Dale: There are academic conferences that cover LGBT issues. A booth could do that at such a conference. The assumption is that the people attending this conference are "political activists" seeking to change the status quo rather than to document the status quo. Hence, the POV concern. (It is the difference between having a booth at a conference of political scientists vs. a booth at the Democratic National Convention.)

If the organizing group is not a 501(c)(3) but rather a PAC, neither the chapter nor WMF should put funds toward the booth. Thanks, --Bob

I don't think it needs to be about pushing a POV at all. Why can't the booth highlight examples of ways to improve coverage and depth/breadth of LGBTI related articles, highlight LGBTI wikiprojects, maybe even do an impromptu workshop on how to edit an article that you have strong opinions about, etc.

On 1/11/12, bob@racepacket.com bob@racepacket.com wrote:

...

Perhaps we should rethink our "recruiting" strategy.

I can speak to this topic somewhat directly (see my PS for a disclaimer). Having attended Creating Change (if memory is correct) seven times, plus having led workshops and institutes there, I can speak to the demographics of the conference somewhat. While it's true that it's the world's largest gathering of activists - it's also the largest gathering of several other key groups (and argued by some - not me - to be the world's largest LGBT conference). With about 2500 in attendance, I'm flattered to think the movement would have that many active activists. :)

Per data from previous years, which The Task Force reports and can usually be found in past blog posts, annual reports, etc. About 30% of the conference attendees are youth under the age of 24. An equal, and sometimes larger percentage, of attendees report attending as a representative of a higher education institute. An overwhelming majority are there as volunteer members of organizations, only a small fraction are paid to attend. My first two conferences were as a university student on group travel scholarships from my university. I know hundreds of youth volunteers who attended under similar circumstances.

There are also meet-ups of leading LGBT researchers at this conference, a majority of US-based LGBT academic research is planned at, discussed at length or presented during - Creating Change. The APA's LGBT group tends to meet here as well. The conference was the birth place, and now annual meeting space, for the Higher Education Consortium of LGBT Center Directors. The LGBT Historical Society and LGBT Museum also present annual exhibits (generally). While it doesn't necessarily speak to expertise, the largest donors within the LGBT community are also represented. I think for WMF's purposes, the activists being there is a great way to get the word out about volunteer opportunities, not directly as editors.

It is true that the tone of the conference is progressing the LGBT movement forward. But I think that's an unfair representation of the wide audience who attends and feels represented within this topic. Comparing this to the Democratic Convention or other political partisan event is an unfair characterization. Especially given that multiple political parties send representatives (as they do to academic conferences). Any outreach to the LGBT community will, I suspect, inevitably interweave with community organizing efforts (aka activism) at some point. If you'd like to reach out to LGBT researchers, academics, educators, book authors, reporters, donors, sponsors, etc. - this is both the cheapest and easiest method. It hasn't been held in DC area in about 20 years (never held in NYC and rarely held in SF) - so passing on it while it's so close to a WMF chapter would be, in my humble opinion, a mistake.

I've worked within the movement for much of the past ten years (although I have no stake in this year's conference and no plans for a stake in future conferences). In full disclosure, I was also on the host committee when this conference came to Detroit. Having worked within national orgs, youth orgs and higher education on this topic - I feel confident speaking to other LGBT conferences and meet-ups if folks have questions. There are indeed about 30-40 great LGBT conferences held each year. Not to mention the Pride events and everything else. I would LOVE for WMF to be present at more of them. :)

I do think it's fair to say that LGBT editors will have some inevitable bias on LGBT issues, but I'd argue that's true of A LOT of sub-communities we target (including GLAM). Recruiting people who are often cited as creditable authors of books, studies and articles on those topics seems a fair strategy.

The conference itself is run by the c3 National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Like a huge number of c3 organizations in DC, they also have a small c4 (which has a PAC) as well as a research institute. A vast majority of LGBT conferences are run, partly funded by, and certainly attended by, organizations with this structure. Government agencies and other nonprofits with policies preventing transfer of funds to a c4 or PAC attend annually. The Task Force's largest entity is their c3 (not always true of c3/c4 orgs - see HRC) and it is the legal owner of the conference.

-greg aka varnent

PS. Again, full disclosure, it's my name on the grant to WMF seeking funds for the booth and attendance. I don't always attend (took last year's off for example), but would like to attend this year specifically to discuss wiki topics (I'm active with WMF - but also active with operations of other LGBT wiki projects). You can obviously say I have an interest and bias on this topic, but I did try to present info here without too much of that present. :)

On Jan 11, 2012, at 8:01 AM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:

The NGLTF is a 501(c)(3) organization.

Kirill

-- Kirill Lokshin Secretary | Wikimedia District of Columbia http://wikimediadc.org | @wikimediadc

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:57 AM, bob@racepacket.com wrote: Dale: There are academic conferences that cover LGBT issues. A booth could do that at such a conference. The assumption is that the people attending this conference are "political activists" seeking to change the status quo rather than to document the status quo. Hence, the POV concern. (It is the difference between having a booth at a conference of political scientists vs. a booth at the Democratic National Convention.)

If the organizing group is not a 501(c)(3) but rather a PAC, neither the chapter nor WMF should put funds toward the booth. Thanks, --Bob

...

I don't think it needs to be about pushing a POV at all. Why can't the booth highlight examples of ways to improve coverage and depth/breadth of LGBTI related articles, highlight LGBTI wikiprojects, maybe even do an impromptu workshop on how to edit an article that you have strong opinions about, etc.

On 1/11/12, bob@racepacket.com bob@racepacket.com wrote:

...

Perhaps we should rethink our "recruiting" strategy.

---

Wikimedia-DC mailing list Wikimedia-DC@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc

---

Wikimedia-DC mailing list Wikimedia-DC@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc

As well as beefing up the main page, I first reported this here after being asked to do the first workshop, which really got me thinking about training. (Besides what I'd been reading about discussing on the GenderGap wikimedia mailing list) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_District_of_Columbia/Local_out...

Discussed in person and via email with Katie F. and created a One Day Workshop outline which we used during the workhop (now updated to be more general): http://wikimediadc.org/wiki/One_day_training

I then reported here on it, text below: http://wikimediadc.org/wiki/Talk:One_day_training

/We had 11 new editors show, only two with accounts or some editing experience. While they appreciated the overview of Wikipedia policies and procedures, they also were hot to try to edit. Most wanted to and did create accounts and were very interested in creating a sandbox and/or personal cheat sheet page. /

/So I can see the need to integrate simple exercises earlier in the program. Going through one tutorial page at a time probably a good idea. Getting them to try do it at home before the workshop even a better idea! So I'll study those more and how to integrate them. I made a few changes to outline for now to make it more generic and will do more soon. /

/They are a group of people involved in a network of groups that work on civil liberties articles, especially about high profile individuals they feel were entrapped into crime. Katie and I stressed how important it is to put the interest of the encyclopedia first and to work on different types of articles, and that's one way to ensure you are a better editor on the articles of interest to you and to keep from getting frustrated with those. I gave them tips on how to work together on Wikiprojects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Human rights. I will continue helping them to do that. Hope to do another one in later February for a more general interest type of potential editor, hopefully computer-savvy retired individuals (especially professionals) looking for something to do in their spare time. Will start looking for recruits in various ways soon./ (end report)

Also inspired by the workshop was the idea of strongly encouraging newbie editors to go through the whole tutorial before the workshop and having at least two veteran editors/trainers helping newer editors with issues on their laptops.

I also noticed Feb 4th is a proposed day for a workshop, but since I see there's a board meeting the next day and time is getting short, probably the next week is better. I'd propose doing a meetup that at least is partially training for new editors and/or a discussion of how we can organizing out reach and training. I'm particularly interested in outreaching to some of the thousands of DC area recent retirees who are computer savvy and looking for fun activities to fill their time, as well as to women and to the hundreds of activists on my various lists, some of whom doubtless are already editing and not doing a sufficiently NPOV job.

So that's what I have to say for now, but am still exploring the various existing Wikimedia outreach and training programs to beef up the WikiDC page(s).

Carol in dc

Great work Carol! I've left a few comments on your training page.

Thanks for sharing your experience.

Sarah

On 1/29/12 1:16 PM, Carol Moore DC wrote:

As well as beefing up the main page, I first reported this here after being asked to do the first workshop, which really got me thinking about training. (Besides what I'd been reading about discussing on the GenderGap wikimedia mailing list) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_District_of_Columbia/Local_out...

Discussed in person and via email with Katie F. and created a One Day Workshop outline which we used during the workhop (now updated to be more general): http://wikimediadc.org/wiki/One_day_training

I then reported here on it, text below: http://wikimediadc.org/wiki/Talk:One_day_training

/We had 11 new editors show, only two with accounts or some
editing experience. While they appreciated the overview of
Wikipedia policies and procedures, they also were hot to try to
edit. Most wanted to and did create accounts and were very
interested in creating a sandbox and/or personal cheat sheet page. /

/So I can see the need to integrate simple exercises earlier in
the program. Going through one tutorial page at a time probably a
good idea. Getting them to try do it at home before the workshop
even a better idea! So I'll study those more and how to integrate
them. I made a few changes to outline for now to make it more
generic and will do more soon. /

/They are a group of people involved in a network of groups that
work on civil liberties articles, especially about high profile
individuals they feel were entrapped into crime. Katie and I
stressed how important it is to put the interest of the
encyclopedia first and to work on different types of articles, and
that's one way to ensure you are a better editor on the articles
of interest to you and to keep from getting frustrated with those.
I gave them tips on how to work together on Wikiprojects like
Wikipedia:WikiProject Human rights. I will continue helping them
to do that. Hope to do another one in later February for a more
general interest type of potential editor, hopefully
computer-savvy retired individuals (especially professionals)
looking for something to do in their spare time. Will start
looking for recruits in various ways soon./ (end report)

Also inspired by the workshop was the idea of strongly encouraging newbie editors to go through the whole tutorial before the workshop and having at least two veteran editors/trainers helping newer editors with issues on their laptops.

I also noticed Feb 4th is a proposed day for a workshop, but since I see there's a board meeting the next day and time is getting short, probably the next week is better. I'd propose doing a meetup that at least is partially training for new editors and/or a discussion of how we can organizing out reach and training. I'm particularly interested in outreaching to some of the thousands of DC area recent retirees who are computer savvy and looking for fun activities to fill their time, as well as to women and to the hundreds of activists on my various lists, some of whom doubtless are already editing and not doing a sufficiently NPOV job.

So that's what I have to say for now, but am still exploring the various existing Wikimedia outreach and training programs to beef up the WikiDC page(s).

Carol in dc

---

Wikimedia-DC mailing list Wikimedia-DC@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc