Policy talk:Human Rights Policy

From the Wikimedia Foundation Governance Wiki

Translation tagging mistake

Around T:16 the header and the paragraph should be separated. --Base (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Base: Thank you for letting us know! --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GVarnum-WMF: Please deactive the translation of the page title, translation of the page title in combination with DISPLAYTITLE gives an error at Policy:Human Rights Policy/de. Thanks, --Ameisenigel (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ameisenigel: I was not aware of that issue - that is a strange bug. Thank you - I will go ahead and fix that. By chance, do you know if that issue has been reported on Phabricator? --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have not found a related phabricator task. --Ameisenigel (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ameisenigel: I am trying to reproduce to report on Phabricator. Can you verify if you are seeing the error on either of these pages?
Thank you! -- Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 07:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GVarnum-WMF: No error so far, but this could be because you have translated the page title and DISPLAYTITLE with the same word. If I translate a page, I would in general keep the namespace prefix and then we would have an error, I think. --Ameisenigel (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ameisenigel: Ah yes - now I think I see the error you are describing. I have filed a Phabricator ticket. Feel free to add more there or let me know via here if you have things you would like added but would rather not do so directly. Thank you again for pointing it out - very strange indeed. -- Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GVarnum-WMF: Could you seperate the header and paragraph around T:42 as well? --Ameisenigel (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response Times/Detail


I just sent in a set of questions by email to the two emails named, but was wanting to confirm I'd have an answer to each of those (not just the email as a whole) within 3 working days.

Also, taking a look at some of the emails through wikimedia-L, there seems to be an issue with staff needing to go and gather answers on why various things were included, or only providing answers to some of the questions. I'm confused on why the first is taking any time at all...surely you should have an extremely good knowledge, readily accessible, on why anything was included in a global policy?


Nosebagbear (talk) 09:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GVarnum-WMF: - I was wondering if we had an updated deadline on both these specific questions, and the myriad other questions (both process and substantive) asked in the Wikimedia-l thread, getting answered? We're now about 7 weeks after the queries were original raised, and given the unhappiness that it was imposed, without notice, without community-wide review and consultation, this needs significant exposure and discussion.
As a secondary aspect, could this be mirrored back onto meta? We do so for some of the other core policies, and the community is less likely to discuss it on Foundation than on meta. (Please ping on response, as I don't check Foundation wiki watchlist) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nosebagbear - The Global Advocacy and Human Rights teams will be participating in an upcoming Conversation Hour with the Board of Trustees on 17 February. We'll be getting the word out on this more today and tomorrow. We're hoping to reach as many community members as possible in this forum to discuss the policy and any additional questions the community may have. Before this forum, however, we'll be publishing an updated FAQ to address the questions you and others have raised. We understand it's been some time since you reached out, and our leadership has replied in Wikimedia-l previously. Please understand that, on our end, we do want to engage with you and the rest of the community on this important policy, but we are humans too. We're juggling many demands amid the challenges COVID is having on us all. We hope you'll be able to join us on 17 February and to provide input on how the Foundation and the Board of Trustees can continue to engage the community in the coming months and year. RGaines (WMF) (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

s/Governance wiki/WMF Governance wiki/

It's confusing to nickname this wiki "governance wiki" – for instance in the FAQ – if it's exclusively about WMF policies. Perhaps "WMF Governance wiki"? That also would continue to work with the wmf: shorthand for interproject links. SJ + 23:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sj: We are trying (trying being the key word) to move away from using "WMF" (except in usernames and code - as you just cannot solve the issue reasonably well everywhere...yet) as it does not translate well, is used in trademarks we do not control, is a barrier to entry for new people, is not as widely known as those of us on the inside think, promotes EuroUS language concepts, and invites a slew of other acronyms (TWF comes up increasingly often). I mention that for context of those curious - not to beat the topic down. What about "Foundation Governance Wiki"? I think most of the code has been updated to "Wikimedia Foundation Governance Wiki" for what it is worth. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting! 'Foundation' is a fine qualifier, this is f.wm.org after all. SJ + 04:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - I will work on updating our documentation to utilize that instead. However, I should note that as you well know - what we request of 600+ people and what they actually implement on daily basis out of unintentional habits starts at a wide gap. Thank you for helping talk this through! --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

linkfix in FAQ

Hi, Could some fix the link in Policy:Human Rights Policy/Frequently asked questions from Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Provide_for_Safety_and_Inclusion to m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Provide_for_Safety_and_Inclusion? --Ameisenigel (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe @GVarnum-WMF: can help. --Ameisenigel (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]



I'm writing in response to the FAQs published on the 3rd Feb and the small further coverage(s) included within the CAC talk.

  1. Why was this policy not shared more broadly before its approval?
    This indicated that no consultation could be done because of the need to fit it in by the December deadline, but that doesn't indicate why no on-wiki consultation could be done, only limited.
  2. Why was this policy not shared more broadly before its approval?
    Even assuming (for this q) that no consultation was possible, would it not have been possible to state the creation of the policy and that consultation wouldn't be viable from the off? I'm struggling to see why the first warning we had that something was coming down the pipeline was its creation.
  3. Why was the first conversation hour scheduled with one day notice?
    Could the conversation hour not have been published as "provisional, pending a successful BOT resolution" and thus announced further in advance? If not, why not?
  4. How will you involve the movement in shaping how this policy will be implemented?
    Assuming the community routes are now fully operational since it's now February, I feel that they still are not being pushed broadly enough - they need to be on the village pump equivalents for at least the ten largest communities, preferably more, the front page of meta, notice to SWAN, and more.
  5. If implementation will take years, surely that demonstrates that the community could have been consulted?
    Any reasonable organization had the funding capacity for in-progress activities and conditional programmes, so since it will apparently take years for actual execution to playout, then surely we could have been consulted. A say in implementation =/= a say in the policy text.
  6. Real-time/Alternate
    The bit regarding January timings suggested real-time comms would be in place so I'm hoping these questions can be answered prior to the next quarter (although that would probably work for FAQ update(s)), many thanks in advance Nosebagbear (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ancillary - please ping on any response, as otherwise it's easy to miss it on foundationwiki Nosebagbear (talk)
  • Hi NBB, I can't answer any of these things (though I think one could make good educated guesses). But I also don't think it's helpful to ride this particular hobby horse too far.
    We have a first pass at such a policy, it seems fine. If there are issues or improvements: we can suggest them.
    It's always good to have more notice (within reason!), but we seem to be falling into the opposite trap, where there's an official "communications playbook" that is handled by "communications staff" and that makes people shy about simply doing their work publicly as possible. That's the worst of all worlds.
    I would prefer to see less spam of dozens of community fora. The spamming approach doesn't reach many people, but it does make forums of even modestly-sized wikis unusable, and again raises the bar to just working in public, pinging specific people or communities affected where appropriate. An invite to work together on specific things that relate to and affect communities on a wiki, tied to a forum where people already wrangle challenges and concerns, would also be good. But I can't think for instance of anything appropriate for the main page of Meta...
    Warmly, SJ + 00:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]