Oliver makes a very good point about<br>statements regarding 'men think _____'.<br><br>Statements of 'women are/do/think _____ '<br>are distracting, plus they're usually<br>at their baseline, insulting. <br>
It's the overgeneralization, and the mind-<br>reading implicit in these statements<br>that render them counter-productive. <br><br>The actions recently initiated <br>by independent groups<br>to invite women to participate <br>
in Wikipedia are wonderful.<br><br>These events announce<br>that women are wanted and<br>accepted as experts, and will<br>be supported as such by <br>Wikipedia.<br>A successful campaign effort <br>could be as conceptually simple <br>
as a continous PR push to invite<br>women are to participate. No<br>need to bog down so much in the<br>why. Do the research, and act<br>on it, but go ahead with the <br>active recruitment.<br><br>All people at their foundation seek<br>
pleasure and avoid pain (I don't mean <br>this in a shallow way). Letting<br>women know that Wikipedia is working <br>to make contribution a less-than-painful <br>endeavor may prove to be the<br>majority of the battle, although it would<br>
take a campaign that lasts more than a month.<br>One month to kick off a year-long campaign is certainly<br>appropriate. A year-long campaign is also <br>appropriate because we need to reach<br>50% of the population! The heterogeneity<br>
inherit in such a large population means<br>that many of the results returned from <br>studies will apply to one sector but not<br>the rest. Therefore the invitation to <br>contribute will most likely be the<br>most effective approach. Any approach <br>
based on 'women are ___' will be cultural,<br>will be expensive to determine,<br>and will apply to subsets of women,<br>and not to the majority of<br>women worldwide, outside of the <br>change in women's status during the <br>
last 150 years. It's nice to be able to<br>own a business, and it's nice that<br>it's no longer legal for a husband to <br>beat his wife with a stick (rule of thumb!)<br>in most places where I could easily<br>
travel.<br>:D<br><br>I'm not saying to cease investigation<br>for solutions to Wikipedia's issues.<br>The areas of proposed investigation<br>are all worthwhile. And totalled up<br>the results will benefit everyone, not<br>
just women, as the current state of <br>these areas are offensive (content) <br>disenfranchising (inappropriate editing), <br>or barriers to contribution (interface) to<br>both men and women.<br><br>The historical reasons for the lower percentage<br>
of women in science and technology <br>are mostly the same reasons women aren't<br>participating on Wikipedia. There will<br>be a few differences, but on the whole<br>moving forward is just as important<br>as studying why. The studying why<br>
is very expensive, and has been going<br>on for decades. Let's just get on with<br>it, and put out the PR that we are<br>celebrating and requesting women's<br>participation as experts on the <br>Wikipedia site.<br>
<br>- Susan<br><br><br>Message: 3<br>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 13:14:57 +0000<br>
From: Oliver Keyes <<a href="mailto:scire.facias@gmail.com">scire.facias@gmail.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Women4Wikipedia<br>
To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects<br>
<<a href="mailto:gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org">gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org</a><div id=":4g">><br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:AANLkTinh-T23spCSVmeM2WrD1zd43hdCa9v%2BPLDHOxZY@mail.gmail.com">AANLkTinh-T23spCSVmeM2WrD1zd43hdCa9v+PLDHOxZY@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br>
<br>
Could we maybe not make big overgeneralisations about what "men" think and<br>
return to the topic at hand? This mailing list shouldn't be about<br>
discrediting the intentions of feminists. Neither should it be about<br>
discrediting the intentions of men, or working on the assumption that<br>
somebody can't be both.<br>
</div><br>