Event talk:Queering Wikipedia Conference 2025

Can new people join?

Hi, really new around here. Just wondering if anyone can join or do your account need to be of certain age for the event. I would really love to tune in with you guys. Also, who should not join? Rescimece773 (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to join and participate in good faith is welcomed to join :) 👁 Ceaseless Watcher 👁 (talk; they/them) 02:48, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Rescimece773 (talk) 05:22, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

This is very blatantly political

See Meta:Civility; this conversation isn't going anywhere productive and is getting less and less civil.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In a free and open system, how one chooses to identify themselves is well and truly their choice, but to place at the front of unrelated pages on a purportedly neutral website the banner of this event, it is very clear, when one considers as well the name of this event, that this is a blatant attempt to enforce a very particular interpretation of the world, and one which the vast majority of the population of the entire would would disagree with. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2025 (UTC) Oh boy every time we do something like this like WikiLovesPride we get comments like this. And yes Wikipedia is in fact biased towards the rights of Queer people. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 06:33, 15 October 2025 (UTC) No, Wikipedia is NOT "in fact biased towards the rights of Queer people". The WMF and Wikipedia is not biased toward (or against!) anyone. Please, don't suggest otherwise. Also, be aware of what Owen Blacker mentioned: The Wikimedia Universal Code of Conduct section 3.1 states that "posting in bad-faith to intentionally provoke" is considered unacceptable behavior. FeralOink (talk) 09:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC) We are biased towards reliable sources, and last time I checked those are in fact biased towards this. I wasn't posting in bad faith, if you found this provoking that ain't my problem. This is a wikimedia get together for discussions it ain't political unless you find queer peoples' existence political. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 06:08, 16 October 2025 (UTC) no you're biased to vice media and the Guardian newspaper, when i was young all media sources were viewed with distrust, i challenge you to run a script and find out how much you quote trash media these days DarkShroom (talk) 06:53, 18 October 2025 (UTC) wikipedia was great because it never "loved" anything, it used to be a neutral source of information DarkShroom (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2025 (UTC) Wikipedia is far from neutral, especially for politics and politically adjacent topics like this. There is even a page dedicated to this, which comes within an inch of actual self-awareness of the problem. [1] I have felt very uncomfortable editing Wikipedia for years as an anonymous proofreader, where I don't even log in due to this strong bias. Some political articles are so strongly gatekept that even someone coming in to clean up spelling and grammar is flagged as a vandal. And there is literally no venue to raise this concern anywhere without being off-topic. But this is one of those cases where being bold is the only option. Neutrality needs to return to Wikipedia, perhaps with equal prominence for all groups that may have a stake in a neutral encyclopedia that can remain civil and play well with others. This will probably be buried or deleted, and I may well be screaming into the void, but it needs to be said. Washusama (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC) I disagree with the idea that a majority of people around the world are bigoted, but even if they were, your argument is nothing more than an ad populum fallacy. CrowTheCryptid (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC) Whilst I can't agree with the 'vast majority' statement, I'd assert that it's still a political statement on the basis of the recent UK Supreme Court ruling on legal definitions among other examples. Evidently, some aspects of the LGBTQ+ movement are hotly contested, and Wikipedia's endorsement of an event such as this shows clear support to one side of the conversation. Not that an event like this shouldn't be held, but maybe without Wikipedia in the name? It's not like stuff like this has no support or press. I'd hardly call a belief in a transgender mtf not being legally recognised as a woman 'bigoted' unless strong, unreasonable beliefs were held of the accused? Bayley Sherlock (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC) Personally I don't care what UK laws say, I care what medical experts and biologists who very publicly opposed this ruling. And yes this ruling is in fact bigoted when the case was funded by very prominent anti trans organisations, and I think rulings preventing certain groups of people to use public restrooms at all is in fact bigoted. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 09:18, 15 October 2025 (UTC) It's a rather uncharitable approach to the truth claims of two competing epistemological structures by jumping into the frame of one of them and immediately concluding that the other is "bigoted" from this perspective. And, ultimately, it's circular logic, because you're not looking at using a worldview to defend a worldview, an idea to defend itself. Tautology is invalid. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2025 (UTC) I'd like to remind everyone here about the Universal Code of Conduct, particularly section 2, about Expected behaviour, and section 3.1 about Harassment. — OwenBlacker (Talk; he/him), for the Board of the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, 09:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC) And I'd like to remind everyone here about the neutral point of view: "Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikiquote, and Wikinews – but not Wikimedia Commons, Wikisource, Wikiversity, Wikivoyage, Wikispecies, the many "backstage" projects, including Meta – have a strict neutral point of view (NPOV) policy. This policy states that their missions are best served not by advancing or detracting from particular points of view on any given subject, but by trying to present a fair, neutral description of the facts – including that various interpretations and points of view exist." Given any political movement, different people will have different views about it. It is not Wikipedia's place to push any one of those views. -- Oliver P. (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC) Precisely. WriterOfScrolls (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2025 (UTC) The Queering Wikipedia event is not an attempt to impose a worldview or politicize the projects, but rather to support an inclusive and respectful environment for contributors who identify as LGBTQ+. According to the Universal Code of Conduct, we are all expected to help “create and maintain a welcoming environment” and “respect the diversity of participants.” This includes recognizing the existence and experiences of queer contributors who are part of our global community. Promoting events like Queering Wikipedia does not violate neutrality (it doesn’t change how articles are written or which sources are used) but it does ensure that editors from all backgrounds feel safe and represented while they collaborate to maintain that neutrality. Inclusion is not bias; it’s a prerequisite for a truly open and free knowledge movement. The Wikimedia movement has always celebrated diversity through initiatives such as WikiWomen, Art+Feminism, and WikiLovesAfrica. Queering Wikipedia continues that tradition by addressing a group that has historically faced marginalization, both online and offline. We can uphold the neutral point of view in our content while also upholding empathy and equity in our community spaces, these principles are not contradictory, they are complementary.--Mister Roboto (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2025 (UTC) I agree that Wikipedia should be a welcoming environment for everyone. Contributors who consider themselves to be queer should be free to organise a get-together and discuss their interests, Wikipedia-related and otherwise. However, the title of the conference suggests something more than that. The wording - of the form [verb]ing [noun] - suggests not just welcoming contributors into the project - which would be a good thing - but of transforming the project itself. Queering it. What it means to "queer" something might be open to debate, but it could very easily be interpreted as imposing the ideology of queer theory onto it. By analogy, suppose that someone set up a conference titled "Christianising Wikipedia". Would you think, "That's fine. It's not an attempt to impose a worldview on Wikipedia. It's just to support an inclusive and respectful environment for contributors who consider themselves to be Christian"? If you would not, then surely my point should be clear. -- Oliver P. (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2025 (UTC) You misunderstand the term "queering". To quote from Wiktionary (See "queer" > English > Verb > meaning 5) : To reevaluate or reinterpret (a work) with an eye to sexual orientation and/or to gender, as by applying queer theory. Quotations: 2003, Marcella Althaus-Reid, The Queer God, page 9: If I go, for instance, to the history of the church in Latin America, and decide to queer the history of the Jesuitic Missions, I may find that, in many ways, the missions were more sexual than Christian. 2006, Carla Freccero, Queer/Early/Modern, page 80: Jonathan Goldberg further explores the implications of queering history in his essay in the same volume. 2013, Mark Davidson, Deborah Martin, chapter 8, in Urban Politics: Critical Approaches, SAGE, (ISBN 9781446293034): We might say that there has been a ‘queering’ of urban studies insofar as the metropolitan lives, subcultures and social movements of gays and lesbians are now seen as valid objects of study. "Queering" something isn't about turning is queer (which is a logical impossibility, of course), but including information based on looking through an additional (not a replacement) lens. I should also point out that this is not the first such event. In 2020 there was an in-person conference planned, Queering Wikipedia 2020, funded through the WMF Conferences Fund (see proposal), before the Covid-19 pandemic got in the way. It was agreed with the WMF grants manager that the remaining funds for that should be repurposed for strengthening and capacity building within the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, resulting in an internal-facing event Queering Wikipedia 2021 Working Days. After the success of that event (with a grants writeup and an event writeup translated into several languages), a further grant was approved, which funded an event for an audience internal to the Wikimedia Movement (QW2022) and a larger event with both an internal and external audience (QW2023). Organisational capacity meant that the event in 2024 (QW2024) was a much smaller unconference and next weekend will see an event more like the 2022 instance, with details and scope at Event:Queering Wikipedia Conference 2025. Plans for a larger event in 2026 are in progress, including the appropriate conversations with the Conferences Team at the WMF. I hope this makes everything clearer. — OwenBlacker (Talk; he/him), chair of