I think there is very little that Carol and I would agree on when it comes
to subjects and article topics, and we definitely have different editing
styles, but I absolutely agree with her on one thing, and that is the
hostility on Wikipedia is a turn-off to a lot of women and men. I would
much rather be editing articles most of the time, and the only reason that
I got into civility policy and related issues is because of what I've
experienced and observed.
There are insulting women on WP, but I believe they're either women who are
that way by nature, or who have adopted their attitudes to be "one of the
guys." They'll throw other women under the bus in a heartbeat.
Here's the thing: Even if we attract scores of women to come and edit, if
the environment stays the same, most of them will leave (and a lot of the
men who come during the same time). If you're running an exclusionary club
and you want a more diverse membership - it's not just enough to throw the
doors open and *say* "come on in." You don't ask your new guests to change
their ways, you ask yourselves: What can we change about our club that will
help these new members to feel welcome?
Lightbreather
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Carol....let's just deconstruct what you're
saying here.
If we were to take the words "female" and "male" and
"women" and "men" out
of it entirely, would it sum up one of the major issues in editor
retention? I'm going to be honest, I've read a genuinely disproportionate
number of insulting edits made by women (as a percentage of overall edits
by editors I know to be women), and it's something that needs to be kept in
mind; while the overwhelming majority of editors are male, I've not seen
any evidence that a male editor is any more or less likely to behave badly
than a female editor. It's just more obvious because they outnumber us 10
to 1.
Risker/Anne
On 30 December 2014 at 09:57, Carol Moore dc <carolmooredc(a)verizon.net>
wrote:
As long as (mostly male) Wikipedia editors are
allowed to insult and
harass editors whose edits they oppose for whatever reason Wikipedia cannot
retain women, no matter how much they follow the suggestions below.
(Unless of course they focus on shaming the WMF until it uses its terms of
service against offending editors and administrators and arbitrators and
that is my particular interest at this point.)
Since few women have any interest in editing in a hostile editing
environment. Many males leave quickly for the same reason. This is
especially true in political, economic or current events areas which too
many males consider their fiefdoms where womens' input not appreciated. And
FYI just 2% of males is too many IF they are allowed to get away with
insults and harassment.
So reigning in the worst offenders on Wikipedia - without punishing even
harder those who oppose - or EVEN lose their tempers about - their offenses
is necessary.
On 12/30/2014 8:30 AM, Tim Davenport wrote:
Ms. Stierch's comments are exactly on
target.
Do the GGTF-type organizing off wiki, not on-wiki. That's not the place
for it.
Start your own message board akin to Wikipediocracy. Organize (and vent)
there.
Use Facebook, etc.
Concentrate on developing new feminist editors, helping them through the
steep learning curve, with an emphasis on content, content, content. Nobody
is going to have a problem with that.
Tim Davenport
Carrite on WP /// Randy from Boise on WPO
Corvallis, OR
_______________________________________________
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:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap