Policy talk:Human Rights Policy

This page is for discussions related to the Human Rights Policy page.

Please remember to:

Sign posts using the four tildes (~~~~)
Remain civil and polite during discussions.
Place new text under old text - or use the reply feature - and utilize appropriate talk page formatting.
Use headers to title and start discussions on new topics (start a new post).

Archives: 1, 2

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]

Sorry for the long delay - this has been fixed. Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 06:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Hello,

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

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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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]

Typo?

Hello. At Policy:Human Rights Policy/Frequently asked questions#Will this policy become available in other languages? it says "is currently work", shouldn't it be "is currently working" instead? Thanks, — MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @MarcoAurelio, I have updated the answer to that question given current state of translations. Thank you! Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 04:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]