the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, 12:36, 17 October 2025 (UTC) You say that I am misunderstanding, but then you affirm what I expressed as my fear. I said that "it could very easily be interpreted as imposing the ideology of queer theory onto it"; you have replied with a definition that says that "to queer (something)" is to "reevaluate or reinterpret (a work) with an eye to sexual orientation and/or to gender, as by applying queer theory". One could quibble over whether or not those two statements are identical, but they are certainly close enough to prove my point. Your comments about the event being long established and well funded by the Wikimedia Foundation tell me that the project has been captured by the ideology, proving my point even further. You are effectively telling me that the NPOV is dead and that we have no choice but to accept it. -- Oliver P. (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC) But you would never in a million years support something like "The MAGAing of Wikipedia." Alaska Jack (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC) there's no point in arguming with them with the wiki rules, i tried that various times pointing out that the only allowed sources were the Guardian and Vice news, wikipedia is a joke these days unless it's to do with maths or obscure circuits no-one understands DarkShroom (talk) 06:57, 18 October 2025 (UTC) What do you mean saying the Guardian and Vice News are the only allowed sources? This just sounds like you are making up a nonexistent problem. Scooglers (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC) NPOV requires us to follow reliable sources, and NPOV applies to article writing, not wikimedia projects. If you have a problem with this then you have a problem with Women In Red and many other inclusive contribution projects. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2025 (UTC) That's presenting a false dichotomy and is disingenuous at best in this conversation. Whilst Wikimedia doesn't necessarily fall under NPOV it'd be difficult to argue that aspects of it don't apply, as the principle is what leads to discussions between 'both' sides such as this where beliefs and ideas can be aired out, unless the purpose of events like QWC 2025 isn't to promote inclusion in debates from all backgrounds? Bayley Sherlock (talk) 09:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC) That's not really analogous. An analogy to "Women in Red" would be "Lesbians in Red", "Gays in Red", "Bisexuals in Red", and so on, which would be fine. The title "Queering Wikipedia" would be analogous to "Feminising Wikipedia" - i.e., making Wikipedia feminine - which would be equally problematic. Wikipedia is not supposed to be an inherently queer project, any more than it is meant to be an inherently feminine project. Perhaps a better analogy to this situation would be to imagine a conference called "Making Wikipedia Gender Critical", which would be the other side of the coin to "queering" it. I wonder if a conference titled "Making Wikipedia Gender Critical" would be allowed a banner so prominently displayed? -- Oliver P. (talk) 00:39, 17 October 2025 (UTC) except for the word queer is offensive? DarkShroom (talk) 06:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC) Queerness is not a "political movement". It is, once again, simply facts. IAmThereforeIAmConfused (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2025 (UTC) There are facts surrounding climate change, evolution, and any number of subjects, but that doesn't mean they aren't also political. Wikipedia should be a place where the facts are stated, but not endorsed. Epachamo (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2025 (UTC) The Wikipedia article on Queer theory describes it as "a field of post-structuralist critical theory". Is post-structuralist philosophy "just facts", or is it subject to dispute, the same as any other philosophy? -- Oliver P. (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC) queer is a word i find highly offensive as i am homosexual, so can i refer you to the code of conduct maybe? queer synonym for weird, so you are saying that homosexuality is "weird", i'd say that is offensive DarkShroom (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2025 (UTC) yep i'm fed up with it they ruined wikipedia, it's even the same with any other politically charged subject these days... i have tried even even edit various repos simply to add sources same deal, political activists with multiple accounts DarkShroom (talk) 06:46, 18 October 2025 (UTC) There is no evidence to suggest that Wikipedia is biased, not neutral, or for or against any movements, besides being "for" facts. It is simply fact that queer people exist, and one can neutrally discuss queer people. IAmThereforeIAmConfused (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2025 (UTC) It is trivially easy to prove that Wikipedia is biased in favour of a particular movement. Simply go to the Wikipedia article Trans woman, and read the first sentence: "A trans woman or transgender woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth." Is that simply a "fact"? Or is this a claim made from within a particular ideology, disputed by people who do not subscribe to that ideology? -- Oliver P. (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC) Yep again biased towards reliable sources and medical sources, unfortunately those seem to be biased towards the idea that trans women are women. Wonder why Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC) The existence of queer people exist is indisputable the same way the existence of murderers, rapists, pedophiles, foreigners (a relative term), elderly people, children, women who have sex outside of wedlock, and countless other people groups is indisputable. What is disputable is how to handle queer people (or any people group); it may be tempting to insist that they should be handled the way of your preference, but would you say the same about pedophiles (if you're in favor of embracing LGBT) or people like Mother Theresa (if you're against embracing LGBT)? That's where the issue of neutrality comes into play, and there's a fine line between condemning genocide (if Wikimedia doesn't already do that, I would support doing so) and taking the full blown position that "embracing the gay is okay" or "80 year old men should be allowed to embrace their sexual feelings about American middle school students (who often are sexually mature but still juvenile both socially and physically) and marry/impregnate them" (which I will add is a disgusting concept in my humble opinion) and plastering it at the top of every page for schoolchildren in Afghanistan to see (until the school responds by blocking access to the entire encyclopedia over it). You can condemn me for the comparison, but that doesn't change the fact that to truly embrace diversity and inclusion you have to at least consider positions you don't agree with. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC) You can fully embrace inclusion but also hold a moral code of conduct... Scooglers (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC) We’re in agreement on that, the question is what constitutes morality? From my personal prospective, the Bible defines morality, and I interpret it from an Independent Baptist prospective, but while I believe the Bible is literally factual and anything that contradicts it is false, a fundamental Baptist doctrine (supported by scripture) is that we literally can’t force our belief on others, so I don’t know that enforcing that moral code on all of Wikimedia is the answer. So then who decides what is moral and what is not on a neutral, international project like Wikimedia? I think you’re confusing morals and ethics, which are similar but not the same. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC) Please re-read your paragraph starting with "The existence of queer people exist", substituting "Baptists" for "queer people" and "LGBT". Perhaps that will give you an idea of how incredibly offensive your speech is. No one is forcing any beliefs on you or anyone else whatsoever by putting a banner for this conference on this website. Funcrunch (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC) Nobody is forcing any beliefs on anyone, as a starter. You of course have the right to your own moral code and religion; however, you do not have the right to then attack queer spaces and try to attack anything that supports queer people. Queering Wikipedia doesn't aim to force anyone to support queer people, it simply aims to help expand knowledge, which is consistent with the entire WikiMedia foundation's goals. Scooglers (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC) Of course you immediately compared queer people to murderers, rapists and pedophiles, of course those were the first three you listed. And I think I'm done with this annoying little cry fest over a queer gathering, for those still throwing a hissy fit, grow up. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC) Comparing queer people being treated like humans beings or two consenting adults being in a loving relationship to 80 year old men impregnating middle schoolers simply because those two consenting adults are the same sex is abhorrent and says more about you as a person that whatever moral panic you have about "embracing the gay is okay". The fact that the idea of a gathering of queer editors on Wikipedia to edit queer articles brought this little rant out of you is disgusting. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 11:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC) Agreed; why does this need to be advertised to everyone simply trying to use the website? WIKI Wizard of Wales (talk) 07:21, 23 October 2025 (UTC) Alright, I'm going to pile on-to this. Regardless of what anyone thinks about LGBT and Pride, I don't think it's a good idea for an international encyclopedia (dictionary/directory/etc in the case of other projects) to have this plastered up on a banner that appears at the top of pages to which this is irrelevant, especially without strong community consensus to do so. Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects have never been censored, but we've also always been mindful of the fact we're an international project serving unbiased information to just about every walk of human life, from primitive people in the jungle who discover the internet due to its increasing reach, to oligarchs like Elon Musk and royalty like the leader of Saudi Arabia, to poor folks living in the rough parts of New York City and London, a population with opinions on human sexuality more diverse than the flavors at a Baskin Robbins ice cream shop, and this banner plastered all over the project does NOT say neutral encyclopedia project. In fact, agree or disagree with them, this is going to give fuel to those who oppose Wikipedia/Wikimedia; people are going to label us as "liberal" or "western" propaganda because of this banner. Just my two cents though. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC) It's a queer gathering for queer wikipedia editors to get together and work on articles that need work that involve queer people. If people really get upset about this they can cry all they like, I don't care and never will and no one who is going to take part of this event will, we've heard this time and time again each year with WikiLovesPride and QueeringWikipedia. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 11:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

