Unfortunately sites like AVfM and its ilk are something that we really do
have limited ability to directly address on Wikipedia, even though it's
something that has a direct effect on the retention of our editors. I've
made AVfM and similar sites way more times than I would like to remember,
as have a lot of other editors who work in the topic area, and many women
editors who identify their gender in general. Even though people can
usually mitigate the effect it has on Wikipedia's content, I don't think
anyone has come up with a remotely effective way to mitigate the effect it
has on the targeted editor. I know quite a few people who have left the
projects over stuff like this, and can honestly say the only reason I'm
still around is because of the number of good friends I've made on the
projects who I can rely on for emotional* support when I need to, as well
as the fact that I occupy a position of significant societal privilege that
lets me take off-wiki harassment and threats less seriously than people who
aren't in my position can.
I've thought for years that the problem of off-wiki harassment through this
and other means is something that the Foundation will eventually need to
come up with some solution that at least partly mitigates its effects, or
we'll just understandably lose droves of good editors active in topic areas
targeted by it. I don't know what that solution is, although I found Lane
Raspberry's recent IdeaLab proposal (
)
that tried to address the issue to be interesting, and would encourage
anyone with interesting or novel ideas about how to potentially help with
this kind of issue bring them up. I can't guarantee any eventual funding
decision, but even if you have an idea that needs monetary support to work,
I know this kind of thing is of both interest to the Foundation and of
interest to volunteers serving on WMF grant-making advisory bodies. (Or
alternately, even if you just have an idea but don't have the bandwidth to
help carry out a project about it, I'd encourage you to bring it up, since
other interested people can connect with you about it and help you refine
it, or even just run with it themselves.)
Best,
Kevin Gorman
*And sometimes, other significant forms of support too. Emily/Keilana,
someone I've met in real life once, recently spent well over an hour trying
to contact local emergency services for me in a situation when my roomates
and I needed to do so but couldn't safely do so. After I had asked for
help but before I had fully explained what was going on, my wifi blipped
off, and she was literally calling me within six second of me poofing from
the internet.. and then spent a huge amount of time and frustration trying
to resolve the situation. I can't really put in to words the sort of
feeling provoked by having a Wikimedian who I know almost entirely from
online collaboration willing to drop what she was doing and spend that much
time late at night trying to help us with a situation of that nature.
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Marie Earley <eiryel(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
I placed an ANI about the Voice for Men article and
the subsequent
comments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Off-wiki_comments.2C_possible_m…
The result being:
"We cannot take action for off-Wiki
discussions like this. However, an
"announcement" on WP:AN about
something like this would have been a wise
idead instead of ANI (but we all know now) - that we we can keep an eye on
things. Attacking Wikipedia would be a detriment to their cause - so is
potentially libelous statements about the Foundation's employees - dumb,
dumb, dumb thing to do. However, by posting about it here, they know that
we know. Be vigilant :-) "
I suppose what it does mean is that if insults are hurled about female
editors off-wiki we can post announcements in WP:AN which begin,
"Based on this ruling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Off-wiki_comments.2C_possible_m…
I to inform the community about..."
I also had some nice posts sent to me on my talk page.
P.S. I clicked on the link for WP:AN and found this little gem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN#Topic_ban_proposal_for_Gibson_Fl…
Depressing but at least it's not all one-way traffic.
Marie
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 18:46:19 -0400
From: carolmooredc(a)verizon.net
To: gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Moderation and the future of Gendergap-L
Re: the below, yes, i was blocked in a situation I thought was biased
compared to other blocks I've seen. (I didn't mention that originally it
was a six month block but the community of mostly guys thought that was
grossly unfair and it was reduced to two weeks.)
However, in general wikipedia is not half as bad as the Men's rights site
you mentioned. And in Wikipedia there are "Community Sanctions" on too much
conflict in men's rights areas. In fact we just had some problems with an
individual with that bias and he was reminded of the sanctions and was
stopped.
In general women tend to avoid a lot of issues in the larger world because
we don't like conflict. And that's understandable given that when guys do
it with each other its considered a team sport. But when women jump in the
middle, even if they know the rules (which we don't always), they usually
are going to be given a harder time, expected to work harder and do better
to get half the respect. That's the nature of the reality we are trying to
change throughout the world and wikipedia is just one part of that larger
world.
We don't have to accept all the rules but we can't change them unless we
have some engagement. Even if the engagement is "these rules are
male-created and reflect male values/attitudes/etc. and we want and equal
say in creating the rules."
To understand Wikipedia dispute resolution you really have to study this
page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution
Except in the worst cases of abuse, you don't need to go to ANI. When the
problem is guys ignoring you or reverting you too much or whatever it is
they are doing cause they think they can get away with it (including if
that reason is that you are female), there are a variety of options. I've
used them all at different times, with more or less success depending on
circumstances.
CM
On 7/1/2014 10:03 PM, Marie Earley wrote:
Gosh, I did make a pig's ear out of it didn't I. I didn't realize the list
had two Sarahs on it.
Third time lucky....
In a discussion about off-Wiki mentions of editors, I was making a
comparison between Carol Moore's suspension which she mentioned here
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004397.html in
answer to SlimVirgin (aka Sarah), in which Carol said:
"questioning behavior too aggressively off
wikipedia evidently remains a
no no. I was once blocked for a week for asking an
editor whether his
overwhelming history of editing in articles about bondage of females was
related to his obvious and annoying harassment of me on a noticeboard,
after which I mentioned the issue on the Wikia Feminism page which I
thought was a part of Wikipedia (duh). The latter evidently was the bigger
"no no"."
...and some of the stuff in an article on A Voice for Men's website.
The third paragraph of this message
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004409.html
therefore should have read (correction in capital letters):
I entered "Wikipedia" and "male
rights activists" and got this
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorsh…
which has a comments section at the bottom with current Wikipedia members
mentioning other Wikipedia editors by name and talk of a great conspiracy
at work against them, if CAROL was suspended for her off-site comments then
how is this permissible?
And LtPowers point that Wikipedia may simply not know is correct. Perhaps,
editors just have to run the gauntlet / try and recruit more women / be a
bit more pro-active about looking for and reporting off-wiki activities
which break the rules and not just leave it to moderators. With that in
mind I have reported the article to WP:ANI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incid…
Marie
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 20:31:42 -0700
From: slimvirgin(a)gmail.com
To: gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Moderation and the future of Gendergap-L
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Jeremy Baron <jeremy(a)tuxmachine.com>
wrote:
On Jun 30, 2014 11:14 PM, "Sarah" <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Jeremy, which quote is this? I recall someone on
this list saying that
someone called Sarah was suspended (unclear what's meant)
for an off-wiki
comment. (Or something like that; I can't find the original.) I can't think
of how that might apply to me, and Sarah Stierch has said it doesn't apply
to her.
See this message from earlier on this thread:
On Jun 29, 2014 8:30 PM Eastern, "Marie Earley" <eiryel(a)hotmail.com>
wrote:
My apologies it was Carol Moore responding to
Sarah Stierch earlier on,
I mentioned it from memory,
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004397.html
If you follow Marie's link and then dig up the original message quoted at
the link from "Sarah" you'll find it was SlimVirgin not Sarah Stierch
(Marie apparently misattributed).
I haven't read all the mails, just did a bit of digging
.
Okay, thanks, Jeremy. I don't follow what it's about, but the original
comment wasn't made by me or about me, and the comment that seemed to be
about Sarah Stierch was a misunderstanding.
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing
listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap