This research excludes any incidence of the word "cunt" that appears in revisions other than those that are currently live, right? Since it relies exclusively on the search engine, which only returns live results? Doesn't that seem like a substantial weakness, and one that undercuts any year to year frequency analysis? Also, can you confirm if I'm understanding this correctly - the use of the word in a discussion about whether it is a gendered insult or not, or in a discussion admonishing a user to stop using it as an insult, counts each use (regardless of intent) as an additional incident of gendered insult? On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Laura Hale <laura(a)fanhistory.com> wrote:

Thanks, Laura. It is indeed interesting. While different terms do have different levels of offensiveness to different groups, I find it curious though that their use persists. As an Australian and thus possessing a fairly rich vocabulary of swear words in my everyday speech, nonetheless I seem to be capable of not using them when communicating with wider audiences. I generally know quite well what words may be seen as offensive and simply don't use them. I think the only one that really took me by surprise was "darned" with which I once offended someone from the USA southern states, who told me it was a variant of "damned" (which didn't really inform me as I didn't see the problem with "damned" either). But nonetheless being an intelligent person capable of learning, I now avoid both of those words too. So, while I fully understand that a new user might use an offensive term without intending or realising it, I find it hard to understand why that user would continue to do so after it has been pointed out. It would seem anyone who persists does so deliberately knowing it causes offence and is probably delighted that it does so. Do we need such people on Wikipedia? It's difficult to imagine that such lack of respect for others could make you an effective collaborator on content. Of course, sometimes words are not written with a cool head but in the heat of anger. This is where Wikipedia must take a portion of blame. A communications medium that allows these words to be visible to all and retained for all time is very different to angry words exchanged between two people verbally. I think it is much easier for people to forgive and forget the verbal lashout than it is to forgive and forget the User Talk equivalent, in part because there is an audience. Not only has the person been insulted, they've been insulted in front of others. I note that some forums have a "rude word" filter and either warn or prevent the user from posting the message. If nothing else, it ensures that any use of such words is deliberate and therefore the user is liable of censure if used inappropriately (noting that many of these words can have a literal and appropriate use). Perhaps we need this on Talk pages?! Kerry _____ From: wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Laura Hale Sent: Friday, 21 November 2014 2:28 AM To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Communicating on Wikipedia while female Hey, I posted some new research to meta at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_fe male . It is titled: Communicating on Wikipedia while female A discursive analysis of the use of the word cunt on English Wikipedia user talk pages. Thought it might be of some interest to people on this list. Sincerely, Laura Hale -- twitter: purplepopple