<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [Gendergap] Women's issues noticeboard</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@yahoo.com> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>Women's views are too often drowned out on talk pages, simply because of<BR>
their numerical inferiority. A noticeboard would help.<BR>
<BR>
While I understand the concern about the potential for drama, I think<BR>
any method used to make Wikipedia more gender-neutral will attract a share<BR>
of drama. Having an institution to look at women's issues is a pretty<BR>
mainstream idea.<BR>
<BR>
The UK has a [[Minister for Women and Equalities]] (a poorly researched<BR>
article at this time); there is a [[Minister responsible for the Status of<BR>
Women (Canada)]]; a [[Minister for the Status of Women (Australia)]]; even<BR>
Afghanistan has one: [[Ministry_of_Women's_Affairs_(Afghanistan)]].<BR>
<BR>
Denmark has a [[Minister_for_Gender_Equality_(Denmark)]]; Sweden has a<BR>
[[Ministry of Integration and Gender Equality (Sweden)]], etc.<BR>
<BR>
The United States have affirmative action. We should not fear controversy,<BR>
or grumbling; our democratically elected governments don't let that stop<BR>
them either. If the Wikipedia community cannot support something that is<BR>
standard in democratic society, then we do have a problem with our<BR>
demographics, and whatever problem we have will become readily apparent.<BR>
<BR>
I wouldn't mind calling it a gender issues noticeboard. (That would be<BR>
[[WP:GIN]] as opposed to [[WP:WIN]].)<BR>
<FONT COLOR="#888888"><BR>
Andreas<BR>
</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>on 2/22/11 2:36 PM, Steven Walling at swalling@wikimedia.org wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
Go ahead and do it if you feel passionate about it (of course), but you asked for people's views, so I'm just saying that you should be prepared for an awful mess of drama and bickering, some of which is likely to drive out the very women we're trying to retain. <BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
I don't want to see anyone leave who can make a positive contribution to the Project, Steven. But are we willing to sacrifice the integrity and honesty of the Project; have it become full of politically-correct pabulum in order to retain or attract people? A part of what has made the Project vital and unique has been its refusal to shy-away from controversial issues - both in its selection and presentation of its articles, and in the collaborative dialogue that takes place between and among its editors. Yes, the interpersonal dialogue does need some work, but I know this can be done without sacrificing its passion and honesty.<BR>
<BR>
Marc <BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>