The more I look into it, the more it seems like it's a pointless endeavor.
),
a photo of two nude young women in a tree considered in scope. After all,
it's been categorized! (Is that really all it takes? Absurd.) And it could
be used to illustrate the article on Bagby Hot Springs!
Of the seven images Commons proposes to have illustrate encyclopedic
articles on Bagby Hot Springs, 3 are of nude women.
It's female nudes all the way down.
Nepenthe
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Mary Mark Ockerbloom
<
celebration.women(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Regarding the question of "what can you
do",
I had the experience last week of starting a new job.
I had to read through the guidelines for the organization,
which included a section on Equal Opportunity and Freedom from Harassment.
Prominent on the first page:
"Harassment Defined
1. Hostile Environment
Harassment prohibited under this policy includes verbal, visual, or
physical conduct relating to matters of race, national origin, sex, sexual
preference, religion, age or disability which is unwelcome to the
reasonable person, and
a. has the purpose or effect of interfering with a person's work
performance
b. has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile
or offensive working environment. "
Item 2 goes on to deal with more direct incidents such as "unwelcome
sexual attention, sexual advances," etc.
I also looked at the relevant page on Wikipedia, to see what Wikipedia's
policy is.
(Sorry I don't have the link to hand to include.) It covered item 2.
But "Hostile environment", item 1 on my workplace's guidelines,
is not included.
Note too that item 1 is not limited to sexual materials;
this is not identified as a "feminist problem" but as a type of behavior
potentially relevant and unacceptable to anyone.
I would suggest that one reason that it's hard to get people to address
this sort of situation is that it's not clearly identified at a high
level as unacceptable
behavior which creates a "hostile environment"
A very interesting point, which reminded me of "The Benevolent Dictator
Incident":
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_incident
Wikimedia has a "friendly space" policy for physical meetings, but
apparently no exact equivalent for its online environment.
To give an example, Commons has a "hot sex barnstar", present on a number
of user talk pages, which does not appear to have violated any Wikimedia
policy, judging by its existence for more than a year now. The imagery is
grossly pornographic, and would be unacceptable in almost any workplace
outside of the adult entertainment industry:
NSFW:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_sex_barnstar.png
Similar imagery is sometimes found on user pages.
It is widely accepted that the open display of pornographic photographs or
drawings is a key contributor to a sexually hostile workplace. This is
something that could have been addressed as part of the Foundation's terms
of use:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certai…
However, the present terms of use appear to permit anything that is not
outright illegal. If the Wikimedia Foundation is serious about addressing
the gender gap, why does it not apply customary workplace standards to its
online environment?
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap