Talk:Human Rights Campaign

Criticism section
I'm glad you brought this article over - it saves me having to be the only one contemplating an area of it. I may also get the advisory board's input as well. I like the idea of having factual information on LGBT orgs - including info that is critical. I feel it's important for donors to hear the good, bad and the ugly. However, I'm also mindful that WikiQueer can admittedly have a LGBT skew to things like criticism. For example, accusations made against LGBT orgs by conservatives that have no credibility in the LGBT community can make its way onto Wikipedia - as it should (imho). Does that mean we should give it the same credibility here? My gut says no. So that begs the question - how do we handle credibility of criticism, etc.?

Essentially I don't want WikiQueer to become a new platform, as some (my myself, but some) believe the blogger community has become. I don't think that fits into the most valuable uses of a project like this. However, it's not practical, or historically accurate, to ignore any and all criticism. :) So what's that fine line between reporting on historical events, while avoiding stirring up or fueling existing controversy (or do we not want to avoid that?), and not giving credibility to attacks from iffy sources or particular agendas that do nothing to actually educate one on the organization as much as the politics of the movement.  :)  --Gregory Varnum (WikiGregory), Lead Admin 02:32, March 2, 2012 (EST)


 * I like you bringing that up. I agree that some criticism, i.e. One Million Mom's, Westboro, or even American Family Association should be ignored (yet maybe we should create a page about them here?) - but I still feel that some criticism towards the LGBT community should make it's way onto WikiQueer - whether founded or not. There are things that we do that we don't all agree with. B r y  ce SPEAK!! 10:42, March 2, 2012 (EST)