phoebe ayers wrote:
On 10/9/07, David Strauss david@fourkitchens.com wrote:
Cary Bass wrote:
The Jury for Wikimania 2008 bids have met and are pleased to announce that Wikimania 2008 will be held in Alexandria, Egypt.
I'm offended that the desire to have Wikimania hop around the globe (rotation) trumps the egregious history Egypt has with LGBT and other civil rights (local laws). While visitors to Egypt are certainly not at the same risk, I refuse to spend any money in a country that -- as recently as 2004 -- sentenced someone to 17 years of prison and two years of hard labor for posting a personal ad on a gay website[1]. A blogger was imprisoned in 2007 for four years for "insulting Islam and defaming the President of Egypt."[2] Jimmy Wales even attended the Amnesty conference denouncing the censorship. No legal or cultural reforms since give me confidence that the situation has improved.
Wikimedia and its projects have an abundance of people from marginalized groups and political advocacy organizations participating at every level. A place that persecutes, censors, and prosecutes such groups under the banner of snuffing out "Satanism" is not a location that affirms the pluralism and intellectual freedom of Wikimedia.
People raised these objections early in the bidding process, but I have
As a jury member, I do not remember any comments from you on this subject, David; perhaps I missed them. At any rate, what are you trying to accomplish by sending this message after the winner was announced, and not before when we were discussing the bids?
Other people raised these objections during the bidding process; I didn't have to. Even if no one had brought the issue up, everyone on the voting team should have been aware enough of the problems to them under consideration without further prompting.
I thought it was a foregone conclusion that Egypt's human rights record would cripple the bid enough that it wouldn't win.
Wikimania and Wikimedia are both global in scope, which means that while we can condemn censorship and loss of human rights everywhere
So the "condemnation" amounts to docking a modest number of points for "local laws"?
we must also take into account a global range of values.
What is this supposed to mean? How can we balance condemnation with toleration?
Our projects focus specifically on free knowledge, and I expect that will be highlighted at the conference.
Even putting gay rights aside, Egypt's record of imprisoning political and religious dissidents is directly counter to affirming "free knowledge."
On 10/9/07, David Strauss david@fourkitchens.com wrote:
phoebe ayers wrote:
As a jury member, I do not remember any comments from you on this subject, David; perhaps I missed them. At any rate, what are you trying to accomplish by sending this message after the winner was announced, and not before when we were discussing the bids?
Other people raised these objections during the bidding process; I didn't have to. Even if no one had brought the issue up, everyone on the voting team should have been aware enough of the problems to them under consideration without further prompting.
And they were considered, just not to your satisfaction.
I thought it was a foregone conclusion that Egypt's human rights record
would cripple the bid enough that it wouldn't win.
There were no foregone conclusions; if there were, we wouldn't have had to have the bidding process, now would we?
I *do* agree with you that we need to rethink weighting of the criteria, and have some criteria weighted more strongly than others in future. However, I do think the voting system is a great improvement on previous systems, and I continue to reiterate that community feedback is welcome. For many attendees I've talked to at the last three conferences, rotation was indeed by far the biggest concern for them; however the jury also chose to consider a holistic set of criteria.
Also please note I'm not speaking on behalf of the jury in any way, just myself; I think we'd all agree that feedback is a good thing however.
-- phoebe
On 10/9/07, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I *do* agree with you that we need to rethink weighting of the criteria, and have some criteria weighted more strongly than others in future. However, I do think the voting system is a great improvement on previous systems, and I continue to reiterate that community feedback is welcome. For many attendees I've talked to at the last three conferences, rotation was indeed by far the biggest concern for them; however the jury also chose to consider a holistic set of criteria.
I think I'd understand the decision making process better if each of the criteria classes had a clear explanation of how the criteria would improve the utility of the conference for people who are primarily interested in wikis and the collaborative authorship of reference works.
My own experience is that attendance from wiki*p*edians is relatively low at Wikimanias, but perhaps I am incorrect. I think this should be a serious concern and a major consideration.
I have heard people characterize Wikimania as simply an excuse to see exotic places. ... It's rude of me to repeat this somewhat insulting criticism, but it's a claim that I can't refute using the material currently available about the selection process.
Certainly the track record of selections is far more appealing to *me* as a jetsetter than as a Wikipedian... and as long as we're still looking at airfare well over $1000/person (which wouldn't be the case for me traveling to canada, mexico, or much of western europe), my money would be better spent contributing to other non-profits and traveling to regional Wikipedian events. (And certainly, I don't find Egypt appealing, with its poor track record of intolerance and mistreatment of female travelers who are foolish enough to violate Islamic norms)
Hopefully some discussionabout the details of the selection criteria will help improve my understanding and will help me refute criticisms when they arise.
On 10/9/07, Mohamed Magdy mohamed.m.k@gmail.com wrote:
and
mistreatment of female travelers who are foolish enough to violate Islamic norms)
Where did you get that information?
This was a part of the cautionary message my very reliable travel agent provided me with... along with a litany of general safety scaremongering far in excess of I'd get when traveling to random spots in Germany or the U.K.
It is, however, trivial for people to find similar advice: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%...
...Which includes some shocking material even more worry some than the advice I was given.
Or another search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%...
One thing I think will be important very important is to have more structured local travel opportunities.
I was on my own in Taiwan, after Wikimania, since not enough people signed up for the tours. There were three tours (1-day, 2-day, and 3-day) to sign up for. The tour organizer told me he required 30 to sign up for each, otherwise they were canceled. 30 never signed up. Smaller size groups should have been accommodated. Nonetheless, I was comfortable enough with the culture and felt perfectly safe, to be on my own.
For 2008, I think minimum size for groups should be *much* smaller. I look forward to visiting a place with much different culture than my own. This time, I will know more of the language. But, I think the culture is different enough that having someone local guide me and other attendees around would make the experience better.
-Aude
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 10/9/07, Mohamed Magdy mohamed.m.k@gmail.com wrote:
and
mistreatment of female travelers who are foolish enough to violate Islamic norms)
Where did you get that information?
This was a part of the cautionary message my very reliable travel agent provided me with... along with a litany of general safety scaremongering far in excess of I'd get when traveling to random spots in Germany or the U.K.
I'm not questioning their reliability of getting you to your destination , I'm rather questioning the accuracy of information they have about Egypt. whether they visited Egypt by themselves and experienced it (and telling you their personal findings) or googled keywords similar to yours and formulated an opinion to offer to their customers. What they are saying will remain hypothetical and generalizations. Exactly like the information I can give you (or any other Egyptian in Egypt). I can say that their information is false and vice versa.
It is, however, trivial for people to find similar advice: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%...
...Which includes some shocking material even more worry some than the advice I was given.
Or another search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%...
You cannot expect me to comment on every result returned ;) one comment though, take your time to read some of these results and use common sense (tm). You will be safe in Egypt, Come anytime, Wikimania or anytime you wish :).
On Oct 9, 2007, at 6:32 PM, Mohamed Magdy wrote:
I'm not questioning their reliability of getting you to your destination , I'm rather questioning the accuracy of information they have about Egypt. whether they visited Egypt by themselves and experienced it (and telling you their personal findings) or googled keywords similar to yours and formulated an opinion to offer to their customers. What they are saying will remain hypothetical and generalizations. Exactly like the information I can give you (or any other Egyptian in Egypt). I can say that their information is false and vice versa.
You mean like: http://www.dailystaregypt.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=9038
"CAIRO: The story of eleven-year-old Hind, who gave birth after being raped, shocked the nation when it broke a few weeks ago. Further exacerbating the situation were the words of Al Azhar University’s Islamic jurisprudence scholar, Souad Saleh, who issued a fatwa stating that the girl and her father deserved the punishment of “eighty flogs” for defamation."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn? pagename=article&node=&contentId=A8121-2002Jul26
One particularly gruesome killing had us dumbfounded as word of what happened came into the Cairo newsroom where I was working at the time. A young woman named Nora Ahmed had eloped. Her father had not approved of her choice of husband. When she returned to Cairo to try to change her father's mind he asked to speak with her privately. He then cut off her head and paraded it down a Cairo street, shouting "Now my family has regained its honor."
In 1997 some 52 honor killings were reported in Egypt. The actual figures in all of the countries I've cited are probably much higher because most honor killings go unreported.
http://www.dailystaregypt.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3809 (referencing the Cairo Eid rape frenzies of recent years)
"On-the-street sexual harassment, whether auditory, visual or sensual, is more than common. This and other such incidents map out a widespread and frequent attitude toward women; Layla is not the first woman and obviously will not be the last to have her visual sphere spoiled and violated in such a manner."
"What happened in the Eid holiday, though, is not typical of what we have seen in past decades on Cairo streets. Rather, the incident seems to represent a new generation reaching a whole new caliber of harassment." "
(The author of that last story was a psychotherapist from the American University in Cairo.) ---end news clips---
Egypt in particular (though it should be noted Cairo, not Alexandria) has been noted for having a standing problem with harassment and rape of women on the street. To deny that categorically is simply wrong.
On 10/9/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
In 1997 some 52 honor killings were reported in Egypt. The actual figures in all of the countries I've cited are probably much higher because most honor killings go unreported.
Yes, well, there were also 69 murders and 156 rapes in the city of San Francisco alone last year [1], where the WMF is moving to soon; yet the fact that many of these killings are racially and sexually motivated and many of the rapes are intensely brutal has not led to calls that the WMF stay away from the big bad city here for moral reasons. My point: having liberal [2] western values does not directly translate into more safety for the resident or casual visitor; I haven't seen statistics about crime for visitors in Egypt yet.
-- phoebe
1. http://www.sfgov.org/site/police_index.asp?id=19468 2. I don't mean in the American political sense; rather, liberal freedom of speech, of dress, of religion, of sexual orientation, etc. SF happens to be liberal in both senses.
phoebe ayers wrote:
On 10/9/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
In 1997 some 52 honor killings were reported in Egypt. The actual figures in all of the countries I've cited are probably much higher because most honor killings go unreported.
Yes, well, there were also 69 murders and 156 rapes in the city of San Francisco alone last year [1], where the WMF is moving to soon; yet the fact that many of these killings are racially and sexually motivated and many of the rapes are intensely brutal has not led to calls that the WMF stay away from the big bad city here for moral reasons. My point: having liberal [2] western values does not directly translate into more safety for the resident or casual visitor; I haven't seen statistics about crime for visitors in Egypt yet.
I've stated that we have a duty to concern ourselves with more than our own safety. Are you disputing this?
Your arguments rely on utilitarianism, yet I'm certain you would reject a society with maximal persecution of the few and minimal crime overall.
On 10/9/07, David Strauss david@fourkitchens.com wrote:
phoebe ayers wrote:
On 10/9/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
In 1997 some 52 honor killings were reported in Egypt. The actual figures in all of the countries I've cited are probably much higher because most honor killings go unreported.
Yes, well, there were also 69 murders and 156 rapes in the city of San Francisco alone last year [1], where the WMF is moving to soon; yet the fact that many of these killings are racially and sexually motivated and many of the rapes are intensely brutal has not led to calls that the WMF stay away from the big bad city here for moral reasons. My point: having liberal [2] western values does not directly translate into more safety for the resident or casual visitor; I haven't seen statistics about crime for visitors in Egypt yet.
I've stated that we have a duty to concern ourselves with more than our own safety. Are you disputing this?
Your arguments rely on utilitarianism, yet I'm certain you would reject a society with maximal persecution of the few and minimal crime overall.
One outside the US (and a few inside it...) might reply that the US has been illegally holding terror suspects without trial and torturing some of them, intercepting telecommunications widely both internationally and domestically, and waging illegal war in Iraq.
We could hold an even in ... London (no, wait, tube/bus bombings)... Paris (race riots?)... Moscow (organized crime? government oppression?)... Madrid (train bombings?), San Francisco (a few murders, and might all fall down in an earthquake...), Seattle (less murders, but both likely to fall down and be sunk by a Tsunami in a quake, and there's a volcano waiting to spew Lahar all over the southern parts of the city...).
Let us be practical. There are moral and practical concerns with about every possible venue we could chose. At least some of those concerns are legitimate in a wider scope. We cannot not chose somewhere to go, or rule out any given place, due to legitimate but not overwhelming concerns.
Gay and lesbian tourists from the US go to Egypt all the time without being oppressed; I'm sure some of them are offended by the local treatment of their peers, but they vacation in good health and safety.
Westerners visiting Egypt are not, as a rule, bothered by the local political issues. Most of the factions in those agree that bothering western tourists is a bad idea, and though there was a spate of terrorism it seems to have receded and stayed away. Alexandria was also far from the areas which were affected by that.
I would oppose any suggestion of a Wikimania in a Sharia Law area, or in a truly dangerous location from participants' health and safety, or freedom of information or civil rights perspective. Rangoon would be bad. Bagdhad would be ... let's just not go there, and I wish any Iraqi Wikipedians the best of luck with recovering your civilization and country. Egypt is "travel advisories" and some topical sensitivity, not "overwhelmingly oppressive" or "bring your Blackwater".
Perhaps future standards should increase the civil rights and western-style freedoms issues significance in judging. But Alexandria is a fine choice now. Arguing to change the selection criteria after selection, without having already used the opportunity present to make statements or recommendations before selection, is poor process.
On 10/10/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Arguing to change the selection criteria after selection, without having already used the opportunity present to make statements or recommendations before selection, is poor process.
Why is it poor process? Bidding is about to commence in an accelerated fashion for Wikimania 2009. Some people are obviously concerned about the result the existing criteria (and weighting) produced, and want to work to improve the criteria. I'm not sure what your complaint with that is.
~Mark Ryan
On 10/9/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Arguing to change the selection criteria after selection, without having already used the opportunity present to make statements or recommendations before selection, is poor process.
Why is it poor process? Bidding is about to commence in an accelerated fashion for Wikimania 2009. Some people are obviously concerned about the result the existing criteria (and weighting) produced, and want to work to improve the criteria. I'm not sure what your complaint with that is.
I have no problem with a discussion about changing selection criteria for WM2009.
I do object to retroactively changing them to exclude the final winner of the 2008 process...
George Herbert wrote:
One outside the US (and a few inside it...) might reply that the US has been illegally holding terror suspects without trial and torturing some of them, intercepting telecommunications widely both internationally and domestically, and waging illegal war in Iraq.
We're talking about Egypt, not the United States. Your assertion that few people in the U.S. are critical of U.S. policy is specious at best.
We could hold an even in ... London (no, wait, tube/bus bombings)... Paris (race riots?)... Moscow (organized crime? government oppression?)... Madrid (train bombings?), San Francisco (a few murders, and might all fall down in an earthquake...), Seattle (less murders, but both likely to fall down and be sunk by a Tsunami in a quake, and there's a volcano waiting to spew Lahar all over the southern parts of the city...).
Let us be practical. There are moral and practical concerns with about every possible venue we could chose. At least some of those concerns are legitimate in a wider scope. We cannot not chose somewhere to go, or rule out any given place, due to legitimate but not overwhelming concerns.
What is your standard for "not overwhelming"?
Gay and lesbian tourists from the US go to Egypt all the time without being oppressed; I'm sure some of them are offended by the local treatment of their peers, but they vacation in good health and safety.
Westerners visiting Egypt are not, as a rule, bothered by the local political issues. Most of the factions in those agree that bothering western tourists is a bad idea, and though there was a spate of terrorism it seems to have receded and stayed away. Alexandria was also far from the areas which were affected by that.
I'm quite tired of hearing people justify atrocities on the basis of the atrocities not affecting them.
I would oppose any suggestion of a Wikimania in a Sharia Law area, or in a truly dangerous location from participants' health and safety, or freedom of information or civil rights perspective.
As stated and cited in my original letter, people have been imprisoned for criticizing the government. Does that qualify?
Rangoon would be bad. Bagdhad would be ... let's just not go there, and I wish any Iraqi Wikipedians the best of luck with recovering your civilization and country. Egypt is "travel advisories" and some topical sensitivity, not "overwhelmingly oppressive" or "bring your Blackwater".
Perhaps future standards should increase the civil rights and western-style freedoms issues significance in judging. But Alexandria is a fine choice now. Arguing to change the selection criteria after selection, without having already used the opportunity present to make statements or recommendations before selection, is poor process.
The fact that the voters chose to penalize Alexandria lightly for human rights issues only came to light *today*.
On 10/9/07, David Strauss david@fourkitchens.com wrote:
The fact that the voters chose to penalize Alexandria lightly for human rights issues only came to light *today*.
You claimed to have noticed, but not said anything, earlier in the process, because you felt that nobody would possibly vote for Alexandria because the violations were so self-evident and overwhelmingly disqualifying.
The time for you to intervene in standards for judging WM2008 selection, and argue against Alexandria on that basis, was then not now. For any reasonable interpretation, you were neglegent in not doing so then if this was such an important issue to you.
George Herbert wrote:
One outside the US (and a few inside it...) might reply that the US has been illegally holding terror suspects without trial and torturing some of them, intercepting telecommunications widely both internationally and domestically, and waging illegal war in Iraq.
We're talking about Egypt, not the United States. Your assertion that few people in the U.S. are critical of U.S. policy is specious at best.
Many criticize it; a majority are against the war, for example. But few think the US government is now a huge human rights abuser, despite what we have done to a few hundred terror suspects. There is a staunch minority who do, however.
We could hold an even in ... London (no, wait, tube/bus bombings)... Paris (race riots?)... Moscow (organized crime? government oppression?)... Madrid (train bombings?), San Francisco (a few murders, and might all fall down in an earthquake...), Seattle (less murders, but both likely to fall down and be sunk by a Tsunami in a quake, and there's a volcano waiting to spew Lahar all over the southern parts of the city...).
Let us be practical. There are moral and practical concerns with about every possible venue we could chose. At least some of those concerns are legitimate in a wider scope. We cannot not chose somewhere to go, or rule out any given place, due to legitimate but not overwhelming concerns.
What is your standard for "not overwhelming"?
Gay and lesbian tourists from the US go to Egypt all the time without being oppressed; I'm sure some of them are offended by the local treatment of their peers, but they vacation in good health and safety.
Westerners visiting Egypt are not, as a rule, bothered by the local political issues. Most of the factions in those agree that bothering western tourists is a bad idea, and though there was a spate of terrorism it seems to have receded and stayed away. Alexandria was also far from the areas which were affected by that.
I'm quite tired of hearing people justify atrocities on the basis of the atrocities not affecting them.
I am disturbed to find that you believe I'm trying to justify Egypt's oppression.
We live in a real world. Some fraction of that has disturbing, uncivilized tendencies. One can look at that narrowly (Myanmar, Iran's leadership, North Korea) or more widely (East Oakland, Egypt, Guantanamo, etc).
Yes, there are things wrong in Egypt. It's functionally a single party government or a dictatorship, and has some severe social and religious uphevals in progress. Anyone following events in the middle east or geopolitics on the wider scale should know that.
I would oppose any suggestion of a Wikimania in a Sharia Law area, or in a truly dangerous location from participants' health and safety, or freedom of information or civil rights perspective.
As stated and cited in my original letter, people have been imprisoned for criticizing the government. Does that qualify?
We just had a vocal heckler tasered a bunch at a political rally in the United States not that long ago. Does that qualify? Do we need to rule Florida out of future Wikimania events?
There is a grey area. The line for "Yes, there's a problem" is less than the line for "...and we should cut off all cultural and intellectual exchanges...". Wikimania falls into the latter category. You're arguing, with no opposition, and my agreement, that Egypt is past the first line. You are asserting that it's past the second. I believe that the assertion is unsupported and unreasonably harsh, in a real world context.
Rangoon would be bad. Bagdhad would be ... let's just not go there, and I wish any Iraqi Wikipedians the best of luck with recovering your civilization and country. Egypt is "travel advisories" and some topical sensitivity, not "overwhelmingly oppressive" or "bring your Blackwater".
Perhaps future standards should increase the civil rights and western-style freedoms issues significance in judging. But Alexandria is a fine choice now. Arguing to change the selection criteria after selection, without having already used the opportunity present to make statements or recommendations before selection, is poor process.
The fact that the voters chose to penalize Alexandria lightly for human rights issues only came to light *today*.
George Herbert wrote:
On 10/9/07, David Strauss david@fourkitchens.com wrote:
The fact that the voters chose to penalize Alexandria lightly for human rights issues only came to light *today*.
You claimed to have noticed, but not said anything, earlier in the process, because you felt that nobody would possibly vote for Alexandria because the violations were so self-evident and overwhelmingly disqualifying.
The time for you to intervene in standards for judging WM2008 selection, and argue against Alexandria on that basis, was then not now. For any reasonable interpretation, you were neglegent in not doing so then if this was such an important issue to you.
Negligent? You should look up the definition of that word. If anyone would be negligent, it would be someone voting on the locations without being aware of the human rights records.
The human rights issues in Egypt have been brought up by others. Are you saying I can't speak because others brought up the issue, just not me?
Gay and lesbian tourists from the US go to Egypt all the time without being oppressed; I'm sure some of them are offended by the local treatment of their peers, but they vacation in good health and safety.
Westerners visiting Egypt are not, as a rule, bothered by the local political issues. Most of the factions in those agree that bothering western tourists is a bad idea, and though there was a spate of terrorism it seems to have receded and stayed away. Alexandria was also far from the areas which were affected by that.
I'm quite tired of hearing people justify atrocities on the basis of the atrocities not affecting them.
I am disturbed to find that you believe I'm trying to justify Egypt's oppression.
You responded to my objections by stating that the problems don't affect most Wikimania attendees.
We live in a real world. Some fraction of that has disturbing, uncivilized tendencies. One can look at that narrowly (Myanmar, Iran's leadership, North Korea) or more widely (East Oakland, Egypt, Guantanamo, etc).
Yes, there are things wrong in Egypt. It's functionally a single party government or a dictatorship, and has some severe social and religious uphevals in progress. Anyone following events in the middle east or geopolitics on the wider scale should know that.
So, you would agree than anyone involved in picking the Wikimania location would be cognizant of Egypt's human rights record without any help from me.
I would oppose any suggestion of a Wikimania in a Sharia Law area, or in a truly dangerous location from participants' health and safety, or freedom of information or civil rights perspective.
As stated and cited in my original letter, people have been imprisoned for criticizing the government. Does that qualify?
We just had a vocal heckler tasered a bunch at a political rally in the United States not that long ago. Does that qualify? Do we need to rule Florida out of future Wikimania events?
I've never said any place was perfect. In any case, tasering is generally not as severe as years of imprisonment, and blogging is not as threatening as vocal heckling (which can be quite aggressive).
There is a grey area. The line for "Yes, there's a problem" is less than the line for "...and we should cut off all cultural and intellectual exchanges...". Wikimania falls into the latter category. You're arguing, with no opposition, and my agreement, that Egypt is past the first line. You are asserting that it's past the second. I believe that the assertion is unsupported and unreasonably harsh, in a real world context.
I'm still waiting to hear where you do draw the latter line.
Rangoon would be bad. Bagdhad would be ... let's just not go there, and I wish any Iraqi Wikipedians the best of luck with recovering your civilization and country. Egypt is "travel advisories" and some topical sensitivity, not "overwhelmingly oppressive" or "bring your Blackwater".
Perhaps future standards should increase the civil rights and western-style freedoms issues significance in judging. But Alexandria is a fine choice now. Arguing to change the selection criteria after selection, without having already used the opportunity present to make statements or recommendations before selection, is poor process.
The fact that the voters chose to penalize Alexandria lightly for human rights issues only came to light *today*.
Just for clarification, I'm not suggesting that the people voting on the bids weren't aware of Egypt's record. I'm just responding to the objection that I wasn't vocal enough about the problems.
David Strauss wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
On 10/9/07, David Strauss david@fourkitchens.com wrote:
The fact that the voters chose to penalize Alexandria lightly for human rights issues only came to light *today*.
You claimed to have noticed, but not said anything, earlier in the process, because you felt that nobody would possibly vote for Alexandria because the violations were so self-evident and overwhelmingly disqualifying.
The time for you to intervene in standards for judging WM2008 selection, and argue against Alexandria on that basis, was then not now. For any reasonable interpretation, you were neglegent in not doing so then if this was such an important issue to you.
Negligent? You should look up the definition of that word. If anyone would be negligent, it would be someone voting on the locations without being aware of the human rights records.
The human rights issues in Egypt have been brought up by others. Are you saying I can't speak because others brought up the issue, just not me?
Gay and lesbian tourists from the US go to Egypt all the time without being oppressed; I'm sure some of them are offended by the local treatment of their peers, but they vacation in good health and safety.
Westerners visiting Egypt are not, as a rule, bothered by the local political issues. Most of the factions in those agree that bothering western tourists is a bad idea, and though there was a spate of terrorism it seems to have receded and stayed away. Alexandria was also far from the areas which were affected by that.
I'm quite tired of hearing people justify atrocities on the basis of the atrocities not affecting them.
I am disturbed to find that you believe I'm trying to justify Egypt's oppression.
You responded to my objections by stating that the problems don't affect most Wikimania attendees.
We live in a real world. Some fraction of that has disturbing, uncivilized tendencies. One can look at that narrowly (Myanmar, Iran's leadership, North Korea) or more widely (East Oakland, Egypt, Guantanamo, etc).
Yes, there are things wrong in Egypt. It's functionally a single party government or a dictatorship, and has some severe social and religious uphevals in progress. Anyone following events in the middle east or geopolitics on the wider scale should know that.
So, you would agree than anyone involved in picking the Wikimania location would be cognizant of Egypt's human rights record without any help from me.
I would oppose any suggestion of a Wikimania in a Sharia Law area, or in a truly dangerous location from participants' health and safety, or freedom of information or civil rights perspective.
As stated and cited in my original letter, people have been imprisoned for criticizing the government. Does that qualify?
We just had a vocal heckler tasered a bunch at a political rally in the United States not that long ago. Does that qualify? Do we need to rule Florida out of future Wikimania events?
I've never said any place was perfect. In any case, tasering is generally not as severe as years of imprisonment, and blogging is not as threatening as vocal heckling (which can be quite aggressive).
There is a grey area. The line for "Yes, there's a problem" is less than the line for "...and we should cut off all cultural and intellectual exchanges...". Wikimania falls into the latter category. You're arguing, with no opposition, and my agreement, that Egypt is past the first line. You are asserting that it's past the second. I believe that the assertion is unsupported and unreasonably harsh, in a real world context.
I'm still waiting to hear where you do draw the latter line.
Rangoon would be bad. Bagdhad would be ... let's just not go there, and I wish any Iraqi Wikipedians the best of luck with recovering your civilization and country. Egypt is "travel advisories" and some topical sensitivity, not "overwhelmingly oppressive" or "bring your Blackwater".
Perhaps future standards should increase the civil rights and western-style freedoms issues significance in judging. But Alexandria is a fine choice now. Arguing to change the selection criteria after selection, without having already used the opportunity present to make statements or recommendations before selection, is poor process.
The fact that the voters chose to penalize Alexandria lightly for human rights issues only came to light *today*.
On 10/9/07, David Strauss david@fourkitchens.com wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
On 10/9/07, David Strauss david@fourkitchens.com wrote:
The fact that the voters chose to penalize Alexandria lightly for human rights issues only came to light *today*.
You claimed to have noticed, but not said anything, earlier in the process, because you felt that nobody would possibly vote for Alexandria because the violations were so self-evident and overwhelmingly disqualifying.
The time for you to intervene in standards for judging WM2008 selection, and argue against Alexandria on that basis, was then not now. For any reasonable interpretation, you were neglegent in not doing so then if this was such an important issue to you.
Negligent? You should look up the definition of that word. If anyone would be negligent, it would be someone voting on the locations without being aware of the human rights records.
The human rights issues in Egypt have been brought up by others. Are you saying I can't speak because others brought up the issue, just not me?
You can speak all you want. You are insisting on the right to overturn the completed and announced selection process on your personal judgement and factors, however, which is a completely different story.
If this was important, then you should have spoken up earlier, when there was time to factor this into the criteria, or ask Alexandria to withdraw gracefully or prepare a statement on the issue or some such.
This is like coming up after the jury aquitted OJ and saying "Oh, Wait, I saw him kill them! I didn't say anything because I was sure you'd find him guilty anyways! Can you retry him and put him in jail now?".
There is a little less finality or legality associated with a WMF selection, but it's the same fundamental problem. If you had an issue, then you should have brought it up at the time that selection criteria were being discussed. It's perfectly reasonable to conclude that your silence then has largely mooted the point now.
If this were "...but they're really cannibalistic genocidal monsters!..." then I can see overturning anyways, but you're arguing that the jury simply failed to account for critieria in a manner you prefer.
I am all for gay rights. I was extremely happy for the lesbian couple who I lived next door to, who got married in San Francisco while it was briefly legal. And I support the law changing to let them re-do it in the future.
I am all for freedom of politics and religion, and I agree that Egypt's government is in some important ways oppressive and unfree.
But I don't have a problem with vacationing in Egypt, or going to a conference in Alexandria. Neither of those things endorses Egyptian honor killings, abuse of gays/lesbians, or political oppression. I suspect that liberal Egyptians want more western contact, not less.
The line you want to draw is all of in the wrong place, for the wrong reasons, and too late.
George Herbert wrote:
You can speak all you want. You are insisting on the right to overturn the completed and announced selection process on your personal judgement and factors, however, which is a completely different story.
When did I ask them to overturn it? We're about to enter into a fresh bidding process for 2009. Now is the time to raise issues with the bidding process.
If this was important, then you should have spoken up earlier, when there was time to factor this into the criteria, or ask Alexandria to withdraw gracefully or prepare a statement on the issue or some such.
Objections of this sort were raised over a year ago:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimania_2007/Alexandria#GLBT_concerns_in_Egypt
Am I supposed to say, "Oh, by the way, those human rights abuses that were going on... yeah they're still happening"?
This is like coming up after the jury aquitted OJ and saying "Oh, Wait, I saw him kill them! I didn't say anything because I was sure you'd find him guilty anyways! Can you retry him and put him in jail now?".
Except here the evidence has been in everyone's face for years.
There is a little less finality or legality associated with a WMF selection, but it's the same fundamental problem. If you had an issue, then you should have brought it up at the time that selection criteria were being discussed. It's perfectly reasonable to conclude that your silence then has largely mooted the point now.
If this were "...but they're really cannibalistic genocidal monsters!..." then I can see overturning anyways, but you're arguing that the jury simply failed to account for critieria in a manner you prefer.
I am all for gay rights. I was extremely happy for the lesbian couple who I lived next door to, who got married in San Francisco while it was briefly legal. And I support the law changing to let them re-do it in the future.
Those never took legal force, for the record.
I am all for freedom of politics and religion, and I agree that Egypt's government is in some important ways oppressive and unfree.
But I don't have a problem with vacationing in Egypt, or going to a conference in Alexandria. Neither of those things endorses Egyptian honor killings, abuse of gays/lesbians, or political oppression. I suspect that liberal Egyptians want more western contact, not less.
I have a feeling that if you have been to Egypt, you haven't combined your trip with advocating any of the rights you so fervently profess to value. All that requires is that you keep your mouth shut. It's quite a different situation for people who are transgender or transsexual.
The line you want to draw is all of in the wrong place, for the wrong reasons, and too late.
And you've still miraculously failed to answer my question: where do you draw the line? All I keep hearing from you is that Egypt hasn't crossed it.
On 10/9/07, David Strauss david@fourkitchens.com wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
One outside the US (and a few inside it...) might reply that the US has been illegally holding terror suspects without trial and torturing some of them, intercepting telecommunications widely both internationally and domestically, and waging illegal war in Iraq.
We're talking about Egypt, not the United States. Your assertion that few people in the U.S. are critical of U.S. policy is specious at best.
There were only two other countries where locations were being considered. The US was one of them. It's completely relevant.
Gay and lesbian tourists from the US go to Egypt all the time without being oppressed; I'm sure some of them are offended by the local treatment of their peers, but they vacation in good health and safety.
Westerners visiting Egypt are not, as a rule, bothered by the local political issues. Most of the factions in those agree that bothering western tourists is a bad idea, and though there was a spate of terrorism it seems to have receded and stayed away. Alexandria was also far from the areas which were affected by that.
I'm quite tired of hearing people justify atrocities on the basis of the atrocities not affecting them.
No one is justifying the atrocities.
On 10/9/07, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/9/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
In 1997 some 52 honor killings were reported in Egypt. The actual
Yes, well, there were also 69 murders and 156 rapes in the city of San Francisco alone last year [1],
And how many of those murders were honor killings? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing)
On 10/10/2007, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/9/07, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/9/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
In 1997 some 52 honor killings were reported in Egypt. The actual
Yes, well, there were also 69 murders and 156 rapes in the city of San Francisco alone last year [1],
And how many of those murders were honor killings? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing)
I doubt you will find figures for that but in the UK we appear to get about a dozen a year:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3829139.stm
geni wrote:
On 10/10/2007, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/9/07, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/9/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
In 1997 some 52 honor killings were reported in Egypt. The actual
Yes, well, there were also 69 murders and 156 rapes in the city of San Francisco alone last year [1],
And how many of those murders were honor killings? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing)
I doubt you will find figures for that but in the UK we appear to get about a dozen a year:
But in the U.K., they're indisputably illegal.
That's somewhat debatable in Egypt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing#Honor_killing_in_national_legal_c...
"The Special Rapporteur indicated that there had been contradictory decisions with regard to the honor defense in [...] Egypt [...]."
Better to give the whole quotation:
The Special Rapporteur indicated that there had been contradictory decisions with regard to the honor defense in Brazilhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil, and that legislative provisions allowing for partial or complete defense in that context could be found in the penal codes of Argentinahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina, Ecuador http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecuador, Egypthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt, Guatemala http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala, Iranhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran, Israel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel, Jordanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan, Peru http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peru, Syriahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria, Venezuela http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuela and the Palestinian National Authorityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_National_Authority .[25] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing#_note-22
On 10/10/2007, David Strauss david@fourkitchens.com wrote:
geni wrote:
On 10/10/2007, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/9/07, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/9/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
In 1997 some 52 honor killings were reported in Egypt. The actual
Yes, well, there were also 69 murders and 156 rapes in the city of San Francisco alone last year [1],
And how many of those murders were honor killings? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing)
I doubt you will find figures for that but in the UK we appear to get about a dozen a year:
But in the U.K., they're indisputably illegal.
That's somewhat debatable in Egypt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing#Honor_killing_in_national_legal_c...
"The Special Rapporteur indicated that there had been contradictory decisions with regard to the honor defense in [...] Egypt [...]."
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
It is possible to find bad reps about every country in the world. I usually visit forums of expats living in the country I want to go to. And usually they will be able to give you a clear picture. But then again I went to Cambo in 1999 when they were still carrying guns everywhere and shooting at eachother ........ Accrding to me the country is now peacefull and quiet, google on Cambodia and you will find many bad stories. Same with Egypt I feel.
Waerth
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 10/9/07, Mohamed Magdy mohamed.m.k@gmail.com wrote:
and
mistreatment of female travelers who are foolish enough to violate Islamic norms)
Where did you get that information?
This was a part of the cautionary message my very reliable travel agent provided me with... along with a litany of general safety scaremongering far in excess of I'd get when traveling to random spots in Germany or the U.K.
I'm not questioning their reliability of getting you to your destination , I'm rather questioning the accuracy of information they have about Egypt. whether they visited Egypt by themselves and experienced it (and telling you their personal findings) or googled keywords similar to yours and formulated an opinion to offer to their customers. What they are saying will remain hypothetical and generalizations. Exactly like the information I can give you (or any other Egyptian in Egypt). I can say that their information is false and vice versa.
It is, however, trivial for people to find similar advice: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%...
...Which includes some shocking material even more worry some than the advice I was given.
Or another search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%...
You cannot expect me to comment on every result returned ;) one comment though, take your time to read some of these results and use common sense (tm). You will be safe in Egypt, Come anytime, Wikimania or anytime you wish :).
On 10/9/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Certainly the track record of selections is far more appealing to *me* as a jetsetter than as a Wikipedian... and as long as we're still looking at airfare well over $1000/person (which wouldn't be the case for me traveling to canada, mexico, or much of western europe), my money would be better spent contributing to other non-profits and traveling to regional Wikipedian events. (And certainly, I don't find Egypt appealing, with its poor track record of intolerance and mistreatment of female travelers who are foolish enough to violate Islamic norms)
Agreed. Is there anything stopping people from organizing an event somewhere that isn't so expensive? I'm all for having Wikimania's in exotic locations every year, and I'm sure the people that go have a great time, but I don't really see myself paying that much to go to a place that has such a bad reputation re gay people...
It would be cool to have an actually useful conference. Since so many people that work on Wikipedia, Commons etc are English speaking when the conference is in places like Taipei and Alexandria it seems like it's more for fun than anything worthwhile for me, being primarily interested in enwiki.
I know that's not the only goal of course, and I wouldn't want to stop having them in cool places, and places that people in various geographic locations can get to. What I'm saying is, why not have another conference that focuses a little more on the actual population distribution of the people that actually use the sites?
On 10/10/07, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
On 10/9/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Certainly the track record of selections is far more appealing to *me* as a jetsetter than as a Wikipedian... and as long as we're still looking at airfare well over $1000/person (which wouldn't be the case for me traveling to canada, mexico, or much of western europe), my money would be better spent contributing to other non-profits and traveling to regional Wikipedian events. (And certainly, I don't find Egypt appealing, with its poor track record of intolerance and mistreatment of female travelers who are foolish enough to violate Islamic norms)
Agreed. Is there anything stopping people from organizing an event somewhere that isn't so expensive? I'm all for having Wikimania's in exotic locations every year, and I'm sure the people that go have a great time, but I don't really see myself paying that much to go to a place that has such a bad reputation re gay people...
It would be cool to have an actually useful conference. Since so many people that work on Wikipedia, Commons etc are English speaking when the conference is in places like Taipei and Alexandria it seems like it's more for fun than anything worthwhile for me, being primarily interested in enwiki.
For the record, the biggest group of attendees to the Wikimania2007 came from Taiwan. What is the speakers' concern is a different matter. We cannot force speakers to choose their topic. Or it will hurt our diversity. And one of purposes of the conference is to exchange the experience and thought - I have nothing wrong to hear about Enwiki experiences, while I am not terribly active on that. And there were also reports from other wikis: zhwiki, eswiki, dewiki or jawiki [=my BoF] ...
And I would add, while the English Wikipedia is the largest project among us, it is not the all we need to take consideration. As noted, Wikimania is for the community at large, not for English Wikipedia only.
Also having the Wikimania doesn't hinder to hold a local confernce. See the Chinese Wikipedians, they held a conference in Hong Kong last year three weeks after Wikimania. Now they are preparing the next annual conference. Dutchs do the same thing - in this month they will have their national conference. French had or will have their first one this year, if I recall correctly. German hosted one too, in this early summer. English Wikipedians in any country can hot it, on their behalf, just other people do and will do. But it is up to the local community, and not directly related to Wikimania, which should be an international conference reflecting our major global concerns.
I know that's not the only goal of course, and I wouldn't want to stop having them in cool places, and places that people in various geographic locations can get to. What I'm saying is, why not have another conference that focuses a little more on the actual population distribution of the people that actually use the sites?
Judson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cohesion
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
For the record, the biggest group of attendees to the Wikimania2007 came from Taiwan. What is the speakers' concern is a different matter. We cannot force speakers to choose their topic. Or it will hurt our diversity. And one of purposes of the conference is to exchange the experience and thought - I have nothing wrong to hear about Enwiki experiences, while I am not terribly active on that. And there were also reports from other wikis: zhwiki, eswiki, dewiki or jawiki [=my BoF] ...
-- KIZU N Wikiquote http://wikiquote.org is a free online project for building collections of quotations, hosted by Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
I think it would be interesting to hear about experiences from arwiki. I notice there are now ~42,000 articles. I'm not sure how many users, and where they come from. (e.g. how many are Arabic speakers residing in Europe, North America ... , how many from Egypt and other places in the region). That's a minuscule number of articles compared to the number of people that speak the language.
I have edited a little bit there, but find the experience much different (being a smaller wiki, as well as cultural differences). I'm also very curious to know how well is Wikipedia accepted, in terms of readership in Egypt and other countries in the region. I think it has potential, but what issues are there. It will be good to be able to discuss and learn, as well as discuss issues relating to enwiki and other larger wikis.
-Aude
On 10/10/2007, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
On 10/9/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Certainly the track record of selections is far more appealing to *me* as a jetsetter than as a Wikipedian... and as long as we're still looking at airfare well over $1000/person (which wouldn't be the case for me traveling to canada, mexico, or much of western europe), my money would be better spent contributing to other non-profits and traveling to regional Wikipedian events. (And certainly, I don't find Egypt appealing, with its poor track record of intolerance and mistreatment of female travelers who are foolish enough to violate Islamic norms)
Agreed. Is there anything stopping people from organizing an event somewhere that isn't so expensive?
"Expensive for me" you mean? Someone always loses out.
It would be cool to have an actually useful conference. Since so many people that work on Wikipedia, Commons etc are English speaking when the conference is in places like Taipei and Alexandria it seems like it's more for fun than anything worthwhile for me, being primarily interested in enwiki.
"Actually useful"? I don't see how the location changes the usefulnes of the conference...
As someone else suggested, hosting local Wikimanias is a good option. Why not get behind Atlanta (I assume you live in the US as you agree with Greg's comments) and organise a US Wikimania maybe a couple of weeks before or after the official one.
regards, Brianna
On 10/9/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed. Is there anything stopping people from organizing an event somewhere that isn't so expensive?
"Expensive for me" you mean? Someone always loses out.
That is true, which is one reason why rotation is a criteria, but this selected location isn't particularly ideal for any of the larger user clusters.
Had a location in western Europe been selected the costs would have been much lower for eastern north America, most of europe, and I'm guessing less costly for Australia.
We've also never had a Wikimania that was conveniently placed for the Western side of north America, or south America.
All locations are not the same. Yes, someone gets screwed no matter where its located, but a lot more people get screwed and fewer people benefit when it is held
"Actually useful"? I don't see how the location changes the usefulness of the conference...
... You don't? So you don't think that if we held the next one in Antarctica that it would be less useful? .... This should be a question of degree.
Obviously a conference that lots of people can't go to is less useful ... I think there is something wrong when we're holding conferences and directly involved people are nearly a minority at them.
As someone else suggested, hosting local Wikimanias is a good option. Why not get behind Atlanta (I assume you live in the US as you agree with Greg's comments) and organise a US Wikimania maybe a couple of weeks before or after the official one.
Honestly, if we fork the conference with a US version (and potentially an offset European version) there is a substantial risk that the popularity of these events will endanger the success of Wikimania proper.
There is also the question of who would front the money for a large regional event... though that could be resolved.
The effort to make Wikimania a truly global thing adds an enormous overhead but it can provide some good value.
On 10/10/2007, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
"Actually useful"? I don't see how the location changes the usefulness of the conference...
... You don't? So you don't think that if we held the next one in Antarctica that it would be less useful? .... This should be a question of degree.
Cohesion said:
It would be cool to have an actually useful conference. Since so many people that work on Wikipedia, Commons etc are English speaking when the conference is in places like Taipei and Alexandria it seems like it's more for fun than anything worthwhile for me, being primarily interested in enwiki.
To me this sounds like he thinks the content of the conference changes depending on where it is held, which is what I was questioning. Perhaps his implication was: hold in English speaking nation => most talks are about English language projects => more "worthwhile" for him. It's not like Taipei had an abundance of talks only about Chinese language projects, so I don't think this holds.
Obviously a conference that lots of people can't go to is less useful ... I think there is something wrong when we're holding conferences and directly involved people are nearly a minority at them.
What does "directly involved" mean? Don't articles in English only account for 1/4 of the total articles in all Wikipedias, or something like that?
As someone else suggested, hosting local Wikimanias is a good option. Why not get behind Atlanta (I assume you live in the US as you agree with Greg's comments) and organise a US Wikimania maybe a couple of weeks before or after the official one.
Honestly, if we fork the conference with a US version (and potentially an offset European version) there is a substantial risk that the popularity of these events will endanger the success of Wikimania proper.
I would have thought a local one would attract those who couldn't afford to travel overseas -- separate audiences. Atlanta has done all this organising, why not put it to use if you really feel that the international Wikipedia is too far away. They could make it a "cut-down" event if they really feel there is that much danger (how can we really know until we try?).
cheers, Brianna
On 10/10/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
To me this sounds like he thinks the content of the conference changes depending on where it is held, which is what I was questioning. Perhaps his implication was: hold in English speaking nation => most talks are about English language projects => more "worthwhile" for him. It's not like Taipei had an abundance of talks only about Chinese language projects, so I don't think this holds.
A little bit of both. I would rate usefulness as how relevant the discussion is to things most wikimedia users use. Also, the proportion of the community that can attend the events and generate interesting discussion/topics.
I didn't attend in Taipei, were most of the attendees semi-local? I had always assumed so. If they weren't then that only highlights Greg's concerns regarding exotic locations. If they were, but the majority of discussions were about topics that didn't concern them that seems weird too. I guess a clearer way of stating it, since I mostly care about enwiki and commons, *to me* the more people from those communities that can come the more useful/interesting. :)
Of course this is all just my opinion, that goes without saying :)
On 11/10/2007, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
I didn't attend in Taipei, were most of the attendees semi-local? I had always assumed so. If they weren't then that only highlights Greg's concerns regarding exotic locations. If they were, but the majority of discussions were about topics that didn't concern them that seems weird too.
It was about half-half I believe. (Your statement reads like "damned if you, damned if you don't." :))
Even if a talk or a topic is a case study of something you're not involved in, listening to it is the perfect opportunity to learn about how a different group of people does something, and pick up some new ideas for ways to do things or things to look out for and avoid.
I guess a clearer way of stating it, since I
mostly care about enwiki and commons, *to me* the more people from those communities that can come the more useful/interesting. :)
To go to Wikimania and only want to learn about things you already know about seems like a hugely lost opportunity to me.
Seriously, why not try and organise something local or regional?
cheers, Brianna
On 10/10/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
It was about half-half I believe. (Your statement reads like "damned if you, damned if you don't." :))
Ha, not my intention!
To go to Wikimania and only want to learn about things you already know about seems like a hugely lost opportunity to me.
Oh don't get me wrong, I'd love to have gone to Taipei! Regardless of what was talked about, maybe especially if it was all about Chinese Wikipedia, because of course that is cool. I just wasn't able to.
Seriously, why not try and organise something local or regional?
It looks like some people are doing just that, which is fun :)
On 10/10/2007, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
In honor of David's concerns, I have decided to make the title of my own talk at Wikimania 2008 "Free knowledge and human rights" and I will use this opportunity to speak out against censorship and other violations of human rights around the world, including examples from Egypt.
--Jimbo
I'm not sure that's wise, Jimbo, unless you've already checked with the Egyptian authorities and gotten their approval for it. Egypt have apparently this year arrested quite a few journalists in Egypt investigating stories about violations of human rights in Egypt. For your own personal safety, I suggest you don't do this.
~Mark Ryan
Mark Ryan wrote:
On 10/10/2007, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
In honor of David's concerns, I have decided to make the title of my own talk at Wikimania 2008 "Free knowledge and human rights" and I will use this opportunity to speak out against censorship and other violations of human rights around the world, including examples from Egypt.
I'm not sure that's wise, Jimbo, unless you've already checked with the Egyptian authorities and gotten their approval for it. Egypt have apparently this year arrested quite a few journalists in Egypt investigating stories about violations of human rights in Egypt. For your own personal safety, I suggest you don't do this.
He should say whatever he damn well wants to say. Making a big fuss that prejudges what he is going to say could be more damaging than his actually saying it. That would bring on undue attention. Getting approval from the authorities for a speech against censorship strikes me as somewhat antithetical. I don't know the circumstances of the investigative journalists you mention, but there is more to investigation than simply giving a speech to a gathering of mostly foreigners. Arresting Jimbo for giving such a speech or out of anticipation of such a speech would likely be counterproductive for the Egyptian, given the reverberation that would follow in the blogosphere.
Jimbo is a well-seasoned traveller. I'm sure that he knows how to weigh the options for his personal safety..
Ec.
On 11/10/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
He should say whatever he damn well wants to say. Making a big fuss that prejudges what he is going to say could be more damaging than his actually saying it. That would bring on undue attention. Getting approval from the authorities for a speech against censorship strikes me as somewhat antithetical. I don't know the circumstances of the investigative journalists you mention, but there is more to investigation than simply giving a speech to a gathering of mostly foreigners. Arresting Jimbo for giving such a speech or out of anticipation of such a speech would likely be counterproductive for the Egyptian, given the reverberation that would follow in the blogosphere.
Jimbo is a well-seasoned traveller. I'm sure that he knows how to weigh the options for his personal safety..
Ec.
I was only making a suggestion based upon what I have read in relation to Egypt's actions in relation to this sort of thing. I believe it would be in bad conscience not to pass on information like that which comes to my attention. Would you not agree? Or would you keep it to yourself? I'm confused.
The response to the people complaining about the anti-GLBT atmosphere in Egypt has been generally "gay people are fine, so long as you don't flaunt it; this is not a political event, it's a wiki event, so don't come here with a view to gay rights campaigning and you'll be alright".
But then along come Florence and Jimbo and tell us that it *is* a political event, that it was chosen because it can be used to campaign for human rights in Egypt; that it can bring positive change to the people of Egypt. Assuming that GLBT rights is included under the broad heading of "human rights", then where does that leave us? With a conference that is within that political, activist-zone which apparently isn't such a safe topic area, according to Human Rights Watch and the Alexandria Bid Team ("You will be in risk however if you try to hold a gay rights session").
Make of it all what you will; I just assumed that the logical strategy now that Wikimania is going to be in Alexandria would be to "shut up and smile", and not do anything inflammatory during the course of the conference. The last thing we want is Wikimedians detained or hurt.
~Mark Ryan
People keep mentioning gay travellers; someone even said to shut up and not flaunt it and the gays will be fine. Besides that being very, very, very offensive... (ask any gay person what their feelings are when someone says they are "flaunting" their orientation, it is an offensive suggestion)
I realize that GLB people can remain celibate while in Egypt and they are likely to be fine. The fact that they may be safer pretending to be something they are not is a bit disconcerting, but that is not my primary concern.
My primary concern is the safety of potential transgendered and transsexual conference attendees.
Someone earlier asked me if I have a study about the number of people who will or who will not attend Wikimania due to such concerns... well... we have voluntary listings and we have userboxes for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered Wikimedians. My guess is that there will be few to no transgendered and transsexual attendees, not because there are no T people who wish to attend but because there are not many T people who feel comfortable in El Iskandariyyah.
I'm not naming names here because it is their own business, but I do know of several prominent T Wikimedians and I have seen in blog comments and the like that they are not planning to go because they fear for their safety. That we have a whole demographic of people who are not going to go because they fear for their safety is appalling to me. What is even more appalling is that really, nobody seems to care.
Lots of you have said you have had LGBT/GLBT friends go to Egypt and be fine.
My guess is that your friends have only been gay, lesbian, and bisexual... have you had trans friends go to Egypt and say they felt safe there? I think I already know the answer.
Mark
On 11/10/2007, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/10/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
He should say whatever he damn well wants to say. Making a big fuss that prejudges what he is going to say could be more damaging than his actually saying it. That would bring on undue attention. Getting approval from the authorities for a speech against censorship strikes me as somewhat antithetical. I don't know the circumstances of the investigative journalists you mention, but there is more to investigation than simply giving a speech to a gathering of mostly foreigners. Arresting Jimbo for giving such a speech or out of anticipation of such a speech would likely be counterproductive for the Egyptian, given the reverberation that would follow in the blogosphere.
Jimbo is a well-seasoned traveller. I'm sure that he knows how to weigh the options for his personal safety..
Ec.
I was only making a suggestion based upon what I have read in relation to Egypt's actions in relation to this sort of thing. I believe it would be in bad conscience not to pass on information like that which comes to my attention. Would you not agree? Or would you keep it to yourself? I'm confused.
The response to the people complaining about the anti-GLBT atmosphere in Egypt has been generally "gay people are fine, so long as you don't flaunt it; this is not a political event, it's a wiki event, so don't come here with a view to gay rights campaigning and you'll be alright".
But then along come Florence and Jimbo and tell us that it *is* a political event, that it was chosen because it can be used to campaign for human rights in Egypt; that it can bring positive change to the people of Egypt. Assuming that GLBT rights is included under the broad heading of "human rights", then where does that leave us? With a conference that is within that political, activist-zone which apparently isn't such a safe topic area, according to Human Rights Watch and the Alexandria Bid Team ("You will be in risk however if you try to hold a gay rights session").
Make of it all what you will; I just assumed that the logical strategy now that Wikimania is going to be in Alexandria would be to "shut up and smile", and not do anything inflammatory during the course of the conference. The last thing we want is Wikimedians detained or hurt.
~Mark Ryan
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 11/10/2007, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
My primary concern is the safety of potential transgendered and transsexual conference attendees.
Someone earlier asked me if I have a study about the number of people who will or who will not attend Wikimania due to such concerns... well... we have voluntary listings and we have userboxes for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered Wikimedians. My guess is that there will be few to no transgendered and transsexual attendees, not because there are no T people who wish to attend but because there are not many T people who feel comfortable in El Iskandariyyah.
I'm not naming names here because it is their own business, but I do know of several prominent T Wikimedians and I have seen in blog comments and the like that they are not planning to go because they fear for their safety. That we have a whole demographic of people who are not going to go because they fear for their safety is appalling to me. What is even more appalling is that really, nobody seems to care.
Lots of you have said you have had LGBT/GLBT friends go to Egypt and be fine.
My guess is that your friends have only been gay, lesbian, and bisexual... have you had trans friends go to Egypt and say they felt safe there? I think I already know the answer.
Mark
As long as they have been diagnosed by a doctor transsexuals should encounter no legal problems in Egypt. Egyptian law and current Islamic custom in that area views transsexualism as an illness and sex change operations and the like to be a legitimate form of treatment.
I realize that GLB people can remain celibate while in Egypt and they are likely to be fine. The fact that they may be safer pretending to be something they are not is a bit disconcerting, but that is not my primary concern.
Celibacy isn't required, they just need to avoid overt "public displays of affection". (And it might be wise to avoid requesting a double hotel room...) It's not really that different to women wearing a headscarf when going to look around a mosque - whether you agree with other people's beliefs or not, you go along with them when in their country/building.
My primary concern is the safety of potential transgendered and transsexual conference attendees.
And what are the grounds for this concern? I haven't seen an answer to that question yet.
On 11/10/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I realize that GLB people can remain celibate while in Egypt and they are likely to be fine. The fact that they may be safer pretending to be something they are not is a bit disconcerting, but that is not my primary concern.
Celibacy isn't required, they just need to avoid overt "public displays of affection". (And it might be wise to avoid requesting a double hotel room...)
But why should Wikimedians have to worry about sharing a double room with their partner at a Wikimania conference? If I wanted to go to Egypt, I'd book a flight there on my own. I want to attend Wikimania. If I cannot attend Wikimania as myself (without undue worry), with whomever I wish to bring, I do not feel welcome and do not wish to come.
But why should Wikimedians have to worry about sharing a double room with their partner at a Wikimania conference?
To avoid offending the locals. We may not agree with their beliefs, but to avoid trouble, it's often best just to go along with them. Is it really a big enough issue to prevent us going to Egypt?
On 10/11/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
But why should Wikimedians have to worry about sharing a double room with their partner at a Wikimania conference?
To avoid offending the locals. We may not agree with their beliefs, but to avoid trouble, it's often best just to go along with them. Is it really a big enough issue to prevent us going to Egypt?
The gay couples I know of who travelled to Egypt as tourists stayed together without any hassle.
I haven't found any sources recommending staying separately.
Again... if there are legitimate travel warnings, at any level (from private sources, blogs, magazines, anything) with specifics about Egypt and LGBT travellers please let's see them.
The gay couples I know of who travelled to Egypt as tourists stayed together without any hassle.
I haven't found any sources recommending staying separately.
I said "might" - I know very little on the subject. Nevertheless, I wasn't suggesting staying separately - I meant a double room as opposed to a twin room, not two separate rooms.
On 10/11/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
But why should Wikimedians have to worry about sharing a double room with their partner at a Wikimania conference?
To avoid offending the locals. We may not agree with their beliefs, but to avoid trouble, it's often best just to go along with them. Is it really a big enough issue to prevent us going to Egypt?
Well when you're expecting people to pay a lot of money, for something they don't *need*, where they will have to pretend to be something they aren't, yes, it might make people less excited about going.
Is it a big enough issue to prevent everyone from going? Certainly not. But probably some people.
But why should Wikimedians have to worry about sharing a double room with their partner at a Wikimania conference? If I wanted to go to Egypt, I'd book a flight there on my own. I want to attend Wikimania. If I cannot attend Wikimania as myself (without undue worry), with whomever I wish to bring, I do not feel welcome and do not wish to come.
