hi,
actually there were two questions. one was if a vote about the topic (have
a rule for gender-something in articles) makes sense. a 3:1 majority says:
no. the main reason is "do not patronise the autor." and the second
question was if people do support the proposal or not. the proposed rule
itself proposes a classical language. with no surprise after the result of
the first question, a lot less answered here. a 2:1 majority says: no, this
rule should not be like proposed.
rupert.
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Jane Darnell <jane023(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I was just talking about this yesterday - In the Dutch
Wikipedia,
gender-neutral language is used for occupations and during the
Art&Feminism edit-a-thon we remarked on how difficult it is to track
down female artists if the lead sentence is gender neutral. This is
compounded by the fact that the Dutch Wikipedia does not allow gender
categories at all (which does solve the "Ghettoization" problem we
constantly have in the English Wikipedia where women are in the "Women
<skill>" categories rather than the main categories). In the English
Wikipedia we also only have gender-neutral languages for most
occupations, but that is because we discarded gender-based words so
long ago (poet vs. poetess).
2014-02-02, Kevin Gorman <kgorman(a)gmail.com>om>:
Hi Bob -
Unfortunately I both don't speak German, and don't have the time to go
through a long and messy RfC on the subject in a language I don't
understand currently. However the issue as it has been framed in your
original post certainly sounds concerning. If you have the time (and I
certainly understand if you dont,) would you be willing to provide a
slightly more in depth summary fo what's going on currently.
Thanks,
Kevin Gorman
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap