Talk:Safe Space Policy

From Wikimedia UK
(Redirected from Talk:Participation policy)
Jump to: navigation, search

Discrimination at events[edit source]

There may be situations where there may be positive discrimination at events if places are limited. For example a Women Wikimedians conference or a Silver Surfer event. To say there can be no discrimination may not be strictly possible or desirable. -- 11:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point. At the Girl Geek Dinner events which are co-run by WMUK, the attendance policy is set by GGD. In Bristol that means that men can only attend at the invitation of a female member. In Manchester I think the dinners are women-only. We shouldn't have a policy that discourages us from working with these groups. I don't think the policy should include discrimination in terms attendance: discrimination in how people are treated is the core point. This is one reason I prefer "Friendly space policy" over "Participation policy". MartinPoulter 18:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


An 'except where events are arranged for specific group' amendment should do. Do we have a bridge that Trolls can hide under?
The follow on will be making up some sort of procedure but should not be too hard. Jon Davies WMUK 15:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Have you read the footnote - do you think that works? The Land 15:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
That could cover it.Jon Davies WMUK 11:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest something more precise that makes it clear that the chapter will actively discriminate on grounds of protected characteristics when it is necessary for the event to have the intended result. Something like Girl Geeks is more than just giving women preference if the event is oversubscribed. The event is specifically advertised and run in a way that is discriminatory, because the intended purpose requires it. --Tango 13:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Privacy intrusion[edit source]

"Persistent intrusion into the privacy of people who choose to participate in Wikimedia UK activities under their Wikimedia username or other pseudonym" - how about the privacy of those who participate under their real-name, or whose username/pseudonym is a convenient derivative thereof? Deryck Chan 11:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your question considering we do respect pseudonyms at events as you well know. Perhaps you could make a specific point or if you are looking for general chat about pseudonyms, perhaps you can raise it as a discussion topic at the Water cooler? -- 13:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Deryck is pointing out that people that are open about their real names can still have their privacy intruded into. There is more to invasion of privacy than just outing people's real names. --Tango 13:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
You may want to suggest some wording so that such scenarios are not seen as excluded. -- 14:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Just remove the restriction from quoted sentence - just have it say "people who participate in Wikimedia UK activities". --Tango 14:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Done. -- 15:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Refine bit about images[edit source]

I have reworded "sexual images" to "inappropriate sexual or distressing images in public spaces". The word "sexual" is ambiguous, images relating to sexuality may be appropriate and indeed an explicit sexual image such as a photograph of the Warren Cup or a painting depicting the Rape of the Sabine Women may be appropriate for a presentation relating to these cultural topics, or for an audience discussing sexual education, but would be highly inappropriate as more general discussion images in a school or other forum where (for example) children under 13 years old were taking part. There may also be images that are not sexual but may themselves be highly problematic and lead to complaints if presented insensitively, for example photographs including dead bodies or First World War propaganda images which may include racist depictions and the Nazi swastika. In the latter case presenting such images in some European countries may even be unlawful.

I can not see much benefit in covering infinite variations in the policy, so the wording here should reflect our values in that we never wish to arbitrarily censor, or make it impossible to give a surprising or enlightening presentation, but we also want to limit the possibility for anyone to feel harassed if insensitively or inappropriately presented with distressing images. -- (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)