"Log in to meta"?

In the "How to Participate" section of the event, you are given the instruction "Log in to Meta with your Wikimedia username". I have no idea what this refers to. Meta, as in Facebook Meta? That's the only thing I could think of, but I don't know how that would work or what it would do. Thanks in advance! CrowTheCryptid (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Meta as in the place you're commenting on right now :) The event page is not on a wikipedia page, but here, on meta.wikipedia.org, and you can log in with your wiki username, which I see you've already done, so you only have to register for the event (step 3) 👁 Ceaseless Watcher 👁 (talk; they/them) 08:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Banner source?

Hi, I am wondering what is the source of this banner appearing on the top and why it is not displayed in all Wikipedias like other initiatives? How can we add it to other wikis? ▸ ‎épine _talk♬ 15:07, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Why wikipedia?

A question about why affinity groups exist within the movement isn't one that can be answered here. Better to raise in a place like the Movement Charter
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, I have simple equestion " Why Wikipedia? ". I mean why you puting wikipedia in this kind of thing? I think we can all agree that wikipedia should be save space where there is not any sort of controfelsial opinions (only fackts), and I kinda dont feel save on using wikipedia now knowing (in back of my head) here is peaple which can use wikidepia to promote (idk if this is write world) they belives I also want to point there (as much as I know) is not any other thing which promote ideology in Wikipedia ( I dont think that peaple suport lgbt+ like if i use Wikipedia to promote tihngs which they can thing is bad, that why i want Wikipedia free of that kind of stuff ) (BTW can I could use "God bless" as dirent form of "bye"? ) Bartłowmiej W (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2025 (UTC) Because everyone is to be respected and facts are to be respected. Bigotry, as your post, comes from disrespect to queer wikipedians and disrespect to science, like medicine or gender science that deals with such topics daily. Marek Soška (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2025 (UTC) Sr maybe becose in my laungages things work little difrently I hav3 difrent point of fiew And form description I dont think they study "queen" It looks more for discord server in wikimedia Bartłowmiej W (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC) And kinda why we made queer so special Like i could say i indentufy myself as Christian Katolic but i dont want special side for it in wikimedia And like by having special things for lgbt+ things you kinda say it is not normal and it needs soemthing special which in end make only homofobic peaple dyslike them more And like why wikimedia why don't just create special server on discord? And can you say something about "God bless" part? Bartłowmiej W (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC) I believe @Bartłowmiej W:'s position is one's sexual orientation, religious background, or other personal identities are not relevant to the accessibility and contribution of free knowledge. I believe (based on its scheduled presentations) this conference's function is to appropriately document information on Wikipedia with the subject's gender in mind. Personally, I believe this type of discussion should be debated amongst Wikipedians (through the Villiage pump). I can see both sides of the argument, but I do not know which one is more acceptable. I believe if one advertises a conference like this, then it should be accepted to advertise a conference with the opposite point of view. Otherwise, this conference functions to spread one-sided knowledge and does not allow for discussions from a different perspective. If one is not willing to consider a differing opinion, then one meets the criteria for bigotry. Separately within its schedule, there are some discussions about the current state of the LGBT+ movement/efforts. I believe this kind of discussion is irrelevant (and please correct me with sources if I am wrong) as I do not see the link or the need based on the type of content we document. I could understand if there exists discrimination (in policy, in talk pages, etc.) or oppression amongst the Wiki Projects against the LGBT+ contributors. AFAIK, this is not happening at a scale that warrants such a conference. TranqyPoo (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC) i guess if we use this platform to study or explore lgbt+ it is allright becose firstly for me it looked like discord ( about controfersial topic )in wikimedia still didnt got ansear for last question tho Bartłowmiej W (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC) tbh I think Wikipedia is beyond repair at this point. Let's hope Grokipedia will get us an encyclopedia with NPOV like Wikipedia was supposed to be originally. Massenpanik (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC) It is the same as the frequent feminist advertisements, except even more bold-faced given the increasingly progressive nature of the sponsored agenda. Wikipedia has long been part of the problem when it comes to political polarization, and I'm dismayed at just how far down the rabbit hole (not to use more colorful metaphors) it has sunk. --Kamina✍ 10:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Stop it!

I don't want to be queered, what's wrong with you?! This is entirely an entrist project by the academic left that destroys everything it touches. Stop the constant politicisation, I'm so sick of it!! Tickle me (talk) 07:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

The project is not called "Queering Tickle me", so you don't need to worry. Including and developing queerness related subjects is within the bounds of developing free knowledge, so completely fitting with Wikimedia's aims. Egezort (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

This feels a bit like responding to "Wiki Loves Monuments" by saying "I don't like monuments. Stop it!" Guettarda (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps the title "Queering Wikipedia" is misleading about the nature of the event

I wonder if the name "Queering Wikipedia" is possibly inviting the wrong kind of scrutiny, and if future iterations of the conference should consider other names for the conference series. The idea of "queering" is a pretty academic idea, not understood by everyone, which doesn't actually equate to bringing in political viewpoints to a neutral encyclopedia. However, I can understand how the title can easily be misconstrued as bringing in non-neutral viewpoints. Organizers should be aware of how the names of programs may affect public scrutiny given the harassment to LGBT+ organizations and individuals already occurring on and off Wikis. Hexatekin (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, but I expect any promoted Wikipedia event related to LGBTQ people would get similar pushback, regardless of the title. Funcrunch (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

As a gay man, I do think we should at least say definitively what "queering" means. From my perspective as a 21-year editor, I certainly don't think this must mean biasing the encyclopedias; biasing should and must be avoided. But also, from that same experience, I've noticed a lack of coverage of LGBTQ+ topics (ex. not many cities covered in articles like "LGBTQ culture in {city}"). Also, where reliable sources support it, we need to ensure that LGBTQ+ POVs are acknowledged where applicable and notable individuals are covered in articles. Bottom line: we should take an additive stance. Since we exist, we ought to be covered too. But we're not here to replace anything. StefenTower (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

The pushback is clearly because of homophobia and transphobia, I don't think changing the name would do anything Scooglers (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

A note to fellow queer and trans editors here

All the vandalism and pushback on this conference just demonstrates its importance. I look forward to participating. Funcrunch (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Looking forward too! I'm ready to join as a friend and ally who wants to see an inclusive Wikipedia where all stories, identities, bodies and experiences are equitably valid and visible. Señoritaleona (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

That or it has an obviously misleading title. VineFynn (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Has the conference link been sent out yet?

Has the link for this conference been sent out to registered attendees yet? If so, I haven't received it. Just checking as the posted start time is about 12 hours from now... Funcrunch (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Now received, thanks and see everyone shortly! Funcrunch (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I registered but have no link. :( Can someone help? bogwife (talk) — Preceding undated comment added at 18:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

We are currently in a session that is not livestreamed for participants' privacy. Once the livestream resumes, you can follow from our YouTube stream — OwenBlacker (Talk; he/him) 16:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)