One thing about the timing and the atmosphere: this is a very instinctive reply to you, Zblace, allow me to chime in. Wikimedia should not fuel any act against Human Rights advocacy. And we have a risk now as the general public is not in the business-as-usual mode concerning LGBT+ subjects. I wish I am not inflating the matter, and kindly nudge me if there are unclear parts to weigh the situation.
There is not yet an affiliated user group among Wikimedians in the Japanese speaking sphere yet, who can reply to any inquiry in case there be feedback from non-Wikimedian parties: Only the Wikimedians of Japan User Group, a prep team, has started recently, a non-affiliate.
Kindly be reminded that the Japanese speaking societies are watching worriedly at a scandal in the entertainment industry, against a promotion firm [https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11728013] for boy bands and their founder/producer/promoter. That scandal itself is not directly related to LGBT+ themes, but we can’t ignore the Human Rights side of that. What bothers me is, oftentimes social media inputs or even the paid mainstream news media neglect the human rights side of the “juicy” matters.
By the way, if we are to speak of numbers/statistics. Do we find any peculiar change in contribution/readership rates for LGBT+ themed pages?
What is going on:
*In Japanese speaking society and the domestic entertainment industry, TV news shows are very busy reporting “Me, too!” scandal over here;
*a handful of those brave had stood up and spoke about their negative experiences during boyhood/high teen male days;
*they are going public against a deceased promoter/producer for boy bands;
*lawyers are at the negotiation table to evaluate/discuss the damage, which I am not really watching TV shows and their daily updates.
That said, I am afraid analysis is very difficult right now to sum up what is LGBT+ themes to jawp contributors/readers. Or the perspective towards 2030 if it be the initiative what we are discussing. It looks to me we are not in the safe zone to do any casual survey if that is not drawn up by professionals who cares enough for mental disturbance that might cause to our contributors/editors, and those classroom activities applying Wikipedia as among their learning materials.
With any metrics after mid-August on jawp and its sister projects:
- are we better off and think twice whether or not there exists a bias of perception/interest because we are influenced by a hot social/media topic I noted above?
- Won’t that (I hate this terminology) gossipy interest towards that kind of scandal whither very quickly, depending on who the media would treat the matter, or newer and juicier topics are fed?
*What is the better policy or house rules to face such a human rights issue? The definition of the scandal is not final as sueing or cultural perception or whatsoever to my eyes.
*Are we prepared for how Wikimedia would keep its value, as the issue would develop ? It won’t be a month or two, I am afraid.
Or maybe people have not cared to come and read wikipedia/sister projects on that matter at all, I have no data. FYI, the news reports there are over four hundred (400) people seeking compensation for the damage related to the scandal, mentally and physically.