<p>Hey Sandy,</p>
<p>I can't remember if I officially emoted joy yet that you joined this list! I was thrilled to see you here: I meant to say that earlier but I think I didn't. So, yay, and welcome back :-)</p>
<p>And thank you for this list: it's really great :-)<br>
Sue</p>
<p>Sent from my phone: please forgive any typos or terseness. Please also forgive top-posting; I can't do in-line replies from my phone.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Feb 8, 2011 8:13 AM, "Sandra ordonez" <<a href="mailto:sandratordonez@gmail.com">sandratordonez@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution">> Now that I've vented, I've been thinking of Delphine's original question(s)<br>
> regarding the why...this is what i came up with. *<br>> <br>> 1) Improve the quality of information.* Information is shaped by<br>> perspective, regardless of how NPOV you aim to be, and perspective is shaped<br>
> by experience. When you experience the world in a certain perspective, you<br>> see things that others don't see. A Chinese immigrant in the United States<br>> may notice things that a American born may not see, just like it is very<br>
> likely that a female may notice things their male counterparts don't see.<br>> *<br>> 2) Open doors to more groups*.The inclusion of women might have a domino<br>> affect, and open doors for other groups, particularly those that are<br>
> traditionally dis-empowered, such as people of color in the United States.<br>> (You can include whatever other group you want here..I can only speak to the<br>> US).<br>> *<br>> 3) Improved processes and systems.* Collaboration is improved by diversity -<br>
> everyone in this group knows this. More female participation may result in<br>> better collaborative brainstorming and problem solvin.<br>> <br>> *4) Better organization.* Studies reveal that women tend to be great<br>
> multi-taskers. IMHO, women are great multitaskers because they also plan<br>> their world to be more "efficient" for multitasking. I can totally see a<br>> group of women helping improve the organization of Wikipedia's rules,<br>
> background knowledge, presentation, etc.<br>> <br>> *5) Stronger community. *Reports are also showing that more women than men<br>> are on social media. This is because women tend to focus on creating<br>> community. A larger, more sophisticated Wikipedian community is so powerful,<br>
> I'm not even sure how to describe its potential in words. However, it would<br>> have the ability to help the projects but bring change worldwide.<br>> <br>> *<br>> 6) Better image. *Organizations that are ethical are usually favored and<br>
> respected by society, which increase's an org's success. I am not talking<br>> "left vs right," and this is not a philosophical question, it is a public<br>> relations one. Talk to any PR practioner and they can share why this works,<br>
> and examples of organizations taking this PR strategy. And, at a minimum, I<br>> can guarantee it will increase how many women worldwide see the project,<br>> which btw are 50% of the world's population.<br>
> <br>> *7) Better parties and possibly more Wikilove!* As corny as it sounds, I am<br>> quite positive that more women will improve the festivities in any wiki get<br>> together, and possibly result in more wikilove :) lolol Why not!! What a<br>
> perfect place to meet someone that shares your interest, and better parties<br>> are usually always welcomed.<br>> <br>> *8) A better world society.* Wikipedia has this ability to affect the world<br>> and start revolutions in what seems to be very silent but effective ways. I<br>
> really believe that the inclusion of women will have amazing revolutionary<br>> affects on the world, and make it better. Channeling Jeff Bridges,<br>> "information is really power, man." And maybe we have come to take for<br>
> granted that the world is informed/educated through wikipedia on a daily<br>> basis. This has an effect.<br>> <br>> *9) Its the right thing to do.* Wikipedia has always gone against the grain,<br>> even though at times it ruffled society's feathers b/c transparency in<br>
> knowledge sharing is more important than the agenda of any group. Its part<br>> of the free culture movement, dedicated to empowering people worldwide, and<br>> has done much in that area. Why wouldn't it come together now to improve on<br>
> this systematic problem that affects not only the project, but humans at<br>> large.<br>> *<br>> 10) Who else is going to do it? *No one has the ability to look and tackle<br>> this complex issue like Wikipedian community. No other community has the<br>
> strength in numbers, intellect, and structure to address an issue like this.<br>> I guarantee that other groups will embrace any solutions the community<br>> finds, b/c its not Wikipedia is not only a pioneer, but its a<br>
> "best-in-breed" virtual project that comes up with "best-in-breed"<br>> solutions.<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> -- <br>> Sandra Ordonez<br>> Web Astronaut<br>> <br>> "Helping you rock out in the virtual world."<br>
> <br>> *<a href="http://www.collaborativenation.com">www.collaborativenation.com</a>*<br></div>