki Loves Pride" or the "Wiki Loves X" concept in general. I don't feel inclined to defend the title, and I would be fine with a tittle title next year, but I have yet to hear a better alternative. The title seems appropriate based on precedent and wording that (presumably) resonates with the community associated with the mission of the campaign. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that "Wikipedia Loves X" is problematic but hate the alternatives (e.g., "Wikipedians are having an edit-a-thon on GLBT Pride") proposed so far. Of course, this should be discussed Wikipedia-wide, but what would you guys think about "Wikipedia Covers X"? Peter Chastain [habla, por favor] 18:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Not arguing for it specifically, but whenever I give presentations about Wikipedia, my slides always say "Wikipedia+X", with X referring to the name of the topic being discussed or even the name of the organization. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I prefer "Wiki Takes X" to "Wiki Covers X" (which is less catchy and more ambiguous in my opinion). As pride has positive connotations by definition, I don't have a probably with Wiki Loves Pride though. HelenOnline 07:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Please fix the "Hide" link on the ad. I see this every time I log in. For most Wikipedia messages, the "Dismiss" link works fine, but this ad won't go away. John Nagle (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Most of us editors tend to operate within the WP "bubble" and are probably not even aware of the way much of the outside world sees us: biased – there are oodles of media sources, websites, and academic studies that document what are essentially hypocritical violations of our own WP:NPOV pillar. "Wiki Loves Pride" is quite obviously a position-laden term and is precisely the kind a gaffe that suggests agenda to the outside world – with the side-effect of alienating parts of our reader base. The damage is probably done already in this case ("this 'Wiki Loves Pride' campaign name is already being used in external media", indeed), but it certainly would be nice if we could stop making such blatantly amateur mistakes. Remember, we should not be "journalists" in the modern sense of inserting ourselves into a story, but should rather be "reporters" in the old-school sense of conveying all the facts and only the facts in a disinterested manner. Only then will we cease to look like hypocrites. Agricola44 (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC).
The purpose of this campaign is to recruit "reporters" (using your words) in the field of LGBT studies. Do you have specific recommendations? --Another Believer (Talk) 20:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Several of us have now made the point that recruitment for this (or any other subject area) is not the issue. Rather, it is the procedural aspect of how recruitment is done, specifically whether there are any problems of appearance. WP has again recklessly exposed itself to charges of harboring an agenda with respect to a controversial issue – anathema to a project which holds itself to be a neutral source of encyclopedic information. As I said, the damage in this particular case is already done, so (again) my suggestion is to not make such amateur blunders in future recruitment campaigns. RfC was suggested above to vet at least the naming...that would be a good step. This is such an easy type of mistake to avoid on such an important issue! Agricola44 (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC).
I understand you feel strongly about this. However, there are others - myself included - who do not agree with your assessment. I think the organizers did a great job. The title fits other WP campaigns. The goal of increasing editing of LGBT content and participation of LGBT editors is not controversial and in alignment with outreach to other minorities such as women, people of color, minor languages, etc. Implying that Wikipedia having LGBT pride is controversial is only likely to offend people primarily looking for things to complain about. I have read the arguments, and have been persuaded that this activity was not a mistake or executed poorly. I look forward to seeing Wiki Loves Pride continue in future years. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 22:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I am not as confident that things went for the best. While I am sure that "Wiki Loves Pride" is the name with the most consensus, it could be that the model for allowing people to name anything Wikipedia:Wiki Loves X should be modified. I would encourage anyone who wants to regulate the "Wiki Loves X" concept to propose changes and start an RfC to guide best practices for the future. In the future the event and all other outreach events might take some other, better name. There is lots of room for discussion if someone makes a proposal and starts an WP:RFC. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
@Varnent: Sadly, you are precisely the type of "editor in a bubble" to which I referred above. Your entire basis of argument is rooted within WP and you appear to have little concern, or even awareness regarding how we, collectively, are perceived in the outside (real) world. WP will continue to have credibility troubles until we can resolve issues like this. best, Agricola44 (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC).
I think if you knew anything about me - you would know that English Wikipedia isn't my primary Wikimedia effort, I am rather well rooted in the non-WM world, and I am keenly aware of - and in fact frequently told about - some of the negative public perception of enWP, WMF, and other WM projects. Being aware of them, agreeing with them, or being concerned about them do not necessarily all relate. Am I aware that many outside of WP perceive enWP has being favorable to the LGBT community? Yes. Do I think it's a problem we should be concerned with? No. There are other perception issues, like WM being too focused on enWP, or WP being used when enWP should be used as most of the world does not see English Wikipedia as representative of their language's WP, that we have WAY more white male content than any other demographic, that we are not doing enough outreach in the Global South, there is too much inaccurate and unsourced content on enWP, our community in-fighting turns off new volunteers, and a long list of other perception issues are very real - and not just perception - problems that I think are worth being concerned with. It's not that I do not get what you are saying, or that I am not aware of the concerns you are representing - but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them or believe they should have any impact on this project. LGBT outreach will continue in Wikimedia - a LGBT Wikimedia user group is in formation and being reviewed by AffCom now. It is simply NOT possible to select names that please everyone - it will NEVER happen. I think we need to go with group consensus and pick names that serve their specific audience best. Editor outreach and volunteer retention - for better or worse - generally has taken precedent over reader retention - which frankly doesn't present the same problems as losing our editors - nor does it seem to be an actual problem - our wikis remain some of the most trafficked sites in the world. I am not defending this here, simply pointing out this is the general method currently used. If you disagree with it, I suggest taking the concern to Meta or Outreach wiki where these things are more often discussed. This one project aligns well with that, so labeling it as "amateur" or a "mistake" presents a pretty limited viewpoint that simply does not match other outreach efforts. As has been suggested, I think you should take this to a larger discussion on a broader range - and not focus it on just this one effort's organizers. Frankly, it seems mean-spirited to attack these folks for doing what has generally been movement-wide accepted practices. Do you really hope to succeed in keeping these organizers around as volunteers if you keep insulting them? That seems unlikely to me. I disagree with you, but respect that you are not an amateur, living in a bubble, prone to mistakes, or other things you have accused others of. You seem like a well-intentioned and thoughtful editor - I am not sure why you felt it necessary to make assumptions about others or make harsh judgements of their efforts. If you disagree with them - take it up with a larger group - and do not make it LGBT specific or you will likely just sound anti-LGBT (I am not implying that - just commenting based on past experience with movement-wide conversations) - find a collection of examples that concern you - and bring it up on Meta RfC page so a wider audience can comment. Just doing it on enWP is not likely to have the wider impact you seem to be hoping for. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 13:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
What I think I read you saying is that you don't see any way, or are at least not concerned, that "Wiki Loves X" could present any problems of perception to our outside reader base. So, for example, "Wiki Loves African-American Male Incarceration" would not be a problem? I'm dumbfounded that anyone would not be able see what an obvious and severe gaffe it is to use a position-laden word like "Love" and still think this could somehow appear to be neutral. It is an overt endorsement. I realize that this reasoning (which I was not the first to present) will fall on deaf ears. This is a collective blind spot of our editor base. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC).
Agricola44, your comments are not falling on deaf ears. As an organizer of this campaign, I am following this conversation very closely and appreciate your feedback. However, I don't know what else to say, except that someone should start an RfC if this issue is about the "Wiki Loves X" concept in general, and not specifically "Wiki Loves Pride".--Another Believer (Talk) 16:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, someone should start an RfC. I suspect there will be a reticence to do so. I will, if I can find some time. Agricola44 (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC).
I won't be submitting the RfC, but I will watch closely if someone else decided to do so. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I understand your reticence :) Best, Agricola44 (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC).
I wouldn't characterize my opinion as being that I don't see any way, or have no concerns about the perceptions of our reader base. However, I do not think those concerns apply to this specific situation, I can offer strawman arguments for any name format "Wikipedians are having an edit-a-thon on the great things Hitler did in his life" - probably also problematic. That is why I feel this argument does not necessarily apply to this project. That said, I do agree that naming formats for projects should be discussed and formally standardized. I may post a RfC on Meta when my current workload on some other issues is smaller. Something I was saying is that none of this should lead us to conclude that the organizers behaved amateurishly or made a mistake by following the community suggested format. Even the title of this thread is rather aggressive - not "Concern about the title" or "Reader's perception of the name" - but "A Regrettable Undertaking" - wow - not exactly using soft gloves in helping fellow volunteers come around to your side. I encourage you to consider how you are presenting what you are saying. You are correct that as you have presented this, things are unlikely to change. However, I agree there is some validity to your broader argument, and hope it is presented in a way that will produce productive (rather than destruction) dialogue. I would also point out that this project had been under discussion on Meta for over a year and on enWP for several months. Again, I believe you have the best of intentions, and I recognize you probably came to this as soon as you learned about it, but please do respect that there was a lot of opportunities for at least a few hundred people to raise this concern - and that did not happen. So, I think presenting that everyone involved has this blindspot is, well unfair and certainly debatable. However, it is also a conversation for a broader discussion than will be found on this page. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 23:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
"I feel this argument does not necessarily apply to this project" – yes, so this is somehow a special case... "this project had been under discussion on Meta for over a year ... there was a lot of opportunities for at least a few hundred people to raise this concern" – and, indeed, it did not happen. This is precisely the point, that several hundred people did not recognize what is really quite an obvious instance of strongly biased wording. Contrary to your assertion, I think this is a perfect demonstration of a collective blindspot (or perhaps fear of not crossing the majority), otherwise someone would have spoken up with, "hey gang, this wording might make it look like WP has an agenda on this particular issue – let's use something more neutral". Consensus, great as it can be for WP, has its weaknesses and this is certainly one of them. I appreciate that you're completely dug-in on this point (as I'm sure are many) and there will be no movement. So, I'm going to try to retire from this discussion and will be happy if it only planted a seed of being a little more discriminating on future campaign wording, whatever the topic might be. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC).
I strictly oppose this "Wikipedia Loves Pride" project, as it looks like a push towards an agenda (this is just my opinion). But I do not think it should be removed, as I would probably have some stuff of my own interest to promote in the future and wouldn't want that to be removed either. This is entirely my opinion, and no kind of response or explanation will change it. I must say I need to thank goodness for my new year's resolution of keeping calm and ignoring things like this. Nosugarcoating (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Request for comment Consistent with the discussion above, I have started an RfC about the title "Wiki Loves X". I agree that the RfC should take place on Meta because the title "Wiki Loves X" is used on other Wikimedia projects, such as Wikimedia Commons, in addition to English Wikipedia. Please comment at meta:Requests for comment/Wiki Loves X. --Pine 07:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Pine. -Another Believer (Talk) 15:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Pine. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 15:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Level of Inclusion[edit]

I am hoping other chapters have the same question but what is the threshold of inclusion in Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2014? I have been reviewing what is already included on Wikipedia (Atlanta pages, for example, since it is my area) and have begun listing creation and improvement pages on Wikipedia:Meetup/Atlanta/Wiki Loves Pride 2014.

I have reviewed Wikipedia:Notability but wonder how deep we can go in creating pages. Do we create a page for every Atlanta LGBT bar, organization, sports and activists (past and present)? I realize this is not a directory but many of these subjects have a history.

Any guidelines would be appreciated.

tdempsey (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Tdempsey: Thanks for asking! I think it is immensely helpful to begin by constructing a list of local LGBT-related establishments, events, history and other cultural aspects. Doing so identifies topics to cover (and gaps in Wikipedia), either via individual articles or at more general articles like LGBT culture in Atlanta. Wikipedia articles must pass the notability threshold, like you mentioned, so it might be best to start with a more general article, then work your way into specific topics. My personal preference is to work on very specific local topics (see Mary's Club or Rimsky-Korsakoffee House, for examples), but of course not all local establishments pass notability criteria. Maybe start with LGBT culture in Atlanta, then use its talk page for collecting references to more specific bars, organizations, legislation, etc.? This way, the work is preserved for future reference. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
@Another Believer: Thank you, Another Believer. 2 questions: 1)You mention LGBT culture in Atlanta however Category:LGBT culture in Atlanta, Georgia is active. Which one is better? (Note: There are several Atlanta's in the US although Atlanta, Georgia points to Atlanta.) 2) Also, looking at our list on Wikipedia:Meetup/Atlanta/Wiki Loves Pride 2014 - do any of these topics fail Wikipedia:Notability? 22:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
@Tdempsey: I am referring to an article called LGBT culture in Atlanta which does not yet exist (see the newly-created LGBT culture in Philadelphia for a similar model). No need to include "Georgia" in the title, given the main Wikipedia article for the city is simply Atlanta. Perhaps start an article by this title, including LGBT culture in the city, bars, local organizations and events, etc. It is difficult to assess individual subjects without spending time conducting research on each one. Especially since I do not live in the area. Hence my recommendation to start general, then go more specific over time. If you end up finding a lot of press sources about Georgia Log Cabin Republicans, for example, in your research, then you could go ahead and start a separate article for that subject. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

SF Bay Area venue?[edit]

I think this is a great idea (and a great way to recruit and mentor new Wikipedia editors) and would like to see a San Francisco bay area venue. It seems a bit late to get that started for 2014, and I personally am not available this summer. Any interest for next year? San Francisco seems like the logical place, though San Jose might be a convenient additional venue for those of us who live in the south bay. Peter Chastain [habla, por favor] 19:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest, Peter. I was hoping SF would get on the map this year, but alas, many of my "pings" went unanswered. If someone in the area were willing to upload some photographs from Castro and other LGBT establishments around the city, it would not be too late to participate this year. Otherwise, we will try to get the ball rolling earlier next year. (This is the inaugural campaign and we have already learned ways to make improvements the next time around.) Feel free to watchlist the main Wiki Loves Pride page for future notifications, or add your name to the list of supporters to keep in touch with the campaign. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Spam[edit]

Why so much spam on pages of unrelated projects? bobrayner (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to the invitations on WikiProject talk pages? --Another Believer (Talk) 23:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Who thought that would be appropriate? bobrayner (talk) 08:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I did. Is there something wrong with inviting people to participate in a global outreach campaign? --Another Believer (Talk) 14:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I think they were appropriate and not spam. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 16:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations and thank you[edit]

One of the Wikimedia movement's favorite pastimes is to find every way we can to make our efforts better. Personally, it is something I find very alluring and endearing about the movement. It is also something I have already done a few times with this year's WLP. :) However, sometimes that means we do not spend enough time thanking people for their work. While some may despite various aspects of this project, and we all know they will for awhile, I do not think anyone will despite that the organizers got the word out, assembled a viable project, put in a lot of their volunteer time, and executed it admirably, respectfully, and patiently. Kudos to everyone involved with bringing this effort together - especially OR drohowa and Another Believer - for doing something I can think you can be very proud of (ha - proud - can ya see it's pride..yeah..). I hope that once all the feedback is assimilated, you undertake organizing next year's efforts soon. I suspect this has the potential to experience healthy growth in future years. Good work, THANK YOU for all your time, and congratulations! --Varnent (talk)(COI) 23:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Varnent! --Another Believer (Talk) 23:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
And a big thanks to you for your support! We hope it experiences healthy growth in future years as well. :)) OR drohowa (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Need Flickr help please[edit]

I am trying to download some free images from Flickr to transfer them to Commons, such as this one to illustrate Lesbophobia and Corrective rape and can't for the life of me figure out how since they have changed the user interface. HelenOnline 12:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

HelenOnline Check out the new Flickr2Commons. For any Wikipedian who routinely uses Flickr, or even for new users, I recommend this interface. For me, it is super easy and fast. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Yay, it worked! Thanks Face-smile.svg HelenOnline 16:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)