I'll echo Kevin's words, as I couldn't have said it better myself:<br><br>"To me, article differentials like this are one of the most interesting<br>
manifestations of the gender gap, and are worth talking about on this list. <br>
Content that deals primarily with women is systematically underdeveloped<br>
throughout the projects, and that is a big deal. The <span class="il">gendergap</span> would still<br>
be disturbing even if this weren't the case - but to me at least, the<br>
systemic underdevelopment of content is probably the single most worrisome<br>
issue involved."<br clear="all"><br>And while I may not jumping to join in on conversations regarding photos of questionable value to Wikipedia I think it prompts important discussions about how to shape the policy and culture of Wikipedia while preserving the intention of the site.<br>
<br>In addition, if you're calling for less drama I'd suggest you heed your own words, Beria. Pete's response did not imply you're not qualified to talk but rather called for some more constructive feedback and ideas. Obviously you're doing a lot for the gender gap and that's great. On the other hand, the attitude is completely uncalled for.<br>
-- <br>Erin O'Rourke<br><a href="http://erin-orourke.com" target="_blank">http://erin-orourke.com</a><br><br>