AFAIK it is perfectly fine to share a double/triple (hexa room? :)) room. Thats not an excuse not to come :P.
--user:alnokta
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I realize that GLB people can remain celibate while in Egypt and they are likely to be fine. The fact that they may be safer pretending to be something they are not is a bit disconcerting, but that is not my primary concern.
Celibacy isn't required, they just need to avoid overt "public displays of affection". (And it might be wise to avoid requesting a double hotel room...)
Double rooms should not be a problem if that means two beds.
Ec
On 12/10/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I realize that GLB people can remain celibate while in Egypt and they are likely to be fine. The fact that they may be safer pretending to be something they are not is a bit disconcerting, but that is not my primary concern.
Celibacy isn't required, they just need to avoid overt "public displays of affection". (And it might be wise to avoid requesting a double hotel room...)
Double rooms should not be a problem if that means two beds.
A double room has one bed, a twin room has two.
On 12/10/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
People keep mentioning gay travellers; someone even said to shut up and not flaunt it and the gays will be fine. Besides that being very, very, very offensive... (ask any gay person what their feelings are when someone says they are "flaunting" their orientation, it is an offensive suggestion)
What you forget is that many people find any flaunting of sexuality offensive. This includes to heterosexual flaunting.
I'm not talking about flaunting sexuality. I'd like GLB Wikimedians to be free to attend the conference with their partner (double room and all) without worry.
On 10/11/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
People keep mentioning gay travellers; someone even said to shut up and not flaunt it and the gays will be fine. Besides that being very, very, very offensive... (ask any gay person what their feelings are when someone says they are "flaunting" their orientation, it is an offensive suggestion)
I realize that GLB people can remain celibate while in Egypt and they are likely to be fine. The fact that they may be safer pretending to be something they are not is a bit disconcerting, but that is not my primary concern.
My impression is that you can be what you are just fine. Just don't go trolling cafes or internet websites for local sex partners while you're there.
The gay couples I know who travelled to Egypt said they were out, and weren't bothered for it, but they stuck to tourist areas.
My primary concern is the safety of potential transgendered and transsexual conference attendees.
Someone earlier asked me if I have a study about the number of people who will or who will not attend Wikimania due to such concerns... well... we have voluntary listings and we have userboxes for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered Wikimedians. My guess is that there will be few to no transgendered and transsexual attendees, not because there are no T people who wish to attend but because there are not many T people who feel comfortable in El Iskandariyyah.
I'm not naming names here because it is their own business, but I do know of several prominent T Wikimedians and I have seen in blog comments and the like that they are not planning to go because they fear for their safety. That we have a whole demographic of people who are not going to go because they fear for their safety is appalling to me. What is even more appalling is that really, nobody seems to care.
Lots of you have said you have had LGBT/GLBT friends go to Egypt and be fine.
My guess is that your friends have only been gay, lesbian, and bisexual... have you had trans friends go to Egypt and say they felt safe there? I think I already know the answer.
Again - please provide us with some rational basis for this fear.
Egyptian destinations are up in the windows of travel agencies in the San Francisco Castro District.
Nobody around here seems to be in the least bit afraid of the situation there, in any of the LGBT categories.
It doesn't seem to be a great location to go pick up locals, but even that seems to be happening quietly and without serious risk to the tourists.
There's a small group of LGBT advocates here insisting that you see a problem, and yet you aren't providing any links to blogs or gay travel websites warning of it, no magazine articles on it, nobody that says a friend had a problem, nothing.
While it's remotely possible that there's both a problem AND that it's never showed up anywhere on the Internet for us to find any reference for, I doubt that travel agencies that cater specifically to Gays (and the LGBT community more widely) in San Francisco would fail to notice if there was an issue.
Again: Maybe this is all real. But nobody is showing ANY links to reasonable evidence of there being a problem.
If elements of the LGBT community needlessly shut themselves in a closet and refuse to go to Alexandria because of fearmongering and rumors, then you've done yourselves a horrible disservice. If you're spreading rumors and scaring people, you're doing the community a terrible disservice.
If there is a real issue, SEND US SOME SOURCES. Anything.
Mark Williamson wrote:
People keep mentioning gay travellers; someone even said to shut up and not flaunt it and the gays will be fine. Besides that being very, very, very offensive... (ask any gay person what their feelings are when someone says they are "flaunting" their orientation, it is an offensive suggestion)
What you forget is that many people find any flaunting of sexuality offensive. This includes to heterosexual flaunting.
Ec
Mark Ryan wrote:
But then along come Florence and Jimbo and tell us that it *is* a political event, that it was chosen because it can be used to campaign for human rights in Egypt; that it can bring positive change to the people of Egypt.
Just to clarify a few points...
1. I don't think it is a political event, except in the broad sense that Wikipedia itself is "political" in terms of being a statement that every thoughtful and kind individual has a fundamental human right to participate in the creation of knowledge.
2. I didn't say anything about why it was chosen, because I had nothing to do with the selection... not even on the committee, didn't have a vote, didn't make any public comments, etc. I was just an observer like everyone else.
3. I doubt very much if this event alone will bring about any positive changes in Egypt or anywhere else. But I am certain that Wikipedia itself is already making positive changes all over the world, and this event supports Wikipedia.
4. I am very supportive of those who have concerns about holding Wikimania in problematic places, wherever those might be. I am torn between the idea that we should always avoid them, versus the idea that we should deliberately seek them out. There are merits to both positions I think... within limits.
--Jimbo
Thanks for the reply, Jimbo. I misunderstood what you had meant in your earlier emails.
~Mark Ryan
Mark Ryan wrote:
On 10/10/2007, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
In honor of David's concerns, I have decided to make the title of my own talk at Wikimania 2008 "Free knowledge and human rights" and I will use this opportunity to speak out against censorship and other violations of human rights around the world, including examples from Egypt.
--Jimbo
I'm not sure that's wise, Jimbo, unless you've already checked with the Egyptian authorities and gotten their approval for it. Egypt have apparently this year arrested quite a few journalists in Egypt investigating stories about violations of human rights in Egypt. For your own personal safety, I suggest you don't do this.
I honestly doubt the Egyptian authorities are that dumb. :)
Being named one of Time Magazine's 100 most influential people in the world was somewhat silly... obviously I am no such thing. But it does provide a certain immunity against random arrest that non-famous local bloggers unfortunately do not enjoy.
--Jimbo
On 18/10/2007, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I honestly doubt the Egyptian authorities are that dumb. :)
Being named one of Time Magazine's 100 most influential people in the world was somewhat silly... obviously I am no such thing. But it does provide a certain immunity against random arrest that non-famous local bloggers unfortunately do not enjoy.
--Jimbo
As a non Egyptian you are likely fine unless you say decide to include a rather graphic presentation on wikipedia's debate over lolicon (we never did sort out the copyright issue raised). Our hosts on the other hand may not be so fortunate.
On 10/9/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/9/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed. Is there anything stopping people from organizing an event somewhere that isn't so expensive?
"Expensive for me" you mean? Someone always loses out.
That is true, which is one reason why rotation is a criteria, but this selected location isn't particularly ideal for any of the larger user clusters.
Had a location in western Europe been selected the costs would have been much lower for eastern north America, most of europe, and I'm guessing less costly for Australia.
Well, yes... except for the part where there were no bids from western Europe this year that didn't drop out before the final judging :) Unless you're suggesting that the jury should start choosing the location by fiat, then it's awfully difficult to choose a community bid that doesn't exist.
We've also never had a Wikimania that was conveniently placed for the
Western side of north America, or south America.
All in good time. There's only been three conferences total, and anyway I don't think that there's been any good bids for these places to date. I certainly hope to see some in the future!
As someone else suggested, hosting local Wikimanias is a good option.
Why not get behind Atlanta (I assume you live in the US as you agree with Greg's comments) and organise a US Wikimania maybe a couple of weeks before or after the official one.
Honestly, if we fork the conference with a US version (and potentially an offset European version) there is a substantial risk that the popularity of these events will endanger the success of Wikimania proper.
There may be a risk, but it's not happened yet, and we have past experience to go on. There were local conferences held in both the Netherlands and in Hong Kong after Wikimania 2006, not to mention the German wiki Academy, the (unaffiliated) Recent Changes Camps in Portland and Montreal, and WikiSym (also unaffiliated) in Denmark, and yet just as many people as we expected ( i.e. more than ever) came to Wikimania 2007 in Taiwan.
The effort to make Wikimania a truly global thing adds an enormous
overhead but it can provide some good value.
Indeed!
-- phoebe
On 10/10/2007, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Had a location in western Europe been selected the costs would have been much lower for eastern north America, most of europe, and I'm guessing less costly for Australia.
Well, yes... except for the part where there were no bids from western Europe this year that didn't drop out before the final judging :) Unless you're suggesting that the jury should start choosing the location by fiat, then it's awfully difficult to choose a community bid that doesn't exist.
I return to my proposal to just decree we take Frankfurt in odd years and Boston in even ones and leave it at that. Everyone's evenly annoyed ;-)
[okay, for flexibility, we can maybe rotate the European side among Amsterdam and Paris, and the American one with New York or Toronto, but it's the same broad idea...]
[ps: I am not entirely joking]
I return to my proposal to just decree we take Frankfurt in odd years and Boston in even ones and leave it at that. Everyone's evenly annoyed ;-)
[okay, for flexibility, we can maybe rotate the European side among Amsterdam and Paris, and the American one with New York or Toronto, but it's the same broad idea...]
[ps: I am not entirely joking]
That makes sense only if you add a third rotation place in eastern Asia, because plenty of Wikimedians live there (think of Japan, S. Korea, China, Taiwan, a.s.o.)
Grtx, Thogo.
That makes sense only if you add a third rotation place in eastern Asia, because plenty of Wikimedians live there (think of Japan, S. Korea, China, Taiwan, a.s.o.)
Grtx, Thogo.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Kartografio_de_la_Vikipediistoj
South America to... That map needs an upgrade ;)
przykuta
If you replace frankfurt with Amsterdam, the hague or Utrecht, I'm fine with it :)
2007/10/10, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com:
On 10/10/2007, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Had a location in western Europe been selected the costs would have been much lower for eastern north America, most of europe, and I'm guessing less costly for Australia.
Well, yes... except for the part where there were no bids from western Europe this year that didn't drop out before the final judging :) Unless you're suggesting that the jury should start choosing the location by
fiat,
then it's awfully difficult to choose a community bid that doesn't
exist.
I return to my proposal to just decree we take Frankfurt in odd years and Boston in even ones and leave it at that. Everyone's evenly annoyed ;-)
[okay, for flexibility, we can maybe rotate the European side among Amsterdam and Paris, and the American one with New York or Toronto, but it's the same broad idea...]
[ps: I am not entirely joking]
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
effe iets anders wrote:
If you replace frankfurt with Amsterdam, the hague or Utrecht, I'm fine with it :)
I could manage all four. Amsterdam or Frankfurt would also be not too bad for people on the east coast of the U.S. Flights aren't too bad.
Ideal for me would be Brussels. I live about 15-20km away. Not to mention that I believe in such a case the EU should be involved in helping fund something like that.
However, Brussels is an expensive city, and I only know one other Belgian Wikimedian at all well. I'm sure they exist, but with the country being essentially split into two language groups there is little cohesion or drive to set up WMF Belgium.
Personally I'd love to attend at least one Wikimania and give a talk on Wikinews as an effort to educate and recruit contributors. Alexandria? Send me a nice knitted ski-mask and I'll rob the bank for funds.
Brian.
I don't like it. I strongly propose to include Taipei also. /me tries to pretend not to aware how it burdens Taiwanese
On 10/10/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/2007, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Had a location in western Europe been selected the costs would have been much lower for eastern north America, most of europe, and I'm guessing less costly for Australia.
Well, yes... except for the part where there were no bids from western Europe this year that didn't drop out before the final judging :) Unless you're suggesting that the jury should start choosing the location by fiat, then it's awfully difficult to choose a community bid that doesn't exist.
I return to my proposal to just decree we take Frankfurt in odd years and Boston in even ones and leave it at that. Everyone's evenly annoyed ;-)
[okay, for flexibility, we can maybe rotate the European side among Amsterdam and Paris, and the American one with New York or Toronto, but it's the same broad idea...]
[ps: I am not entirely joking]
[ps. me either]
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
You've got it all wrong. You need to come to Kourou! There are beaches, tropical rainforests, rivers, lakes, the ocean, and if you get bored you can always tour the space museum and see the Ariane rockets.
Hmmm, I wonder if we could plan a Wikimania around an Ariane launch...
(Also not entirely joking.)
(Much.)
--Maria User:Arria Belli
On 10/10/07, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
I don't like it. I strongly propose to include Taipei also. /me tries to pretend not to aware how it burdens Taiwanese
On 10/10/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/2007, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Had a location in western Europe been selected the costs would have been much lower for eastern north America, most of europe, and I'm guessing less costly for Australia.
Well, yes... except for the part where there were no bids from western Europe this year that didn't drop out before the final judging :)
Unless
you're suggesting that the jury should start choosing the location by
fiat,
then it's awfully difficult to choose a community bid that doesn't
exist.
I return to my proposal to just decree we take Frankfurt in odd years and Boston in even ones and leave it at that. Everyone's evenly annoyed ;-)
[okay, for flexibility, we can maybe rotate the European side among Amsterdam and Paris, and the American one with New York or Toronto, but it's the same broad idea...]
[ps: I am not entirely joking]
[ps. me either]
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko Wikiquote http://wikiquote.org is a free online project for building collections of quotations, hosted by Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Well let's do it in Paramaribo then! With a daytrip to an Arianne launch ;) As an ex-inhabitant of that city I would certainly like that :)
Waerth
You've got it all wrong. You need to come to Kourou! There are beaches, tropical rainforests, rivers, lakes, the ocean, and if you get bored you can always tour the space museum and see the Ariane rockets.
Hmmm, I wonder if we could plan a Wikimania around an Ariane launch...
(Also not entirely joking.)
(Much.)
--Maria User:Arria Belli
On 10/10/07, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
I don't like it. I strongly propose to include Taipei also. /me tries to pretend not to aware how it burdens Taiwanese
On 10/10/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/2007, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Had a location in western Europe been selected the costs would have been much lower for eastern north America, most of europe, and I'm guessing less costly for Australia.
Well, yes... except for the part where there were no bids from western Europe this year that didn't drop out before the final judging :)
Unless
you're suggesting that the jury should start choosing the location by
fiat,
then it's awfully difficult to choose a community bid that doesn't
exist.
I return to my proposal to just decree we take Frankfurt in odd years and Boston in even ones and leave it at that. Everyone's evenly annoyed ;-)
[okay, for flexibility, we can maybe rotate the European side among Amsterdam and Paris, and the American one with New York or Toronto, but it's the same broad idea...]
[ps: I am not entirely joking]
[ps. me either]
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko Wikiquote http://wikiquote.org is a free online project for building collections of quotations, hosted by Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
:D I'm always happy to meet another fellow Amazonian.
Seriously, I don't know about Paramaribo, but Kourou is too expensive, every trip to French Guiana by air necessarily landing at Cayenne's airport. We may have a space base here, but that doesn't mean the local airstrip is any less rinky-dink.
If beautiful Paramaribo is an option, I'd be glad to help plan it. I should start learning Dutch. ^^
--Maria User:Arria Belli
On 10/10/07, Waerth waerth@asianet.co.th wrote:
Well let's do it in Paramaribo then! With a daytrip to an Arianne launch ;) As an ex-inhabitant of that city I would certainly like that :)
Waerth
You've got it all wrong. You need to come to Kourou! There are beaches, tropical rainforests, rivers, lakes, the ocean, and if you get bored you
can
always tour the space museum and see the Ariane rockets.
Hmmm, I wonder if we could plan a Wikimania around an Ariane launch...
(Also not entirely joking.)
(Much.)
--Maria User:Arria Belli
On 10/10/07, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
I don't like it. I strongly propose to include Taipei also. /me tries to pretend not to aware how it burdens Taiwanese
On 10/10/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/2007, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Had a location in western Europe been selected the costs would have been much lower for eastern north America, most of europe, and I'm guessing less costly for Australia.
Well, yes... except for the part where there were no bids from
western
Europe this year that didn't drop out before the final judging :)
Unless
you're suggesting that the jury should start choosing the location by
fiat,
then it's awfully difficult to choose a community bid that doesn't
exist.
I return to my proposal to just decree we take Frankfurt in odd years and Boston in even ones and leave it at that. Everyone's evenly annoyed ;-)
[okay, for flexibility, we can maybe rotate the European side among Amsterdam and Paris, and the American one with New York or Toronto, but it's the same broad idea...]
[ps: I am not entirely joking]
[ps. me either]
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko Wikiquote http://wikiquote.org is a free online project for building collections of quotations, hosted by Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Well I life in Bangkok now so would make it a tad difficult for me ;)/
Waerth
:D I'm always happy to meet another fellow Amazonian.
Seriously, I don't know about Paramaribo, but Kourou is too expensive, every trip to French Guiana by air necessarily landing at Cayenne's airport. We may have a space base here, but that doesn't mean the local airstrip is any less rinky-dink.
If beautiful Paramaribo is an option, I'd be glad to help plan it. I should start learning Dutch. ^^
--Maria User:Arria Belli
On 10/10/07, Waerth waerth@asianet.co.th wrote:
Well let's do it in Paramaribo then! With a daytrip to an Arianne launch ;) As an ex-inhabitant of that city I would certainly like that :)
Waerth
You've got it all wrong. You need to come to Kourou! There are beaches, tropical rainforests, rivers, lakes, the ocean, and if you get bored you
can
always tour the space museum and see the Ariane rockets.
Hmmm, I wonder if we could plan a Wikimania around an Ariane launch...
(Also not entirely joking.)
(Much.)
--Maria User:Arria Belli
On 10/10/07, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
I don't like it. I strongly propose to include Taipei also. /me tries to pretend not to aware how it burdens Taiwanese
On 10/10/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/2007, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
> Had a location in western Europe been selected the costs would have > been much lower for eastern north America, most of europe, and I'm > guessing less costly for Australia. > > Well, yes... except for the part where there were no bids from
western
Europe this year that didn't drop out before the final judging :)
Unless
you're suggesting that the jury should start choosing the location by
fiat,
then it's awfully difficult to choose a community bid that doesn't
exist.
I return to my proposal to just decree we take Frankfurt in odd years and Boston in even ones and leave it at that. Everyone's evenly annoyed ;-)
[okay, for flexibility, we can maybe rotate the European side among Amsterdam and Paris, and the American one with New York or Toronto, but it's the same broad idea...]
[ps: I am not entirely joking]
[ps. me either]
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko Wikiquote http://wikiquote.org is a free online project for building collections of quotations, hosted by Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 10/9/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/9/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed. Is there anything stopping people from organizing an event somewhere that isn't so expensive?
"Expensive for me" you mean? Someone always loses out.
That is true, which is one reason why rotation is a criteria, but this selected location isn't particularly ideal for any of the larger user clusters.
What's the goal of Wikimania? Depending on the answer to that, a location away from the larger user clusters might even be seen as a good thing.
Considering that there are only about 500 attendees each year out of the millions of people ever involved in the project (and probably tens of thousands of whom would attend if it happened to be located in their city), maximizing the number of attendees certainly doesn't seem to be the goal.
The number of attendees is so tiny compared to the number of people who are involved in the project, I really don't think it much matters where to go.
So you don't think that if we held the next one in Antarctica that it would be less useful? .... This should be a question of degree.
But...NO ONE lives in Antarctica (permanently, anyway). There likely wouldn't be any "locals" attending at all. Location would be one of many problems, and there'd be virtually no benefit.
Obviously a conference that lots of people can't go to is less useful ... I think there is something wrong when we're holding conferences and directly involved people are nearly a minority at them.
As someone else suggested, hosting local Wikimanias is a good option. Why not get behind Atlanta (I assume you live in the US as you agree with Greg's comments) and organise a US Wikimania maybe a couple of weeks before or after the official one.
Honestly, if we fork the conference with a US version (and potentially an offset European version) there is a substantial risk that the popularity of these events will endanger the success of Wikimania proper.
As long as "Wikimania proper" gets first dibs on the speakers, and is the one that the board attends, I don't see that happening.
There is also the question of who would front the money for a large regional event... though that could be resolved.
I thought Wikimania paid for itself. If the Foundation gave the Atlanta bid team, for instance, permission to hold the conference anyway, at the same time as Wikimania, wouldn't there be enough interested people to make it happen?
One of the factors taken into account was the ease of visitors obtaining visa for entry. Atlanta had a markedly lower score than the other locations. This difference was as great as the local law factor for Alexandria. The United States does not show up well in freedom of travel, which is highly relevant in selecting a location for an international event.
David Goodman
On 10/10/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
But...NO ONE lives in Antarctica (permanently, anyway). There likely wouldn't be any "locals" attending at all. Location would be one of many problems, and there'd be virtually no benefit.
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_Las_Estrellas
:-)
On 10/10/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
So you don't think that if we held the next one in Antarctica that it would be less useful? .... This should be a question of degree.
But...NO ONE lives in Antarctica (permanently, anyway). There likely wouldn't be any "locals" attending at all. Location would be one of many problems, and there'd be virtually no benefit.
I suppose Antarctica - being in no small degree a self-selecting population of educated bored people - might have one of the highest proportions of the local population predisposed to like us ;-)
There is also the question of who would front the money for a large regional event... though that could be resolved.
I thought Wikimania paid for itself. If the Foundation gave the Atlanta bid team, for instance, permission to hold the conference anyway, at the same time as Wikimania, wouldn't there be enough interested people to make it happen?
Almost certainly. You would probably get less interest from outside the WMF community - due to the lack of high-profile big-name speakers - and many more dedicated or more affluent people would travel to the "big event", but I don't see any real reason you wouldn't be able to pull a couple of hundred people together.
I would be less convinced that it would work for Cape Town - there, the proportion of local attendees was always going to be lower than Atlanta, and if you're flying abroad you may as well pay a bit more and go to the main event* - but for Atlanta, or for Turin last year, sure.
(The same could be said of any sizable regional bid a continent or so away from the chosen location)
On 10/10/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
But...NO ONE lives in Antarctica (permanently, anyway). There likely wouldn't be any "locals" attending at all. Location would be one of many problems, and there'd be virtually no benefit.
I suppose Antarctica - being in no small degree a self-selecting population of educated bored people - might have one of the highest proportions of the local population predisposed to like us ;-)
Mad scientists! That's what we need at Wikimania!
- d.
On 10/10/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
But...NO ONE lives in Antarctica (permanently, anyway). There likely wouldn't be any "locals" attending at all. Location would be one of many problems, and there'd be virtually no benefit.
I suppose Antarctica - being in no small degree a self-selecting population of educated bored people - might have one of the highest proportions of the local population predisposed to like us ;-)
Mad scientists! That's what we need at Wikimania!
I'll get there one of these years...
I can't be the only certified mad scientist among the project's more experienced members, however.
Anthony wrote:
What's the goal of Wikimania? Depending on the answer to that, a location away from the larger user clusters might even be seen as a good thing.
It's an opportunity to see the human side of the ogres that you meet on line. It cements relationships among active people. It can draw significant people to a world event when they might not otherwise attend. It gives global exposure to otherwise local ideas. It's good publicity about our world-wide scope.
You really should try to attend one.
Considering that there are only about 500 attendees each year out of the millions of people ever involved in the project (and probably tens of thousands of whom would attend if it happened to be located in their city), maximizing the number of attendees certainly doesn't seem to be the goal.
The number of attendees is so tiny compared to the number of people who are involved in the project, I really don't think it much matters where to go.
Remember that Frankfurt drew more Europeans; Boston drew more Americans, and Taipei drew more from Hong Kong and Australia.
So you don't think that if we held the next one in Antarctica that it would be less useful? .... This should be a question of degree.
But...NO ONE lives in Antarctica (permanently, anyway). There likely wouldn't be any "locals" attending at all. Location would be one of many problems, and there'd be virtually no benefit.
Maybe we don't need to go quite so far south. If a US based Wikimania can happen in Georgia, we should not neglect the possibility that the Antarctic rotation be in South Georgia. :-)
Obviously a conference that lots of people can't go to is less useful ... I think there is something wrong when we're holding conferences and directly involved people are nearly a minority at them.
As someone else suggested, hosting local Wikimanias is a good option. Why not get behind Atlanta (I assume you live in the US as you agree with Greg's comments) and organise a US Wikimania maybe a couple of weeks before or after the official one.
Honestly, if we fork the conference with a US version (and potentially an offset European version) there is a substantial risk that the popularity of these events will endanger the success of Wikimania proper.
As long as "Wikimania proper" gets first dibs on the speakers, and is the one that the board attends, I don't see that happening.
I don't see that there needs to be a fork at all. Wikimania would continue as an annual event, but there are 11 other months in the calendar. Local or regional get-togethers don't need to be completely tied to national boundaries. Here in the Vancouver-Seattle-Portland sector of the I-5 corridor I can go anywhere on fairly short notice, and at relatively small expense. The geographical size of Canada and the United States turn national events into major efforts. I don't know how the Aussies view travel between Sydney and Perth.
On 10/10/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony wrote:
What's the goal of Wikimania? Depending on the answer to that, a location away from the larger user clusters might even be seen as a good thing.
It's an opportunity to see the human side of the ogres that you meet on line. It cements relationships among active people. It can draw significant people to a world event when they might not otherwise attend. It gives global exposure to otherwise local ideas. It's good publicity about our world-wide scope.
You really should try to attend one.
Unless it's held within Florida (and close enough that I don't have to take any time off work), I can think of way too many other things I'd rather do with my money and vacation time. Maybe if I can one day justify it as part of my business, or if I'm one day rich enough to have gobbles of free time, but otherwise, not happening.
As someone else suggested, hosting local Wikimanias is a good option. Why not get behind Atlanta (I assume you live in the US as you agree with Greg's comments) and organise a US Wikimania maybe a couple of weeks before or after the official one.
Honestly, if we fork the conference with a US version (and potentially an offset European version) there is a substantial risk that the popularity of these events will endanger the success of Wikimania proper.
As long as "Wikimania proper" gets first dibs on the speakers, and is the one that the board attends, I don't see that happening.
I don't see that there needs to be a fork at all. Wikimania would continue as an annual event, but there are 11 other months in the calendar.
True, but I think it comes down to how useful you think such global get togethers are. Personally I'd put them in the "fun, but not very useful more than once a year" category.
Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 10/10/2007, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
Agreed. Is there anything stopping people from organizing an event somewhere that isn't so expensive?
"Expensive for me" you mean? Someone always loses out.
True, but some places are less expensive for a greater number of people than others are. If we were to order cities by some vague criterion of "number of people who can get there for under US$500, plus number of people who can get there for under US$1000, weighted by some unspecified amount", my guess based on consolidator spot-checking is that, from least to most expensive, the four Wikimania cities would be ordered: Frankfurt, Boston, Taipei, Alexandria. I.e., we're picking somewhere less accessible every year!
-Mark
On 10/11/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
If we were to order cities by some vague criterion of "number of people who can get there for under US$500, plus number of people who can get there for under US$1000, weighted by some unspecified amount", my guess based on consolidator spot-checking is that, from least to most expensive, the four Wikimania cities would be ordered: Frankfurt, Boston, Taipei, Alexandria. I.e., we're picking somewhere less accessible every year!
Ha, next year Inaccessible Island! :P (joke!)
On 11/10/2007, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
True, but some places are less expensive for a greater number of people than others are. If we were to order cities by some vague criterion of "number of people who can get there for under US$500, plus number of people who can get there for under US$1000, weighted by some unspecified amount", my guess based on consolidator spot-checking is that, from least to most expensive, the four Wikimania cities would be ordered: Frankfurt, Boston, Taipei, Alexandria. I.e., we're picking somewhere less accessible every year!
I'm surprised at the latter two - my gut instinct is that the accessibility from Europe for Alexandria should outweigh the accessibility bonus for the Far Eastern users going to Taiwan. Was it close?
(This is probably me systematically underestimating our usership figures, again...)
Andrew Gray wrote:
On 11/10/2007, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
True, but some places are less expensive for a greater number of people than others are. If we were to order cities by some vague criterion of "number of people who can get there for under US$500, plus number of people who can get there for under US$1000, weighted by some unspecified amount", my guess based on consolidator spot-checking is that, from least to most expensive, the four Wikimania cities would be ordered: Frankfurt, Boston, Taipei, Alexandria. I.e., we're picking somewhere less accessible every year!
I'm surprised at the latter two - my gut instinct is that the accessibility from Europe for Alexandria should outweigh the accessibility bonus for the Far Eastern users going to Taiwan. Was it close?
(This is probably me systematically underestimating our usership figures, again...)
I guess it's probably close, and it might be fair to say Alexandria and Taipei are about equally accessible/inaccessible depending on what you care about. Both are clearly much less accessible than the two previous locations, though. It also partly depends on whether you weight by typical attendees, or by the possibility of attracting new attendees (e.g. the Japanese Wikipedia is a top-5 by size, but underrepresented at our events).
For cheap (under US$500): -- Frankfurt: Nearly all of Europe, much of North Africa, some of the Middle East -- Boston: Nearly all of the U.S., much of Canada, most of the Carribbean, much of Central America -- Taipei: Hong Kong, maybe some other nearby places if you're lucky (Malaysia, Japan, etc.) -- Alexandria: North Africa and the Middle East
For semi-cheap (US$500-1000): -- Frankfurt: Much of the rest of Africa and the Middle East, parts of the U.S. east coast if you're lucky -- Boston: Most of the rest of North, Central, and South America, and a few European cities if you're lucky -- Taipei: Most of the rest of eastern Asia, a few U.S. west coast cities if you're lucky (e.g. Los Angeles) -- Alexandria: Most of Europe, a handful of African cities if you're lucky (e.g. Nairobi)
A major problem with Alexandria's accessibility seems to be that, due to the way airline markets are structured, it's actually *less* accessible from most of Africa than Europe is, despite being on the African continent.
But of course Phoebe has a point that this isn't really the selection committee's fault. Europe seems to have the best overall accessibility, but we can't pick a European city if no European cities submit bids. =]
-Mark
2007/10/10, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org:
Agreed. Is there anything stopping people from organizing an event somewhere that isn't so expensive?
Oh, come on! Doesn't exist *the* cheap place..
It would be cool to have an actually useful conference. Since so many people that work on Wikipedia, Commons etc are English speaking when the conference is in places like Taipei and Alexandria it seems like it's more for fun than anything worthwhile for me, being primarily interested in enwiki.
I'm sorry but Wikimania is not enwiki conference. Perhaps is a moment when we should think of the diversity in our project and in our community.
Frieda ___________________________________________ http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Frieda
On 10/10/07, Frieda Brioschi ubifrieda@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry but Wikimania is not enwiki conference. Perhaps is a moment when we should think of the diversity in our project and in our community.
No need to apologize, I realize this. That's why I was suggesting an additional conference or get together for those communities. They are the largest in terms of users, and as a community they have no real event.
From personal experience in Taiwan, I found it enormously helpful to be able
to meet other Wikimedians from so many different places. (Japan, Taiwan, Australia, India, the Middle East, Europe, Canada, the U.S., and many other places) As well, there are positive benefits of cultural exchange, and outreach to Egypt and other nearby countries also has positive benefits.
There will always be a certain percentage of attendees that are from the local country or region, who otherwise will not attend. As mentioned already, for whatever reasons, the Arabic Wikipedia is still small (compared to the number of speakers of the language). This is an excellent opportunity to outreach to them and grow the community.
Then in 2009, we will have Wikimania in another place (maybe Atlanta or Toronto?), which will draw different people from the local region. Though, I'm sure there will be people from Taiwan and Egypt who will continue to come to Wikimania, regardless of where it is. In my experience of organizing conferences, I find this to be the case.
-Aude
In this thread, I see people raising the issues regarding the Egyptian government. As we know, it's not a democracy and the Egyptian people did not choose the government. The government there is more repressive, but not so much so (like Burma) that we can't have Wikimania there. To penalize Egyptian Wikimedians (and those from Jordan and other nearby places), for what their government does is not cool with me.
At the same time, I know plenty of people from Europe, Canada, the Middle East and elsewhere in the world... I don't necessarily approve of things my government does, and it's important that they distinguish me (as an individual American), from what my government does (including providing enormous amounts of aid to the Egyptian government and other undemocratic regimes).
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0412/p07s01-wome.html http://www1.usaid.gov/our_work/features/egypt/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/12/AR2006061201...
Thinking about that, if you are not happy with repressive things the Egyptian government does, maybe it's time to write congress, ask questions of the U.S. presidential candidates, etc. about our policy of supporting such regimes.
http://www.house.gov/writerep/ http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
-Aude
One more issues I see people raising the issue that they can't afford to travel to Alexandria. I think this is something that we can help address, through sponsorships and providing scholarships to help Wikimedians attend (who otherwise cannot afford to).
I know that the Alexandria team has already thought about sponsorships. I think there is very good opportunity this time for sponsorships. There are organizations out there who support cultural exchange between the U.S. and other countries, and the Middle East, as well as the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Enough of my talking here, but I would be more than happy to get started on this and do something. I have some contacts with organizations in Washington, who I think can provide me leads on this. I'm sure there are similar organizations in Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, etc. Let's be proactive and get working on this.
-Aude
Aude wrote:
One more issues I see people raising the issue that they can't afford to travel to Alexandria. I think this is something that we can help address, through sponsorships and providing scholarships to help Wikimedians attend (who otherwise cannot afford to).
One also needs to credit WMF with being one of the rare organizations which considers the cost of local accommodations as a significant factor in determining the winning city.
This could be an important feature for globalizing the non-profit sector so that it represents the people whom it is supposed to represent.
Ec
On 10/10/07, Aude audevivere@gmail.com wrote:
In this thread, I see people raising the issues regarding the Egyptian government. As we know, it's not a democracy and the Egyptian people did not choose the government. The government there is more repressive, but not so much so (like Burma) that we can't have Wikimania there. To penalize Egyptian Wikimedians (and those from Jordan and other nearby places), for what their government does is not cool with me.
Exactly. To penalize the Egyptian Wikipedians who put together a wonderful proposal seems unreasonable.
These are the people we want to be supporting and encouraging.
Hey Aude and George, thank you for voicing that opinion, it is exactly how I feel. Another point for everyone to consider: If Wikimania was restricted to being in USA and Western Europe, it's kind of a closed-membership club, people from Africa, the Middle east and various other places will have a hard time getting a visa there if they have a shot at that at all (I know that a US visa requires that you prove beyond doubt you have ties with your home country that will force you to come back after the conference, and that you have a considerable amount of money in your bank account, which is something hard to do for young people without established families.).
On 10/10/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/07, Aude audevivere@gmail.com wrote:
In this thread, I see people raising the issues regarding the Egyptian government. As we know, it's not a democracy and the Egyptian people
did
not choose the government. The government there is more repressive, but
not
so much so (like Burma) that we can't have Wikimania there. To penalize Egyptian Wikimedians (and those from Jordan and other nearby places),
for
what their government does is not cool with me.
Exactly. To penalize the Egyptian Wikipedians who put together a wonderful proposal seems unreasonable.
These are the people we want to be supporting and encouraging.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 10/10/07, Muhammad Alsebaey shipmaster@gmail.com wrote:
Hey Aude and George, thank you for voicing that opinion, it is exactly how I feel. Another point for everyone to consider: If Wikimania was restricted to being in USA and Western Europe, it's kind of a closed-membership club, people from Africa, the Middle east and various other places will have a hard time getting a visa there if they have a shot at that at all (I know that a US visa requires that you prove beyond doubt you have ties with your home country that will force you to come back after the conference, and that you have a considerable amount of money in your bank account, which is something hard to do for young people without established families.).
The ironic thing is that suggesting people write Congress... I live in the District of Columbia (the nation's capital, an icon of democracy), but residents here do not have representation in Congress. No Senators for me to write to, and only a non-voting representative in Congress. (her opinion, and my opinion mean nothing). So, I'm not exactly living in a democracy, even though I can walk over to Capitol Hill. This is a double standard in my view, that out government goes around spouting rhetoric about supporting democracy, while right here we are denied basic democratic rights. "Taxation Without Representation" is written my license plates, sums it up.
Egypt is just as fine a choice. And, knowing what it takes to organize a conference, the people on the bidding team are well-suited for the task. It's not a simple task, but heck a lot of work.
-Aude
Muhammad Alsebaey wrote:
Hey Aude and George, thank you for voicing that opinion, it is exactly how I feel. Another point for everyone to consider: If Wikimania was restricted to being in USA and Western Europe, it's kind of a closed-membership club, people from Africa, the Middle east and various other places will have a hard time getting a visa there if they have a shot at that at all (I know that a US visa requires that you prove beyond doubt you have ties with your home country that will force you to come back after the conference, and that you have a considerable amount of money in your bank account, which is something hard to do for young people without established families.).
I think that many of us look forward to visiting Alexandria and, if we can make the time, the rest of Egypt. The press tends to blow the occasional criminal or terrorist incident completely out of proportion. The American media in particular attaches a far greater degree of tragedy to the one or two Americans that die in such incidents then the 200 local individuals who also perish. I do not attach a lot of importance to whether a country is "democratic"; that is not something to be decided by outsiders I regret the concerns of the LGBT people, but sometimes it is simply not possible to adjust to all the interests of special interest groups.
I did not hear of visa problems at Frankfurt, but it affected many people who would have liked to attend in Boston. AFAIK, unfortunately and ironically, the only people that were kept from Taipei because of visa issues were the Egyptians.
I expect that visa issues will continue to be a factor in choosing American hosts at least until after they have had a change of government.
Ec
On 10/11/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Muhammad Alsebaey wrote:
Hey Aude and George, thank you for voicing that opinion, it is exactly how I feel. Another point for everyone to consider: If Wikimania was restricted to being in USA and Western Europe, it's kind of a closed-membership club, people from Africa, the Middle east and various other places will have a hard time getting a visa there if they have a shot at that at all (I know that a US visa requires that you prove beyond doubt you have ties with your home country that will force you to come back after the conference, and that you have a considerable amount of money in your bank account, which is something hard to do for young people without established families.).
I think that many of us look forward to visiting Alexandria and, if we can make the time, the rest of Egypt. The press tends to blow the occasional criminal or terrorist incident completely out of proportion. The American media in particular attaches a far greater degree of tragedy to the one or two Americans that die in such incidents then the 200 local individuals who also perish. I do not attach a lot of importance to whether a country is "democratic"; that is not something to be decided by outsiders I regret the concerns of the LGBT people, but sometimes it is simply not possible to adjust to all the interests of special interest groups.
I did not hear of visa problems at Frankfurt, but it affected many people who would have liked to attend in Boston. AFAIK, unfortunately and ironically, the only people that were kept from Taipei because of visa issues were the Egyptians.
For the record, visa arrangement for Egyptians were perfect: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of R.O.C. promised those Egyptians would be able to get visas on port. Unfortunately it was settled after the Egyptians had given up to attend and had filled their schedule with other local concerns. So ultimately there was no critical visa issue in Taipei. No registered attendees rejected by the government of the hosting place. It was not the Taipei case.
I expect that visa issues will continue to be a factor in choosing American hosts at least until after they have had a change of government.
As for accessibility, visa issue was a big concern of us the jury, particularly people who were involved into the 2006 conference organization in Boston. And for enforcing free knowledge in a global level, I personally this visa issue concern could be much more weighed, even more than the geographical rotation (as announced, even if we got rid of this category, the final result wouldn't be altered). Immigration policy is also a political concern, but it directly affects the conference and hinders our community members to share the knowledge with us the rest.
Cheers,
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Aphaia wrote:
On 10/11/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I did not hear of visa problems at Frankfurt, but it affected many people who would have liked to attend in Boston. AFAIK, unfortunately and ironically, the only people that were kept from Taipei because of visa issues were the Egyptians.
For the record, visa arrangement for Egyptians were perfect: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of R.O.C. promised those Egyptians would be able to get visas on port. Unfortunately it was settled after the Egyptians had given up to attend and had filled their schedule with other local concerns. So ultimately there was no critical visa issue in Taipei. No registered attendees rejected by the government of the hosting place. It was not the Taipei case.
Thank you for clarifying this.
I expect that visa issues will continue to be a factor in choosing American hosts at least until after they have had a change of government.
As for accessibility, visa issue was a big concern of us the jury, particularly people who were involved into the 2006 conference organization in Boston. And for enforcing free knowledge in a global level, I personally this visa issue concern could be much more weighed, even more than the geographical rotation (as announced, even if we got rid of this category, the final result wouldn't be altered). Immigration policy is also a political concern, but it directly affects the conference and hinders our community members to share the knowledge with us the rest.
The rotation is still only one factor, and the United States is not the only country in the Americas.
I agree about the importance of the visa issue. Taiwan has done a good job of working around its political isolation. Egypt knows the value of tourism. As an organisation we have advanced much from the work of American wikipedians. But with such a self-contradictory assortment of American laws it is mostly their own citizens that are poorly served by government.
Ec
On Oct 10, 2007, at 3:55 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
I regret the concerns of the LGBT people, but sometimes it is simply not possible to adjust to all the interests of special interest groups.
That's the problem. LGBT people should not be viewed as a special interest group, but as people. Just like us, homogenous, no different.
-Dan
Well, the problem is not how WE see them. I have no special problem with people wearing glasses (I wear them myself), but in Red Khmer Cambodia that might have been a problem.
Anyway, on reading http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4302213,00.html
I noticed a few interesting paragraphs:
"23 men were sentenced to between one and five years' imprisonment for "debauchery" (since homosexuality itself is not illegal)."
And
"This began to change in Egypt with the arrival of the internet. Websites and email lists allowed previously isolated gays to make contact and tell each other about social events.
About the same time, the Egyptian police set up a special internet crimes unit. With internet use mainly confined to the country's law-abiding middle classes, there was little real work for them to do, but they needed to show results and spotted a few international dating sites where Egyptian men were seeking to meet other men."
Now... it's quite common for bureaucratic branches to find a reason for their existence AFTER they have been created. I wouldn't be surprised if fear to loose on tech-wage was much more relevant than GLBT-fobia, in this peculiar case.
Besides... "debauchery" has no special relations with GLBT, as far as I see. One can smoke a joint and be arrested in most countries under the same accusation. As an occasional hashish smoker I'd rather not have Wikimania in countries that cannot warranty my personal security, starting from the US and all European countries but Holland, obviously.
What I think is that they'll NEVER want a problem with top site N.9, something that might mean embassies, media, etc digging in the local police dirty laundry, get howled out by wikinews all over the planet and (mostly) turn away from them those radical opinions that are mostly favoring Islam in the West. Why? On the other hand, if you are a GLBT militant, you SHOULD go there and defend your rights.
Possibly a good solution would be in contacting the Egyptian Embassy and inform them of the problem. They either are ready to get us all "as we are" OR we move wikimania to Israel and use all the media we can get to explain why we do so... sometimes being direct helps a lot.
I still hope we'll go to Alexandria, though. Let alone marketing wikies and seeing a wonderful place, it's nice to tell those guys on the net there that they are not alone.
Berto 'd Sera Skype: berto.d.sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Dan Rosenthal Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 12:15 AM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimania-l] Wikimania 2008 will happenin Alexandria, Egypt
On Oct 10, 2007, at 3:55 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
I regret the concerns of the LGBT people, but sometimes it is simply not possible to adjust to all the interests of special interest groups.
That's the problem. LGBT people should not be viewed as a special interest group, but as people. Just like us, homogenous, no different.
-Dan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
LGBT people are normal people. We are not a special interest group. We form between 5 and 20% of the population, depending who you ask.
That is like saying:
"I regret the concerns of the black people, but..." "I regret the concerns of the women..." "I regret the concerns of the senior citizens..."
These are not special interest groups. These are wide sections of the human population. This is not as trivial as you are trying to make it sound. We will not accept such subhuman treatment.
Mark
On 10/10/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Muhammad Alsebaey wrote:
Hey Aude and George, thank you for voicing that opinion, it is exactly how I feel. Another point for everyone to consider: If Wikimania was restricted to being in USA and Western Europe, it's kind of a closed-membership club, people from Africa, the Middle east and various other places will have a hard time getting a visa there if they have a shot at that at all (I know that a US visa requires that you prove beyond doubt you have ties with your home country that will force you to come back after the conference, and that you have a considerable amount of money in your bank account, which is something hard to do for young people without established families.).
I think that many of us look forward to visiting Alexandria and, if we can make the time, the rest of Egypt. The press tends to blow the occasional criminal or terrorist incident completely out of proportion. The American media in particular attaches a far greater degree of tragedy to the one or two Americans that die in such incidents then the 200 local individuals who also perish. I do not attach a lot of importance to whether a country is "democratic"; that is not something to be decided by outsiders I regret the concerns of the LGBT people, but sometimes it is simply not possible to adjust to all the interests of special interest groups.
I did not hear of visa problems at Frankfurt, but it affected many people who would have liked to attend in Boston. AFAIK, unfortunately and ironically, the only people that were kept from Taipei because of visa issues were the Egyptians.
I expect that visa issues will continue to be a factor in choosing American hosts at least until after they have had a change of government.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 10/10/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
LGBT people are normal people. We are not a special interest group. We form between 5 and 20% of the population, depending who you ask.
That is like saying:
"I regret the concerns of the black people, but..." "I regret the concerns of the women..." "I regret the concerns of the senior citizens..."
These are not special interest groups. These are wide sections of the human population. This is not as trivial as you are trying to make it sound. We will not accept such subhuman treatment.
I'm sorry, I just don't believe there's any evidence on the table that Egyptian authorities care, or bother about, western tourists or visitors who happen to be LGBT. A single documented incident, in which the arrested party was released without trial, and no claims of abuse in prison or during arrest have been presented?
I don't want to subject LGBT Wikipedians to an abusive foreign government either... but I don't believe Egypt falls in that category. No evidence has been presented of any abuse of visitors. Gay magazines publish articles on travelling to Egypt (see for example http://www.advocate.com/travel_detail_ektid02481.asp online). People I know have gone there.
There is much unhappy murmuring and a tiny wisp of smoke. Crying "fire" in the theater and claiming that we must evacuate the site selection is unjustified by the evidence presented.
If you believe Egypt truly is significantly bad for visiting LGBT tourists, there should be ample evidence thereof available. In spite of my friends' and aquaintences personal ancedotal safe trips, I went looking for some evidence of risk when this thread started. I have not found anything of the sort. There's more documented foreign tourist gay bashing in San Francisco (fairly low actual rate, and abhored by the local population as a whole, but there's a persistent low-rate problem from homophobic fringeists) than I can find for Egypt.
Where is the actual evidence of any documented credible risk to LGBT tourists? Where are documentations of rumors of actual risk?
Put your cards on the table. Show us what's making you think that you have legitimate fears or risks.
George Herbert wrote:
If you believe Egypt truly is significantly bad for visiting LGBT tourists, there should be ample evidence thereof available. In spite of my friends' and aquaintences personal ancedotal safe trips, I went looking for some evidence of risk when this thread started. I have not found anything of the sort. There's more documented foreign tourist gay bashing in San Francisco (fairly low actual rate, and abhored by the local population as a whole, but there's a persistent low-rate problem from homophobic fringeists) than I can find for Egypt.
If you use official records, there's zero gay bashing in Iran. I wouldn't consider Egypt's records on GLBT issues accurate, either.
That's the quandary with record-keeping. The places with the most problems often have the worst records. Never mistake bad record keeping with the absence of a problem.
From: David Strauss
George Herbert wrote:
If you believe Egypt truly is significantly bad for visiting LGBT tourists, there should be ample evidence thereof available. In spite of my friends' and aquaintences personal ancedotal safe trips, I went looking for some evidence of risk when this thread started. I have not found anything of the sort. There's more documented foreign tourist gay bashing in San Francisco (fairly low actual rate, and abhored by the local population as a whole, but there's a persistent low-rate problem from homophobic fringeists) than I can find for Egypt.
If you use official records, there's zero gay bashing in Iran. I wouldn't consider Egypt's records on GLBT issues accurate, either.
That's the quandary with record-keeping. The places with the most problems often have the worst records. Never mistake bad record keeping with the absence of a problem.
When people asking for evidence, you said the evidence might not be accurate so you don't trust them.
Maybe the number is not accurate, but I believe it does represent the situation in Egypt.
I have many friends and colleagues travelled to Egypt for tourism and returned to Taiwan safely. Some of them are LGBT and they all have a good time in Egypt and wish to visit there again (although the travel expense might be a little high). I don't really see there is a problem.
From my understanding, the Egypt government is serious on the safety of foreign people because the Egypt economy is based on tourism. If any foreign people were been threatened or feel unsafe in their country, it would affect their economy a lot. Maybe what I know is wrong, but that's what I learnt from the Taiwan singer issue in Egypt this May.
Ted (Hsiang-Tai)
Ted (Hsiang-Tai) Chien wrote:
"From my understanding, the Egypt government is serious on the safety of foreign people because the Egypt economy is based on tourism. If any foreign people were been threatened or feel unsafe in their country, it would affect their economy a lot. Maybe what I know is wrong, but that's what I learnt from the Taiwan singer issue in Egypt this May."
Is this what you're referring to?
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/news/archives/taiwan/2007228/103436.htm
Hi,
From: Brian McNeil
Ted (Hsiang-Tai) Chien wrote:
"From my understanding, the Egypt government is serious on the safety of foreign people because the Egypt economy is based on tourism. If any
foreign
people were been threatened or feel unsafe in their country, it would
affect
their economy a lot. Maybe what I know is wrong, but that's what I learnt from the Taiwan singer issue in Egypt this May."
Is this what you're referring to?
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/news/archives/taiwan/2007228/103436.htm
Yes, that's the one (it seems I have bad memories on dates :P).
And on March 2 the MTV director confessed it's a fake gunpoint report due to some misunderstanding and the singer Stephaine helped to promote Egypt to Taiwan people after the Egypt travel agency made an announcement on the Internet to request for a correction on the media.
If you wish to read the announcement, you could download the PDF from here:
http://www.solarempiretravel.com/sunyanzi_story.pdf (it's in Chinese)
Ted (Hsiang-Tai)
Brian,
ROTFL You should read the articles until the end :)
"Sun experienced a similar episode in Taiwan seven years ago when a man charged onto the stage during her album signing event, firing a shot with a toy gun. Police later said the man had intended to kidnap her for ransom."
Do we also retroactively cancel last wikimania to protect people's safety?
Berto 'd Sera Skype: berto.d.sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Brian McNeil Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 11:22 AM To: 'Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List' Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimania-l] Wikimania 2008 will happeninAlexandria, Egypt
Ted (Hsiang-Tai) Chien wrote:
"From my understanding, the Egypt government is serious on the safety of foreign people because the Egypt economy is based on tourism. If any foreign people were been threatened or feel unsafe in their country, it would affect their economy a lot. Maybe what I know is wrong, but that's what I learnt from the Taiwan singer issue in Egypt this May."
Is this what you're referring to?
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/news/archives/taiwan/2007228/103436.htm
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
David Strauss wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
If you believe Egypt truly is significantly bad for visiting LGBT tourists, there should be ample evidence thereof available. In spite of my friends' and aquaintences personal ancedotal safe trips, I went looking for some evidence of risk when this thread started. I have not found anything of the sort. There's more documented foreign tourist gay bashing in San Francisco (fairly low actual rate, and abhored by the local population as a whole, but there's a persistent low-rate problem from homophobic fringeists) than I can find for Egypt.
If you use official records, there's zero gay bashing in Iran. I wouldn't consider Egypt's records on GLBT issues accurate, either.
Can I read that as a vote for moving Wikimania 2008 to Iran?
That's the quandary with record-keeping. The places with the most problems often have the worst records. Never mistake bad record keeping with the absence of a problem.
Not always; those Germans were meticulous record keepers.
While I can agree that there can be a strong correlation between poor human rights and poor record keeping, it is inappropriate to impute a causal relationsip between the two.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
If you use official records, there's zero gay bashing in Iran. I wouldn't consider Egypt's records on GLBT issues accurate, either.
Can I read that as a vote for moving Wikimania 2008 to Iran?
You should probably read it as some doubt about the authenticity of Iranian records in that area.
That's the quandary with record-keeping. The places with the most problems often have the worst records. Never mistake bad record keeping with the absence of a problem.
Not always; those Germans were meticulous record keepers.
They didn't consider the executions during WWII a problem; they considered them a "solution."
While I can agree that there can be a strong correlation between poor human rights and poor record keeping, it is inappropriate to impute a causal relationsip between the two.
I'm not claiming causality. I'm just claiming that a lack of records on something doesn't indicate the absence of something.
It's weird to say that, but "Godwin point" folks.
I think everyone understood what you to say. And juror now know, there's few you can do. It was an intersting discussion on the beginning but now... come on. It's over, you're no longer discussing, at best you're arguing and barely listening to each others.
In any country in the world we can find stuff to say. If we just take the finalist, we could say we don't want have it in South Africa because of the "race riot" they had, and we can't have it in US because of death penalty going against human rights.
At a moment there's a chice to make, you don't agree, ok. You explained why, ok again. You started a discussion, so this is a stronger criteria, once again ok. But now after hundreds of mail, you should move on :)
Have a nice day and week end ;)
On 12/10/2007, David Strauss david@fourkitchens.com wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
If you use official records, there's zero gay bashing in Iran. I wouldn't consider Egypt's records on GLBT issues accurate, either.
Can I read that as a vote for moving Wikimania 2008 to Iran?
You should probably read it as some doubt about the authenticity of Iranian records in that area.
That's the quandary with record-keeping. The places with the most problems often have the worst records. Never mistake bad record keeping with the absence of a problem.
Not always; those Germans were meticulous record keepers.
They didn't consider the executions during WWII a problem; they considered them a "solution."
While I can agree that there can be a strong correlation between poor human rights and poor record keeping, it is inappropriate to impute a causal relationsip between the two.
I'm not claiming causality. I'm just claiming that a lack of records on something doesn't indicate the absence of something.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 10/10/07, David Strauss david@fourkitchens.com wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
If you believe Egypt truly is significantly bad for visiting LGBT tourists, there should be ample evidence thereof available. In spite of my friends' and aquaintences personal ancedotal safe trips, I went looking for some evidence of risk when this thread started. I have not found anything of the sort. There's more documented foreign tourist gay bashing in San Francisco (fairly low actual rate, and abhored by the local population as a whole, but there's a persistent low-rate problem from homophobic fringeists) than I can find for Egypt.
If you use official records, there's zero gay bashing in Iran. I wouldn't consider Egypt's records on GLBT issues accurate, either.
That's the quandary with record-keeping. The places with the most problems often have the worst records. Never mistake bad record keeping with the absence of a problem.
Where did I mention official records?
I want you to point to western sources, *anything* that has actual "this happened to someone in Egypt" statements that justify your claim that there's a legit problem for LGBT visitors in Egypt.
There are myriad gay travel websites and blogs. As far as I can tell they have no specific warnings about Egypt. A number of them report on visits there... and nobody reports anything other than being a little wary of the situation.
If there's a legit threat you should be able to point me to someone out there in the west who has documented it. If there's a legit threat, I would expect to have found it already.
I believe you (and the documented reports, and stuff I've heard about and read about going back a number of years) about internal moderate oppression of LGBT in Egypt.
I do not believe you, *because you have provided zero documentation and I have found none elsewhere in my searches*, that Egypt's government or law enforcement present a general or specific threat to health and safety of LGBT visitors.
2007/10/11, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
I think that many of us look forward to visiting Alexandria and, if we can make the time, the rest of Egypt. The press tends to blow the occasional criminal or terrorist incident completely out of proportion. The American media in particular attaches a far greater degree of tragedy to the one or two Americans that die in such incidents then the 200 local individuals who also perish. I do not attach a lot of importance to whether a country is "democratic"; that is not something to be decided by outsiders I regret the concerns of the LGBT people, but sometimes it is simply not possible to adjust to all the interests of special interest groups.
I did not hear of visa problems at Frankfurt, but it affected many people who would have liked to attend in Boston. AFAIK, unfortunately and ironically, the only people that were kept from Taipei because of visa issues were the Egyptians.
For the record, in the process of organizing, the WM07 Taipei office dealt with visa issue very carefully. We tried our best to get visas to everyone who wanted to come to Taiwan. Our visa assistance was mainly provided for people from Bangladesh(1), Cape de Verde(1), People's Republic of China(8), Tajikistan(1), Russia(1), India (3), Venezuela(1), Chile(2), Serbia(1), Turkey(1), ect. In these cases, Bangladesh, Tajikistan and Russia attendees used visa on arrival, and others used application visas. And it is quite hard to apply visa document for PRC attendees, but we made it, while TzuChiang signed many Letter of Guarantee.
For our Egyptian friends, some of them applied for scholarship, and the scholarship committee decided to give 2 of them scholarships to come to Taipei. And we here prepared with letters of guarantee and also visa on arrival for our Egyptians friends. However, they finally gave up to come, and till today I haven't known the reason. :)
Regards, Titan
I expect that visa issues will continue to be a factor in choosing
American hosts at least until after they have had a change of government.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 10/10/2007, Aude audevivere@gmail.com wrote:
In this thread, I see people raising the issues regarding the Egyptian government. As we know, it's not a democracy and the Egyptian people did not choose the government. The government there is more repressive, but not so much so (like Burma) that we can't have Wikimania there. To penalize Egyptian Wikimedians (and those from Jordan and other nearby places), for what their government does is not cool with me.
Deciding to not hold Wikimania in a particular country is not penalisation of those who live there. People from that country would be free to attend Wikimania, where ever it is held.
At the same time, I know plenty of people from Europe, Canada, the Middle East and elsewhere in the world... I don't necessarily approve of things my government does, and it's important that they distinguish me (as an individual American), from what my government does (including providing enormous amounts of aid to the Egyptian government and other undemocratic regimes).
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0412/p07s01-wome.html http://www1.usaid.gov/our_work/features/egypt/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/12/AR2006061201...
Thinking about that, if you are not happy with repressive things the Egyptian government does, maybe it's time to write congress, ask questions of the U.S. presidential candidates, etc. about our policy of supporting such regimes.
http://www.house.gov/writerep/ http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
My objection to Egypt is more pragmatic than this. The fact that GLBT Wikimedians may be put in danger of arrest (and female Wikimedians in danger of harassment) by holding the conference in Egypt is enough to rule it out by my standards. This worry is particularly apparent if GLBT Wikimedians wish to attend the conference with their partners. Are two people of the same sex allowed to share double rooms in hotels in Egypt?
Prosecution of homosexuality in Egypt: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4302213,00.html
en.wikipedia's "LGBT rights in Egypt" article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Egypt) details arrests of gay tourists in Egypt.
On 10/10/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
en.wikipedia's "LGBT rights in Egypt" article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Egypt) details arrests of gay tourists in Egypt.
Details the arrest (and then release without criminal trial and deportation of) a singular Israeli gay tourist who apparently fell into one of the local gay chat room meetup government sting operations in Cairo.
I know a number of gay and lesbian individuals and couples who have travelled to Egypt and not encountered any problems. None of them tried to pick up locals, though.
I personally object to the decision of the jury and hope the location is changed and the decision overturned on the following basis:
Safety of conference participants, namely transgendered and transsexual individuals. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals are at a significantly lower level of risk.
The risk for T. individuals is so great that it would be totally unsafe for them to enter the country at all.
This is not a matter of boycotting a country because we disagree with its politics, this is a matter of not holding a conference in a country because we cannot ensure the safety of ALL participants.
Just because you are not transgendered or transsexual yourself does not mean it is not your responsibility to ensure that people who wish to participate who ARE are not as safe as possible.
Mark
On 10/10/2007, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/2007, Aude audevivere@gmail.com wrote:
In this thread, I see people raising the issues regarding the Egyptian government. As we know, it's not a democracy and the Egyptian people did not choose the government. The government there is more repressive, but not so much so (like Burma) that we can't have Wikimania there. To penalize Egyptian Wikimedians (and those from Jordan and other nearby places), for what their government does is not cool with me.
Deciding to not hold Wikimania in a particular country is not penalisation of those who live there. People from that country would be free to attend Wikimania, where ever it is held.
At the same time, I know plenty of people from Europe, Canada, the Middle East and elsewhere in the world... I don't necessarily approve of things my government does, and it's important that they distinguish me (as an individual American), from what my government does (including providing enormous amounts of aid to the Egyptian government and other undemocratic regimes).
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0412/p07s01-wome.html http://www1.usaid.gov/our_work/features/egypt/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/12/AR2006061201...
Thinking about that, if you are not happy with repressive things the Egyptian government does, maybe it's time to write congress, ask questions of the U.S. presidential candidates, etc. about our policy of supporting such regimes.
http://www.house.gov/writerep/ http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
My objection to Egypt is more pragmatic than this. The fact that GLBT Wikimedians may be put in danger of arrest (and female Wikimedians in danger of harassment) by holding the conference in Egypt is enough to rule it out by my standards. This worry is particularly apparent if GLBT Wikimedians wish to attend the conference with their partners. Are two people of the same sex allowed to share double rooms in hotels in Egypt?
Prosecution of homosexuality in Egypt: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4302213,00.html
en.wikipedia's "LGBT rights in Egypt" article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Egypt) details arrests of gay tourists in Egypt.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Mark Williamson wrote:
I personally object to the decision of the jury and hope the location is changed and the decision overturned on the following basis:
Safety of conference participants, namely transgendered and transsexual individuals. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals are at a significantly lower level of risk.
The risk for T. individuals is so great that it would be totally unsafe for them to enter the country at all.
This is not a matter of boycotting a country because we disagree with its politics, this is a matter of not holding a conference in a country because we cannot ensure the safety of ALL participants.
Just because you are not transgendered or transsexual yourself does not mean it is not your responsibility to ensure that people who wish to participate who ARE are not as safe as possible.
Bye bye my plans for a Wikimania in Bogotá. There is a very small risk, but certainly not null, that any people who want to participate would face unsafety conditions.
It was a nice idea, though.
-- Carlos Th
Carlos Thompson wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
I personally object to the decision of the jury and hope the location is changed and the decision overturned on the following basis:
Safety of conference participants, namely transgendered and transsexual individuals. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals are at a significantly lower level of risk.
The risk for T. individuals is so great that it would be totally unsafe for them to enter the country at all.
This is not a matter of boycotting a country because we disagree with its politics, this is a matter of not holding a conference in a country because we cannot ensure the safety of ALL participants.
Just because you are not transgendered or transsexual yourself does not mean it is not your responsibility to ensure that people who wish to participate who ARE are not as safe as possible.
Bye bye my plans for a Wikimania in Bogotá. There is a very small risk, but certainly not null, that any people who want to participate would face unsafety conditions.
It was a nice idea, though.
It also means no more wikimania in the United States as it has the highest murder rate in the world ..... higher than Bogota ;)
Waerth
On 10/10/07, Waerth waerth@asianet.co.th wrote:
Carlos Thompson wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
I personally object to the decision of the jury and hope the location is changed and the decision overturned on the following basis:
Safety of conference participants, namely transgendered and transsexual individuals. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals are at a significantly lower level of risk.
The risk for T. individuals is so great that it would be totally unsafe for them to enter the country at all.
This is not a matter of boycotting a country because we disagree with its politics, this is a matter of not holding a conference in a country because we cannot ensure the safety of ALL participants.
Just because you are not transgendered or transsexual yourself does not mean it is not your responsibility to ensure that people who wish to participate who ARE are not as safe as possible.
Bye bye my plans for a Wikimania in Bogotá. There is a very small risk, but certainly not null, that any people who want to participate would face unsafety conditions.
It was a nice idea, though.
It also means no more wikimania in the United States as it has the highest murder rate in the world ..... higher than Bogota ;)
That would make antartica a serious option ;) As far as I know, no murders last year on Antartica.
On 10/10/07, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/07, Waerth waerth@asianet.co.th wrote:
It also means no more wikimania in the United States as it has the highest murder rate in the world ..... higher than Bogota ;)
That would make antartica a serious option ;) As far as I know, no murders last year on Antartica.
But in Antarctica there's always the chance of being attacked by wild penguins, or having our lunch eaten by starving albatrosses. And you never know when a seal may drag you off an ice floe into the frigid waters...
There are dangers everywhere, and if people think they will be in danger they won't come. Those who are comfortable attending will attend. As many people can't make it to the USA for distance reasons as people who won't want to come to Egypt for safety reasons; no matter where we go some people will lose out. This is a yearly thing - if people feel unsafe in Egypt this year then they can wait until next year, and maybe it will be somewhere they feel less in danger.
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Ayelie wrote:
On 10/10/07, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/07, Waerth waerth@asianet.co.th wrote:
It also means no more wikimania in the United States as it has the highest murder rate in the world ..... higher than Bogota ;)
That would make antartica a serious option ;) As far as I know, no murders last year on Antartica.
no murders... of /people/.
But in Antarctica there's always the chance of being attacked by wild penguins, or having our lunch eaten by starving albatrosses. And you never know when a seal may drag you off an ice floe into the frigid waters...
or attack by companionship-starved lab techs...
SJ
On 10/10/07, SJ Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Ayelie wrote:
On 10/10/07, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/07, Waerth waerth@asianet.co.th wrote:
It also means no more wikimania in the United States as it has the highest murder rate in the world ..... higher than Bogota ;)
That would make antartica a serious option ;) As far as I know, no murders last year on Antartica.
no murders... of /people/.
But in Antarctica there's always the chance of being attacked by wild penguins, or having our lunch eaten by starving albatrosses. And you never know when a seal may drag you off an ice floe into the frigid waters...
or attack by companionship-starved lab techs...
SJ
One of my coworkers overwintered in Antarctica as a system administrator a few years ago.
He didn't have a problem, but they're apparently fairly common.
Ayelie wrote:
That would make antartica a serious option ;) As far as I know, no murders last year on Antartica.
But in Antarctica there's always the chance of being attacked by wild penguins, or having our lunch eaten by starving albatrosses. And you never know when a seal may drag you off an ice floe into the frigid waters...
Let's not forget that it's also cold and dark in Antarctica during July-August :) Cruccone
On 10/10/2007, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
Let's not forget that it's also cold and dark in Antarctica during July-August :) Cruccone
Reducing the risk of exposing wikipeidians direct sunlight is probably a plus.
geni wrote:
On 10/10/2007, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
Let's not forget that it's also cold and dark in Antarctica during July-August :)
Reducing the risk of exposing wikipeidians direct sunlight is probably a plus.
Absolutely! These are gnomes accustomed to living in dark cellars lit only by the light of a computer screen.
Ec
On 10/10/2007, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@gmail.com wrote:
That would make antartica a serious option ;) As far as I know, no murders last year on Antartica.
However we have both British and Argentinian editors. Given the disputed status of the territory may not be a good idea unless you want wiki wars to become a bit more literal.
So you're comparing an entire country to........a city in colombia? Does that seem right?
-Dan On Oct 10, 2007, at 4:03 PM, Waerth wrote:
It also means no more wikimania in the United States as it has the highest murder rate in the world ..... higher than Bogota ;)
He was joking. Bogota is an unofficial bid for Wikimania 2009, he means nothing real by it. Although he said murder *rate* not *count*.....
On 10/10/07, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
So you're comparing an entire country to........a city in colombia? Does that seem right?
-Dan On Oct 10, 2007, at 4:03 PM, Waerth wrote:
It also means no more wikimania in the United States as it has the highest murder rate in the world ..... higher than Bogota ;)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Bogota is not a country.
And forgive my language but you are talking out of your ass!
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
U.S. is clearly #24. Columbia ranks number one, and Bogotá is the capital of that country. I _personally_ am comfortable living in or travelling to a country as long as the murder rate is below 0.15/1000 people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate
Colombia is #3 (behind Venezuela and South Africa) due to some good hard work of local police forces since the other data, but US is still far behind the two.
In fact, if safety were our only concern... per-continent we should prefer these countries in this order:
(For Asia) Singapore UAE Hong Kong Qatar Bahrain Kuwait
(For Africa) Morocco Tunisia Algeria Mauritius Côte d'Ivoire Namibia
(For N. America) Bermuda Canada Dominica United States Costa Rica Barbados
(For S. America) Chile Bolivia Peru Uruguay Argentina Suriname
&c
Mark
On 10/10/2007, Waerth waerth@asianet.co.th wrote:
Carlos Thompson wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
I personally object to the decision of the jury and hope the location is changed and the decision overturned on the following basis:
Safety of conference participants, namely transgendered and transsexual individuals. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals are at a significantly lower level of risk.
The risk for T. individuals is so great that it would be totally unsafe for them to enter the country at all.
This is not a matter of boycotting a country because we disagree with its politics, this is a matter of not holding a conference in a country because we cannot ensure the safety of ALL participants.
Just because you are not transgendered or transsexual yourself does not mean it is not your responsibility to ensure that people who wish to participate who ARE are not as safe as possible.
Bye bye my plans for a Wikimania in Bogotá. There is a very small risk, but certainly not null, that any people who want to participate would face unsafety conditions.
It was a nice idea, though.
It also means no more wikimania in the United States as it has the highest murder rate in the world ..... higher than Bogota ;)
Waerth
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
hmm i see a lack of europe...
mark
On 10/10/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Bogota is not a country.
And forgive my language but you are talking out of your ass!
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
U.S. is clearly #24. Columbia ranks number one, and Bogotá is the capital of that country. I _personally_ am comfortable living in or travelling to a country as long as the murder rate is below 0.15/1000 people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate
Colombia is #3 (behind Venezuela and South Africa) due to some good hard work of local police forces since the other data, but US is still far behind the two.
In fact, if safety were our only concern... per-continent we should prefer these countries in this order:
(For Asia) Singapore UAE Hong Kong Qatar Bahrain Kuwait
(For Africa) Morocco Tunisia Algeria Mauritius Côte d'Ivoire Namibia
(For N. America) Bermuda Canada Dominica United States Costa Rica Barbados
(For S. America) Chile Bolivia Peru Uruguay Argentina Suriname
&c
Mark
On 10/10/2007, Waerth waerth@asianet.co.th wrote:
Carlos Thompson wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
I personally object to the decision of the jury and hope the location is changed and the decision overturned on the following basis:
Safety of conference participants, namely transgendered and transsexual individuals. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals are at a significantly lower level of risk.
The risk for T. individuals is so great that it would be totally unsafe for them to enter the country at all.
This is not a matter of boycotting a country because we disagree with its politics, this is a matter of not holding a conference in a country because we cannot ensure the safety of ALL participants.
Just because you are not transgendered or transsexual yourself does not mean it is not your responsibility to ensure that people who wish to participate who ARE are not as safe as possible.
Bye bye my plans for a Wikimania in Bogotá. There is a very small
risk, but
certainly not null, that any people who want to participate would face unsafety conditions.
It was a nice idea, though.
It also means no more wikimania in the United States as it has the highest murder rate in the world ..... higher than Bogota ;)
Waerth
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Mark Williamson wrote:
In fact, if safety were our only concern... per-continent we should prefer these countries in this order:
Low crime is not equivalent to safety. State-sanctioned or ignored acts of violence don't count in crime statistics.
It's not whether or not there is a risk; it's all about risk assessment.
We cannot minimize risks simply because it is to a certain group. Surely if all humans were at the same risk as transgendered individuals are, people would care more??
As far as I can tell, Bogotá is not the best place to hold a conference... Columbia is not what I would call "safe", but that is relative. It's not as if everybody who goes there dies... but then, more people who go there end up not coming back than, say, the Maldives or Fiji. I think political stability is an important factor in selecting a location, thus we won't have one in Myanmar (even if they would let us, which I sort of doubt) or Somalia, and it is less desirable to have one in Colombia than Costa Rica...
You may characterize the risk as very small, but it is all relative. I have never personally been to Colombia, but risk of violence against GLBTQ people is larger there than many other places. It may be "small" but not insignificant.
Mark
On 10/10/2007, Carlos Thompson chlewey@cable.net.co wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
I personally object to the decision of the jury and hope the location is changed and the decision overturned on the following basis:
Safety of conference participants, namely transgendered and transsexual individuals. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals are at a significantly lower level of risk.
The risk for T. individuals is so great that it would be totally unsafe for them to enter the country at all.
This is not a matter of boycotting a country because we disagree with its politics, this is a matter of not holding a conference in a country because we cannot ensure the safety of ALL participants.
Just because you are not transgendered or transsexual yourself does not mean it is not your responsibility to ensure that people who wish to participate who ARE are not as safe as possible.
Bye bye my plans for a Wikimania in Bogotá. There is a very small risk, but certainly not null, that any people who want to participate would face unsafety conditions.
It was a nice idea, though.
-- Carlos Th
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Mark Williamson wrote:
You may characterize the risk as very small, but it is all relative. I have never personally been to Colombia, but risk of violence against GLBTQ people is larger there than many other places. It may be "small" but not insignificant.
Risk target specifically to GLBT people is larger tan many other places, for example larger than Antarctica. Well, not sure, I do not have good statistics on Antarctica.
General risks in Bogotá (to LGBT and non-LGBT people) are a small concern, indeed, probably not insignificant, but actually no larger than any other similar sized city in Latin America or the United States.
There is also the risk that a Wikimedian might believe that getting drugs is cheap and easy and then discover and unpleasant surprise.
Despite the existence of a 40 year old guerrilla groups, political stability is also larger than other Latin American countries. But there are these 40 year old guerrilla groups, which is a safety concern. I might claim that it is a small concern, as they have never targetted international events held in Colombia and there are not clues to think they might do an exception with an event as Wikimania.
An then: Bogotá is earthquake country. Completely safe from Tsunamis and Hurricans, though.
Risks exist everywhere. Some risks are higher in Bogotá than in Denver or Chicago. Some are not, but might be biased by perception and anecdotical evidence. If the event is held in Bogotá, chances are very high that every Wikimedia participant from abroad will return home safe and sund regardless of religion, political views or sexual orientation. I am pretty sure this also holds for Alexandria.
-- Carlos Th
On 10/10/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I personally object to the decision of the jury and hope the location is changed and the decision overturned on the following basis:
Safety of conference participants, namely transgendered and transsexual individuals. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals are at a significantly lower level of risk.
The risk for T. individuals is so great that it would be totally unsafe for them to enter the country at all.
This is not a matter of boycotting a country because we disagree with its politics, this is a matter of not holding a conference in a country because we cannot ensure the safety of ALL participants.
Just because you are not transgendered or transsexual yourself does not mean it is not your responsibility to ensure that people who wish to participate who ARE are not as safe as possible.
Mark
I think what you read about in the media are extreme incidents, but not the norm. Foreigners, including LGBT, are generally not bothered in Egypt.
I remember when I have traveled overseas, as well as when I used to live outside the U.S., I heard on the television and in the newspapers about the U.S. I heard about the Virginia Tech massacre, some years ago I heard about the Beltway sniper attacks all over the news, and other such incidents. I even remember during the Beltway sniper attacks, some foreign governments issued travel advisories against travel in the U.S., like the State Department does for some places. And I heard a great deal about the case of Maher Arar. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar
If I only listen to the media, it sounds like the U.S. is a horribly dangerous place. In reality, those are rare cases, and encourage people to come and visit!
Likewise, I think people, including LGBT, will feel safe in Egypt.
-Aude
Can you guarantee the safety of a male-to-female pre-op transsexual in Alexandria or Cairo?
Mark
On 10/10/2007, Aude audevivere@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I personally object to the decision of the jury and hope the location is changed and the decision overturned on the following basis:
Safety of conference participants, namely transgendered and transsexual individuals. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals are at a significantly lower level of risk.
The risk for T. individuals is so great that it would be totally unsafe for them to enter the country at all.
This is not a matter of boycotting a country because we disagree with its politics, this is a matter of not holding a conference in a country because we cannot ensure the safety of ALL participants.
Just because you are not transgendered or transsexual yourself does not mean it is not your responsibility to ensure that people who wish to participate who ARE are not as safe as possible.
Mark
I think what you read about in the media are extreme incidents, but not the norm. Foreigners, including LGBT, are generally not bothered in Egypt.
I remember when I have traveled overseas, as well as when I used to live outside the U.S., I heard on the television and in the newspapers about the U.S. I heard about the Virginia Tech massacre, some years ago I heard about the Beltway sniper attacks all over the news, and other such incidents. I even remember during the Beltway sniper attacks, some foreign governments issued travel advisories against travel in the U.S., like the State Department does for some places. And I heard a great deal about the case of Maher Arar. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar
If I only listen to the media, it sounds like the U.S. is a horribly dangerous place. In reality, those are rare cases, and encourage people to come and visit!
Likewise, I think people, including LGBT, will feel safe in Egypt.
-Aude _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 10/10/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Can you guarantee the safety of a male-to-female pre-op transsexual in Alexandria or Cairo?
Can you guarantee the safety of anyone anywhere?
Mark Williamson wrote:
Can you guarantee the safety of a male-to-female pre-op transsexual in Alexandria or Cairo?
Do you have any data about the number who would otherwise want to attend Wikimania at an equivalent distance from home and expense? ... or is this just a made-up problem?
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
Can you guarantee the safety of a male-to-female pre-op transsexual in Alexandria or Cairo?
Do you have any data about the number who would otherwise want to attend Wikimania at an equivalent distance from home and expense? ... or is this just a made-up problem?
It's quite demeaning to ask people who face discrimination to stand up and be counted. It's objectifying, and it's not acceptable to allow discrimination even in the presumed absence of the target group. Often, a target group will silently watch and exclude itself once it discovers that the reluctance to accommodate its needs is being discussed.
For example, someone might object to having a Confederate flag at a party. If the response is asking, "Are there going to be black people?" then it's more likely that black people considering coming to the party will simply not come rather than object and come to an event where their interests are clearly second-class.
It's probably clear by this point that I'm not a utilitarian. :-)
Hoi, Make a distinction. I have never seen a "confederate flag" at any of the Wikimanias. So at the event everyone is very much welcome. The aim of a Wikimania is to bring people from all over the world together to talk wiki, wiki in any shape or form. It is a Wikimedia Foundation event so it is very much MediaWiki and WMF projects that is on the agenda.
The aim of the Wikimedia Foundation is to bring information to the world. This means all of the world, not just those parts of the world where Western people feel comfortable. Bringing free npov information to the world is what we aim to achieve by going to all parts of the world. From an organisation's point of view all the reset is secondary.
Yes, it is best if everyone feels comfortable in coming to a Wikimania. When Wikimania goes to the Middle East, it has not gone to Africa proper. When Anthere says in her speech that Africa should be on our agenda, it is a step towards Africa. We do not talk explicitly about many things. The reason is imho simple; it is not what we are there for. This is what others deal with.
I am unhappy that people find that they are unable to go to Egypt. I am extremely unhappy that this discussion is happening after a decision; a decision that has been made and is final. What upsets me greatly is that the quality of the arguments about this issue, particularly about how foreigners are treated in Egypt, is of such a quality that the argument would be likely deleted in Wikipedia. We are talking largely about hearsay and the arguments of there not being a problem are at least as strong and better documented.
Thanks, GerardM
On 10/12/07, David Strauss david@fourkitchens.com wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
Can you guarantee the safety of a male-to-female pre-op transsexual in Alexandria or Cairo?
Do you have any data about the number who would otherwise want to attend Wikimania at an equivalent distance from home and expense? ... or is this just a made-up problem?
It's quite demeaning to ask people who face discrimination to stand up and be counted. It's objectifying, and it's not acceptable to allow discrimination even in the presumed absence of the target group. Often, a target group will silently watch and exclude itself once it discovers that the reluctance to accommodate its needs is being discussed.
For example, someone might object to having a Confederate flag at a party. If the response is asking, "Are there going to be black people?" then it's more likely that black people considering coming to the party will simply not come rather than object and come to an event where their interests are clearly second-class.
It's probably clear by this point that I'm not a utilitarian. :-)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, Another beautiful proclamation from GerardM that is as nonsequiter and irrelevant as it is asinine. On Oct 12, 2007, at 5:16 AM, GerardM wrote:
Hoi, Make a distinction. I have never seen a "confederate flag" at any of the Wikimanias. So at the event everyone is very much welcome.
Nobody ever said there was. Why hello Mr. Strawman?
The aim of a Wikimania is to bring people from all over the world together to talk wiki, wiki in any shape or form. It is a Wikimedia Foundation event so it is very much MediaWiki and WMF projects that is on the agenda.
They can't do that from jail, or from a hospital can they?
The aim of the Wikimedia Foundation is to bring information to the world. This means all of the world, not just those parts of the world where Western people feel comfortable. Bringing free npov information to the world is what we aim to achieve by going to all parts of the world. From an organisation's point of view all the reset is secondary.
So it's the message, rather than the convention attendees' safety, that is the priority? I'm sure the WMF doesn't agree with that. Please don't imply that is the way that they think.
Yes, it is best if everyone feels comfortable in coming to a Wikimania. When Wikimania goes to the Middle East, it has not gone to Africa proper. When Anthere says in her speech that Africa should be on our agenda, it is a step towards Africa. We do not talk explicitly about many things. The reason is imho simple; it is not what we are there for. This is what others deal with.
It is not a matter of whether women and gays feel comfortable there. It's a matter of whether they can be safe there and not imprisoned, harassed, or assaulted.
I am unhappy that people find that they are unable to go to Egypt. I am extremely unhappy that this discussion is happening after a decision; a decision that has been made and is final.
Apparently you missed the part of where people are upset about the way the decision was made. Also, please note that several people addressed the safety and LGBT concerns DURING the bid process and were told that they were trolling, or told to stop asking questions. In one case, instead of responding to a direct question about Alexandria's safety concerns, their bid team completely ignored the subject and instead attacked Atlanta. The fact that this whole argument was never even given due weight is why we are bringing it up.
What upsets me greatly is that the quality of the arguments about this issue, particularly about how foreigners are treated in Egypt, is of such a quality that the argument would be likely deleted in Wikipedia. We are talking largely about hearsay and the arguments of there not being a problem are at least as strong and better documented.
Bullshit. We've sourced our arguments with valid sources. I believe I sent out an email with 5 or 6 of them, a few days ago. If you choose to ignore them that is your choice; do not deign to look down upon us mortals and call us silly little trolls.
Thanks, GerardM
Thanks,
Dan
GerardM wrote:
Hoi, Make a distinction. I have never seen a "confederate flag" at any of the Wikimanias. So at the event everyone is very much welcome. The aim of a Wikimania is to bring people from all over the world together to talk wiki, wiki in any shape or form. It is a Wikimedia Foundation event so it is very much MediaWiki and WMF projects that is on the agenda.
The confederate flag issue is meaningless to most of us who do not live in the USA.
Yes, it is best if everyone feels comfortable in coming to a Wikimania. When Wikimania goes to the Middle East, it has not gone to Africa proper. When Anthere says in her speech that Africa should be on our agenda, it is a step towards Africa. We do not talk explicitly about many things. The reason is imho simple; it is not what we are there for. This is what others deal with.
The difficulty with a Wikimania in "Africa proper" could be the lack of high-speed internet. My observation from previous Wikimanias is that a significant portion of Wikipedians wander about wedded to their laptops. Imagine the neurotic behaviour of all these Wikipedians pacing the floor when they are unable to access The Net. :'(
Ec
on 10/12/07 5:01 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
GerardM wrote:
Hoi, Make a distinction. I have never seen a "confederate flag" at any of the Wikimanias. So at the event everyone is very much welcome. The aim of a Wikimania is to bring people from all over the world together to talk wiki, wiki in any shape or form. It is a Wikimedia Foundation event so it is very much MediaWiki and WMF projects that is on the agenda.
The confederate flag issue is meaningless to most of us who do not live in the USA.
Yes, it is best if everyone feels comfortable in coming to a Wikimania. When Wikimania goes to the Middle East, it has not gone to Africa proper. When Anthere says in her speech that Africa should be on our agenda, it is a step towards Africa. We do not talk explicitly about many things. The reason is imho simple; it is not what we are there for. This is what others deal with.
The difficulty with a Wikimania in "Africa proper" could be the lack of high-speed internet. My observation from previous Wikimanias is that a significant portion of Wikipedians wander about wedded to their laptops. Imagine the neurotic behaviour of all these Wikipedians pacing the floor when they are unable to access The Net. :'(
Ec
A "shrink's" nirvana. :-)
Marc
David Strauss wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
Can you guarantee the safety of a male-to-female pre-op transsexual in Alexandria or Cairo?
Do you have any data about the number who would otherwise want to attend Wikimania at an equivalent distance from home and expense? ... or is this just a made-up problem?
It's quite demeaning to ask people who face discrimination to stand up and be counted. It's objectifying, and it's not acceptable to allow discrimination even in the presumed absence of the target group. Often, a target group will silently watch and exclude itself once it discovers that the reluctance to accommodate its needs is being discussed.
I'm certainly not expecting specific individuals to be identified. It's still important to know whether we are dealing with a statistically significant minority. If the combined incidence of being transexual or transgendered is only 1 in 2000, and the normal attendance at Wikimania is 500 then we can expect such a person to attend once in every four years. Similarly, when a child has peanut allergies schools need to accommodate this, but don't need to do anything about this when the problem doesn't exist We can imagine all sorts of special groups which could require special consideration, but at some point the cost effectiveness of all these extraordinary steps needs to be taken into account.
For example, someone might object to having a Confederate flag at a party. If the response is asking, "Are there going to be black people?" then it's more likely that black people considering coming to the party will simply not come rather than object and come to an event where their interests are clearly second-class.
The incidence of blacks in the general population is much higher.
It's probably clear by this point that I'm not a utilitarian. :-)
Indeed.
Ec
Hoi, I have looked up LGBT.. great those four letter acronyms.. with the TLD's and add languages and you have a nice muddle. Thanks, GerardM
On 10/10/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/2007, Aude audevivere@gmail.com wrote:
In this thread, I see people raising the issues regarding the Egyptian government. As we know, it's not a democracy and the Egyptian people
did
not choose the government. The government there is more repressive, but
not
so much so (like Burma) that we can't have Wikimania there. To penalize Egyptian Wikimedians (and those from Jordan and other nearby places),
for
what their government does is not cool with me.
Deciding to not hold Wikimania in a particular country is not penalisation of those who live there. People from that country would be free to attend Wikimania, where ever it is held.
At the same time, I know plenty of people from Europe, Canada, the
Middle
East and elsewhere in the world... I don't necessarily approve of things
my
government does, and it's important that they distinguish me (as an individual American), from what my government does (including providing enormous amounts of aid to the Egyptian government and other
undemocratic
regimes).
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0412/p07s01-wome.html http://www1.usaid.gov/our_work/features/egypt/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/12/AR2006061201...
Thinking about that, if you are not happy with repressive things the Egyptian government does, maybe it's time to write congress, ask
questions
of the U.S. presidential candidates, etc. about our policy of supporting such regimes.
http://www.house.gov/writerep/ http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
My objection to Egypt is more pragmatic than this. The fact that GLBT Wikimedians may be put in danger of arrest (and female Wikimedians in danger of harassment) by holding the conference in Egypt is enough to rule it out by my standards. This worry is particularly apparent if GLBT Wikimedians wish to attend the conference with their partners. Are two people of the same sex allowed to share double rooms in hotels in Egypt?
Prosecution of homosexuality in Egypt: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4302213,00.html
en.wikipedia's "LGBT rights in Egypt" article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Egypt) details arrests of gay tourists in Egypt.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
phoebe ayers wrote:
For many attendees I've talked to at the last three conferences, rotation was indeed by far the biggest concern for them; however the jury also chose to consider a holistic set of criteria.
Rotation is indeed important, but previous candidate cities haven't had significant human rights issues.
I could suggest holding Wikimedia on the moon. It would not be an appropriate response that attendees didn't cite presence of oxygen as an important concern at previous conventions.
On 10/9/07, David Strauss david@fourkitchens.com wrote:
phoebe ayers wrote:
For many attendees I've talked to at the last three conferences, rotation was indeed by far the biggest concern for them; however the jury also chose to consider a holistic set of criteria.
Rotation is indeed important, but previous candidate cities haven't had significant human rights issues.
I could suggest holding Wikimedia on the moon. It would not be an appropriate response that attendees didn't cite presence of oxygen as an important concern at previous conventions.
The human-rights and safety related issues were raised by some people the last time Egypt was in the running in any case.
Human rights is a global problem.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/Our_Issues/By_Country/page.do?id=1041024&n1=3&...
You've got to pick your battles. Persecution of those in the GLBT community is not going to stop in Egypt if we boycott holding Wikimania there because of it. While it's possible to go and rank each country by some factor of abuses, it's more reasonable, and beneficial to the Wikimedia Foundation, to multiply out the common denominator (the worst possible cases notwithstanding). If anything, Egypt needs Wikimania to be there to facilitate the spread of information in order to counter these deeply rooted biases. If you really want to spread information somewhere, the best possible way is a physical presence.
On 10/9/07, David Strauss david@fourkitchens.com wrote:
phoebe ayers wrote:
On 10/9/07, David Strauss david@fourkitchens.com wrote:
Cary Bass wrote:
The Jury for Wikimania 2008 bids have met and are pleased to announce that Wikimania 2008 will be held in Alexandria, Egypt.
I'm offended that the desire to have Wikimania hop around the globe (rotation) trumps the egregious history Egypt has with LGBT and other civil rights (local laws). While visitors to Egypt are certainly not at the same risk, I refuse to spend any money in a country that -- as recently as 2004 -- sentenced someone to 17 years of prison and two years of hard labor for posting a personal ad on a gay website[1]. A blogger was imprisoned in 2007 for four years for "insulting Islam and defaming the President of Egypt."[2] Jimmy Wales even attended the Amnesty conference denouncing the censorship. No legal or cultural reforms since give me confidence that the situation has improved.
Wikimedia and its projects have an abundance of people from
marginalized
groups and political advocacy organizations participating at every level. A place that persecutes, censors, and prosecutes such groups under the banner of snuffing out "Satanism" is not a location that affirms the pluralism and intellectual freedom of Wikimedia.
People raised these objections early in the bidding process, but I have
As a jury member, I do not remember any comments from you on this subject, David; perhaps I missed them. At any rate, what are you trying to accomplish by sending this message after the winner was announced, and not before when we were discussing the bids?
Other people raised these objections during the bidding process; I didn't have to. Even if no one had brought the issue up, everyone on the voting team should have been aware enough of the problems to them under consideration without further prompting.
I thought it was a foregone conclusion that Egypt's human rights record would cripple the bid enough that it wouldn't win.
Wikimania and Wikimedia are both global in scope, which means that while we can condemn censorship and loss of human rights everywhere
So the "condemnation" amounts to docking a modest number of points for "local laws"?
we must also take into account a global range of values.
What is this supposed to mean? How can we balance condemnation with toleration?
Our projects focus specifically on free knowledge, and I expect that will be highlighted at the conference.
Even putting gay rights aside, Egypt's record of imprisoning political and religious dissidents is directly counter to affirming "free knowledge."
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Brian wrote:
Human rights is a global problem.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/Our_Issues/By_Country/page.do?id=1041024&n1=3&...
Your link, on Egypt: "Amnesty International has long-standing concerns on systematic torture, deaths of prisoners in custody, unfair trials, arrests of prisoners of conscience for their political and religious beliefs or for their sexual orientation, wide use of administrative detention and long-term detention without trial and use of the death penalty. In addition, AI is concerned that armed opposition groups have renewed attacks on civilians after several years of quiet."
"The country has been in a State of Emergency since 1981, and despite minor reforms, State of Emergency legislation continues to give the government significant powers to use special courts, detain political prisoners and limit speech."
Failure to recognize the scale of abuse is tantamount to a sex educator saying condoms are pointless because everything they can help to prevent can still potentially happen with their use.
You've got to pick your battles. Persecution of those in the GLBT community is not going to stop in Egypt if we boycott holding Wikimania there because of it.
Yes, but it does have an impact to tell a community that many tens of thousands of U.S. dollars (or equivalent) will not come because of their country's human rights record. That money can go to a community that supports our values.
While it's possible to go and rank each country by some factor of abuses, it's more reasonable, and beneficial to the Wikimedia Foundation, to multiply out the common denominator (the worst possible cases notwithstanding). If anything, Egypt needs Wikimania to be there to facilitate the spread of information in order to counter these deeply rooted biases. If you really want to spread information somewhere, the best possible way is a physical presence.
How is an insular, primarily English-speaking convention going to do that?
Brian wrote:
If anything, Egypt needs Wikimania to be there to facilitate the spread of information in order to counter these deeply rooted biases. If you really want to spread information somewhere, the best possible way is a physical presence.
In honor of David's concerns, I have decided to make the title of my own talk at Wikimania 2008 "Free knowledge and human rights" and I will use this opportunity to speak out against censorship and other violations of human rights around the world, including examples from Egypt.
--Jimbo
Cool Jimbo! looking forward to that talk!
And looking forward to seeing everybody in Alexandria :) !
On 10/9/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Brian wrote:
If anything, Egypt needs Wikimania to be there to facilitate the spread of information in order to counter these deeply
rooted
biases. If you really want to spread information somewhere, the best possible way is a physical presence.
In honor of David's concerns, I have decided to make the title of my own talk at Wikimania 2008 "Free knowledge and human rights" and I will use this opportunity to speak out against censorship and other violations of human rights around the world, including examples from Egypt.
--Jimbo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, Oct 9, 2007 at 2:33 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Brian wrote:
If anything, Egypt needs Wikimania to be there to facilitate the spread of information in order to counter these deeply
rooted
biases. If you really want to spread information somewhere, the best possible way is a physical presence.
In honor of David's concerns, I have decided to make the title of my own talk at Wikimania 2008 "Free knowledge and human rights" and I will use this opportunity to speak out against censorship and other violations of human rights around the world, including examples from Egypt.
--Jimbo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Thanks for the original insight, Brian.
On 06/03/2008, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
On Tue, Oct 9, 2007 at 2:33 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Brian wrote:
If anything, Egypt needs Wikimania to be there to facilitate the spread of information in order to counter these deeply
rooted
biases. If you really want to spread information somewhere, the best possible way is a physical presence.
In honor of David's concerns, I have decided to make the title of my own talk at Wikimania 2008 "Free knowledge and human rights" and I will use this opportunity to speak out against censorship and other violations of human rights around the world, including examples from Egypt.
--Jimbo
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 10/9/07, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
Human rights is a global problem.
That was my thought. Maybe the USA is more protective of gay rights than some other places, but you can still go to jail for a long time for possession of Viagra without a prescription, or for placing a wager over the telephone, or for growing medical marijuana in your closet.
By the way, does anyone have a better source for the story about the kid who got the 17-year sentence? A passing reference in "Gay Times" isn't what I'd consider a neutral reliable source.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org