From: Katherine Casey
> My guess would be that the "open to" bit is intended to bring in people
who might otherwise feel they're not welcome if they're not
specifically invited,
more than it's intended to dis-invite people who already know they're
always welcome at Wikimedia events.
From: Jeremy Baron
> I've never seen editithons that exclude people before. I've been to a couple
of black history events, and all were welcomed, although of course there
was a very high proportion of African descent. I think the point was
actually to be extra inclusionary: to cover all of the above not just a
subset when recruiting new editors. So potential recruits don't think but
I'm not really {{label}} and exclude themselves. I'm pretty sure others
won't be excluded but these events will be *focused* on topics related to
those groups and editors with some sort of a connection to Africa.
I think it is important to be explicit, not to be "pretty sure others won't
be excluded" or "think the point is to be inclusionary". The text of the
announcement seemed very clear about the subject matter and attendees.
Intent isn't sufficient if the wording says otherwise.
Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with an edit group that was
specifically restricted to African or Afrodescendant attendees. Yes, it is
exclusionary, but there are plenty of other groups for African people to
edit with.
Alternatively, one could make the wording more inclusive, but state very
clearly that the editthon subject matter will be specific to topics and
biographies directly relevant to Africa and African heritage globally, now
or historically, ONLY. The same is applicable to women's editathons.
Without laying down some sort of fixed guidelines (either attendees,
subject matter or both) it is too easy for dominant others to derail an
event, even without intending to do so.
- FeralOink