Wow, thank you, Gillian! I just took a quick spin through both of them and
they really do seem improved, especially child-free. I remember looking at
it about six months ago and wincing -- as you say, it had some huge gaps.
And I just looked at the history of childless and you're right, the older
versions really do seem to come from a male POV --- particularly the list of
famous men (and their wives) who didn't have kids.
Thank you for making them so much better :-)
Sue
--
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation
415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
On 16 October 2011 04:47, Gillian White <whiteghost.ink(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
I read these articles [[Childless]] and [[Childfree]] at the beginning of
the weekend to follow up on the removal of the aforementioned pointless
lists of childless men that used to be in them. And yes, while it is a good
thing to have deleted the pointless lists, the articles were still awful. So
appalling that I have spent my weekend working on them and just wanted to
have a rant here about it (apologies in advance). Begin rant ... It says
something about our editorship that one of the most important issues for
women throughout history and across the globe - something that has caused
unspeakable suffering, is related to serious illnesses, has brought down
kingdoms, caused wars and crime, destroyed relationships, damaged national
potential etc etc - was reduced to two muddled, myopic, arrogant, ahistoric
articles largely concentrating on an option available only to a few rich,
privileged women in a few wealthy areas of the world for the last thirty
years. That is, there were two articles, with two names, both mostly about
voluntary childlessness. Thus, did the encyclopedia ignore almost every
woman on the planet over about three thousand years and all their shared and
individual experiences with controlling conception when there were/are very
few options. Reading the pair of articles was equivalent to reading an
article on "Food" dominated by content about pistachio ice cream. So, yes,
we do need more women editors! I am one of the women fortunate enough to
have had "options" but I do know, unlike apparently the original articles,
that "childfree" is not an option for most of the world and until very
recently has not been a reliable option for anyone. I also know that
childlessness matters to many people for lots of different reasons. I have
separated the content of the two articles and included some of the very
serious issues to which childlessness is related as well as tried to give
the childfree one a more global perspective. End rant. Thanks for reading.
Yes, I know the articles are not finished. I am going back to my bricklaying
now (no, really!) and trying to earn a living (but not from bricklaying). I
will return though [?] PS If you want a real heroine, read about
[[Catherine Hamlin]] who has quietly and efficiently been restoring women's
health and giving them back their lives for over fifty years.
Gillian
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap