Is it simply impossible to start a Wikipedia
project that's open to
women, or people who identify as women? (I'm sorry if I don't use the
correct terms, but I haven't kept up with them in recent years.)
I mean if we did it... what would the consequences be?
Lightbreather
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Sarah <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 7:43 PM, LB
<lightbreather2(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Why abandon it? Let's reclaim it. Just ignore
those who try to distract
and derail. There are sanctions so no nastiness, but nastiness is not my
usual style anyway.
I don't know whether it's better to abandon, reclaim or move it. But it
has been a lesson in how deep Wikipedia's sexism runs. Any journalists in
future wanting examples of it need only read those archives and the
dispute-resolution threads that failed to deal with it (which one of us
ought to compile at some point).
Marie, I saw the suggestion on GGTF that women might prefer to edit
"[f]ashion, cookery, domestic affairs, childrearing". Is it worth
continuing with it when that's what we have to deal with?
Sarah
On Dec 30, 2014 10:25 AM, "Marie
Earley" <eiryel(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> We're abandoning the GGTF on Wikipedia? Fair enough.
>
> It was just that I had an editor accused me of radical feminism POV
> pushing on GGTF via my talk page (I dared to say that it was "interesting"
> that the example topics that he thought women would be interested in
> editing, other than feminism, might be "*fashion, cookery, domestic
> affairs and childrearing*" rather than "*science, business,
> filmmaking or politics*"). There was then this follow-on swipe on
> GGTF.
>
> > "...one of the reasonable first steps toward seeing what women in
> wikipedia thinks needs to be done most would be to actively ask women who
> have self-identified as women what content of particular interest to women
> might be underrepresented or undercovered here. Those women would
> presumably be in a better position to clearly state their concerns than
> would be individuals who can only speculate on them or draw potentially
> flawed assumptions based on limited previous personal experience."
>
> So, my potentially flawed assumptions and limited previous personal
> experience are surplus to requirements at the GGTF. The plan now seems to
> go out and find answers that fit a pre-existing narrative about what is
> causing the Gender Gap.
>
> So... "I believe the Gender Gap is caused by women who want to write
> about knitting thinking that Wikipedia does not welcome articles about
> knitting." I will create a skewed survey to fit this narrative and get the
> "right kind of women" to fill it in and prove my pre-conceived notions
> correct.
>
> I really don't see the point of it. If you ask 1,000 female editors,
> "What kind of articles do you like to edit?", then you'll get 1,000
answers
> with a wide variety of topics. What would that prove? Suppose you find 90%
> of them edit traditionally feminine topics, what conclusion would you draw
> from it? Would it prove that they clearly prefer to edit those topics, or
> those are the topics that they feel less likely to encounter intimidation,
> or a combination of the two? I just think the GGTF board is currently being
> used to promote a truly pointless exercise.
>
> Marie
>
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
visit: