<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
I asked what AN/I was!<br>
<br>
:) And we still won a Barnstar, even if I didn't know anything
about Wikipedia history. I think I was the most un-informed editor
in that room. <br>
<br>
I do get turned off by jerky editors. I've complained about run-ins
with some people who seem like they are trying to make up for
something, and yeah, most of them are guys. I hate fighting, I hate
vicious arguments, and I really dislike when I ask people to explain
things and they talk down to me like a child. It seems a common
thing in the "computer tech" world, from my personal experience, and
it seems to flow over into WP. I'm not on Wikipedia to fight about
things, I'm here to learn things, explore, educate others and use
the platform to utilize the research that I'm doing.<br>
<br>
I totally empathize with those who believe Wikipedia is a combative
environment. I ceased doing any edits until I was asked about
working with the Public Art team, who continue to this day to work
closely with myself and one another to work towards our common
goals, even if it's often a bumpy road. I had no desire to be a
part of a "Boys club" and knowing that I was working with two great
women, and a really great man, made me want to dive back in.<br>
<br>
Many organizations offer classes on tolerance and cultural
differences, perhaps we need one about gender gaps! Ha!<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2/3/2011 3:21 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:BFB4E7CE049B454AAD0C5BA5FE4950ED@CASEMAIN"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">When I entered Wikipedia, I discovered a side of the internet I had
never encountered before, and intend never to encounter again; it's a
menacing and combative atmosphere that is extremely aversive to me. I
recently read somewhere that Wikipedia regulars, as a rule, come from
usenet or from gaming, where that kind of atmosphere is apparently an
integral and desired part of the experience (I wouldn't know, having
no experience with either), and have brought that atmosphere to
Wikipedia. As long as that atmosphere characterizes Wikipedia, it is
going to drive away anyone who doesn't thrive on that kind of
pugnacious taunting get-the-enemy-before-he-gets-you kind of attitude,
and I suspect a lot of women would be included in those who don't
thrive in that kind of environment.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I'm not singling your post out, Ism, but just quoting this as an example of
a theme I've seen in other posts here and on the Times' discussions.
This is so *not* the Wikipedia I've been actively involved in for six years
now. I allow that it exists for some people; I've never been one. I have had
some intemperate moments in discussions and differences of opinion with
other editors over article content or policy issues, but I have always kept
our civility and no-personal-attacks policies in mind and have done my best
to remain collegial. And by and large I've felt the same reciprocated by
almost all the other editors involved.
I venture to suggest that perhaps this is because what I'm most interested
in doing, and what I put a great deal of effort into, is creating,
maintaining and improving content. When I hear (or rather, read) editors who
complain about this, it's almost a given that you can look at their contrib
histories and see very little in the way of recent edits to article
namespace, and of those even fewer that aren't related to talk-page or
policy-page discussions they were devoting most of their energy to.
Now, there are some people who are good at online conflict resolution, and
they should not be discouraged from this type of editing. But there are
plenty of other editors who let themselves get sucked into long discussions
on AN/I or elsewhere that have little to do with them directly when they
really ought to be doing what they came to Wikipedia to do. And I also grant
that I don't regularly edit in any topic areas, such as those mirroring
real-life ethnic or political conflicts, that have been notably rancorous.
That said, I recall at WikiXDC a couple of weekends ago one of my best
Wikipedia moments ever. During the trivia contest at the end, one question
was "This page, the largest one on the project, takes up an entire gigabyte
when all of its archives are included." The answer, of course, is AN/I. When
that was announced, someone near me, a longtime member of the community and
active editor whom I'd not met or even known of before the event, asked
"What's AN/I?"
I wish we had a hundred highly active editors who had to ask that question.
A thousand, even.
And so to bring this back to the gendergap subject, I would pass along my
observation that I have noticed in most of the female editors I am
acquainted with who've been part of the project for a long time is that
they, too, have concentrated primarily on the content areas they've been
interested in and seem to keep the drama to a minimum.
Daniel Case
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org">Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap">https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<div><span style="color: rgb(39, 153, 128);">Sarah Stierch
Consulting</span></div>
<div><span style="color: rgb(39, 153, 128);">Historical, cultural
& artistic research, advising & event planning.</span></div>
<div><span style="color: rgb(39, 153, 128);">------------------------------------------------------</span></div>
<div><a href="http://www.sarahstierch.com" style="color: rgb(39,
153, 128);">http://www.sarahstierch.com/</a></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>