An RfC has been opened on the continued use of the photo of a nude pregnant woman as the lead image at [[Pregnancy]], remarked upon here recently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pregnancy#Lead_image_RfC
I found the response by HiLo48 to my !vote (where I raised the to-me relevant issue that I didn't see anyone else talking about directly) very revealing for our current discussions and this list in general.
Daniel Case
@Beria
I'm not clear what point you are trying to prove, other than the 9% of
"girls'" voices don't matter. I also find it questionable that you refer to
women as girls and don't hesitate ponder why you don't call men boys.
Many women, like myself, get driven off of WP due to frustration with the
hierarchy, which does exist. Women are treated with less respect, women are
questioned for their motives, women are called prudish if they object to
sexualizing images--or they are told their voices are not important because
they only comprise 9% of the population.
Why do you think they only comprise 9% then?
My goal on WP is to make it more diverse, and TBH I'm not too into this
picture discussion that has gone on for months. But it doesn't mean that it
doesn't matter or it isn't an important one, and it doesn't mean that the
women who care about it aren't important.
Offense is not the reason here, IMO. Offense barely scratches the surface. I
can imagine that many of the people on this list are angry--they are angry
that women are being objectified and because women are in the minority on
the community and it's an uninviting, sometimes terribly creepy atmosphere,
their voices do not matter.
As for badly written? My god that is the worst you can say? In writing terms
that is just snide and a low blow. Basically, only someone who can think of
no other insult would say this. "Well it's badly written and has spelling
mistakes!" Come on, get a fucking life.
Wikipedia is set up so that only people who look for these articles/pictures
will know about voting procedures. So of course if there is a vote, the
majority would probably be overall positive unless serious canvassing went
on to let people who care about the other side know about it so it evens
out. Canvassing is set up to prevent this--I believe it's actually a way of
biasing the community to serve only the community, and not the readers.
Because the readers are--the world. Telling people about the topic is just
like how any election goes. I guess unless you are in some sort of fake
election where people are led to believe that their votes actually count.
Nowhere did you prove that she lied in that article. You only stated how you
disagree with her opinion. Obviously you are not part of this group for the
interest of women, otherwise you would care about that 9%'s opinion---so why
are you subscribing???
--Maggie
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:49 AM, B?ria Lima <beria.lima(a)wikimedia.pt>
> wrote:
>
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-September/069078.html
> _____
> *B?ria Lima*
> Wikimedia Portugal <http://wikimedia.pt>
> (351) 963 953 042
>
> *Imagine um mundo onde ? dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> livre acesso ao somat?rio de todo o conhecimento humano. ? isso o que
> estamos a fazer.*
>
>
Earlier today, a long-standing editor was reported to AN/I for making
personal attacks. The specific attacks were the following two posts:
"You simply display your ignorance."
"Please carry on, so everyone can see what an ignorant arse you are."
As I had recently warned this same user for making personal attacks, and
they have a long history of attacking other editors (blocked 4 times
previously for personal attacks), I put a 24 hour block on their account
for violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.
Even though this seems like a pretty minor slap on the wrist, my block
was quickly undone by another admin and a slew of editors then
vociferously attacked me for blocking (calling me a "petty tyrant", a
"wannabe big-dick admin", etc.).
I looked more carefully at the editor's block log and noticed that every
one of their blocks for personal attacks had been undone by another
admin (usually without much delay).
This seems to say a lot about the current culture of en.wiki. Namely,
that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are not taken seriously by our community (or at
least a large percentage). As civility seems to be a recurring issue in
gendergap discussions (and Sarah's recent survey), I was wondering what
people's thoughts on this issue are. Has en.wiki become a toxic
environment or am I just overreacting to normal behavior?
Ryan Kaldari
Hello,
Just a quick favour to ask any women on this list who are based in, or have
links to, the UK
I'm leading Wikimedia UK's participation in the fundraiser and am keen to
make sure we have fundraising banners which aren't just men, men and more
men. There are various appeals produced by the Foundation featuring people
like Sue, Maryana and Sarah, but some of these are too specific to the USA
or to the Foundation.
So please give me a shout if you're a British (or even vaguely British ;-)
) woman happy to talk about why Wikipedia is so cool, or if you know
someone who might fit the bill. I currently have a very short (but
non-zero) list of people to follow up so any help much appreciated. :-)
Chris
Hey all,
I'm currently living in Urubamba, Peru I want to improve the article on the
town. Unfortunately I'm not sure where to start given so little is published
about it. My efforts to find history I could source has come up with little
to nothing, but given I'm living here I now know the official founding date
of the town is November 9th and is considered a holiday. That's just one
example of the many things I'm finding out that one would never find
published. I'm thinking not but I figured I'd ask anyway - does Wikipedia
make any provision for local or unsourced knowledge?
Also, I think the question is relevant and interesting to this list if only
in terms of what kind of information is privileged as important enough to
get published - there is much in the way of critiquing knowledge regarded as
official due to its published status while minority, indigenous and womens'
voices go unheard due to power structures that result in erasure.
Any feedback would be much appreciated!
--
Erin O'Rourke
http://erin-orourke.com
Feminist issues -- in the news -- sorority assaults --
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/10/texas-sorority-sisters-ta…
Thanx -- Migdia
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:10 PM, <gendergap-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>wrote:
> Send Gendergap mailing list submissions to
> gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> gendergap-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> gendergap-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Gendergap digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Am I crazy? (Sarah Stierch)
> 2. Women and Wikimedia Survey (Sarah Stierch)
> 3. Re: Women and Wikimedia Survey (Aude)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 07:16:26 -0700
> From: Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Am I crazy?
> To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
> <gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CAKiGLfqs_OSRe9aGBpLRgu1wNiN6_feicex=R6-Er=xvtDPegQ(a)mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> ...and one more thing - it's also the straight peoples guide to dating.
>
> And the majority of queer mentions go into internet dating with specific
> focus on gay men (the word "lesbian" is used once, a mention of
> transexuals
> is there twice but the same fact in both places - and it's in conjunction
> with eunuchs in India, and bi/pan/whatnot isn't listed at all).
>
> Homosexuality is also called an "alternative arrangement."
>
> Heh!
>
> -Sarah
> who has recently become fascinated by the "gay agenda" article only to find
> out there isn't a "feminist agenda" article....
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:08 AM, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch(a)gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > ....I also noticed the menu in the top right lists dating in the abuse
> > section (and activities).
> >
> > I understand that abuse can take place during dating (and any other
> > relationship at that) but does it really merit being in the abuse
> section?
> > Next to "child" "elderly" and "domestic?"
> >
> > If you're dating someone and you're abusing them I consider it domestic
> > (Intimate Partner Violence, etc.)....but, I haven't sat down and read
> > references about 'dating abuse' or whatever (and I probably won't right
> > now..). Heck, the word "abuse" isn't even used in the dating article.
> >
> > If abuse is dating and I need to stop being sarcastic and wear more
> bright
> > colors..I suppose I've been doing all of this wrong after all...(now
> wonder
> > I'm single! ;-) )
> >
> > Sarah
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 25 October 2011 16:24, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Wow.
> >>>
> >>> Just...wow.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org
> >wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> If you really want some entertainment, you should try reading the
> >>>> "dating" article. It includes such mind-blowing revelations as:
> >>>>
> >>>> * Teenagers and tweens have been described as dating.
> >>>>
> >>>> * There are reports that guys are asking out girls for dates by text
> >>>> messaging.
> >>>>
> >>>> * When young people are in school, they have a lot of access to people
> >>>> their own age, and don't need tools such as online websites or dating
> >>>> services.
> >>>>
> >>>> And of course lots of great gender stereotypes like:
> >>>>
> >>>> * During much of human history... women "connived to trade beauty and
> >>>> sex for affluence and status".
> >>>>
> >>>> * Educated women in many countries including Italy and Russia and the
> >>>> United States often find it difficult to have a career as well as
> raise a
> >>>> family; many delay finding a mate and having children and wonder if
> they're
> >>>> too accomplished that they won't be as appealing to men.
> >>>>
> >>>> It also includes lots of random advice like:
> >>>>
> >>>> * dating at a movie is advisable only if followed by a drink
> afterwards.
> >>>>
> >>>> * men are attracted to 'curls', 'ribbons', 'bright colors', and women
> >>>> should 'avoid sarcasm.'
> >>>>
> >>>> * Women can use 'pseudo-infantile motions such as the head-cock' and
> >>>> gaze intensely with widened eyes and laugh often, touch, and move in
> ways to
> >>>> emphasize their body's roundness, such as shrugging their shoulders or
> sit
> >>>> hugging their knees, to mimic buttock imagery.
> >>>>
> >>>> I swear this stuff is in the article. I couldn't make this up!
> >>>>
> >>>> And to illustrate the "Dating worldwide" section, they use the
> painting
> >>>> "The Rape Of The Sabines: The Abduction" which shows a guy with a
> sword
> >>>> carrying off a scantily clad damsel in distress. I guess our editors
> have
> >>>> some unique ideas on dating etiquette.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ryan Kaldari
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 10/24/11 6:00 PM, Gillian White wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Apart from any content problems, the article had no context. It was
> not
> >>>> linked to what should be regarded as its parents. And that lack of
> >>>> coherence, combined with its specific terminology made it largely
> >>>> incomprehensible to people unfamiliar with American educational
> systems,
> >>>> aside from its social practices. For example, it is by no means
> universal
> >>>> that students live in residential colleges while attending university.
> I had
> >>>> a go at giving it some context so readers can go from one article to
> the
> >>>> next (specifically, from "courtship" to "dating" to "college dating")
> but I
> >>>> agree that it would be better if it was renamed, as the issues that
> are
> >>>> distinctive to dating in college/university could then be developed.
> >>>>
> >>>> Gillian
> >>>>
> >>>> On 25 October 2011 06:11, Sue Gardner <sgardner(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Yeah, personally I think the subject is notable. There has been tons
> >>>>> of academic research and popular history written about the history of
> >>>>> dating, college dating, the invention of the 'teenager,' etc. Even
> >>>>> just within the United States.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think I did a radio series on this once -- IIRC, Beth Bailey was a
> >>>>> really great source. She wrote this fascinating book:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> http://www.amazon.com/Front-Porch-Back-Seat-Twentieth-Century/dp/0801839351
> >>>>> .
> >>>>> Susan J. Douglas was good too, as well as Stephanie Coontz and
> Barbara
> >>>>> Ehrenreich. They are all American, though. Lots has been written
> about
> >>>>> the UK too, but I'm not sure about other cultures/countries.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Sue
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> ?Sue Gardner
> >>>>> Executive Director
> >>>>> Wikimedia Foundation
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 415 839 6885 office
> >>>>> 415 816 9967 cell
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
> >>>>> the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 24 October 2011 11:16, Daniel and Elizabeth Case
> >>>>> <dancase(a)frontiernet.net> wrote:
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> > From: Nathan
> >>>>> > Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 2:13 PM
> >>>>> > To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
> >>>>> > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Am I crazy?
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > I question whether "college dating" deserves an article to begin
> >>>>> with.
> >>>>> > If it does, which the text of the article doesn't at all establish,
> >>>>> > the current article has a pretty fatal case of systemic bias.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > On the surface I tend to agree, but then I read the AfD:
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >
> >>>>>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/College_dating
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > Daniel Case
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > _______________________________________________
> >>>>> > Gendergap mailing list
> >>>>> > Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> >>>>> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Gendergap mailing list
> >>>>> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://
> lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Gendergap mailing list
> >>>> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia <http://www.glamwiki.org
> >
> >>> Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Art<
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch>
> >>> and
> >>> Sarah Stierch Consulting
> >>> *Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
> >>> ------------------------------------------------------
> >>> http://www.sarahstierch.com/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Gendergap mailing list
> >>> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Gendergap mailing list
> >> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia <http://www.glamwiki.org>
> > Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Art<
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch>
> > and
> > Sarah Stierch Consulting
> > *Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > http://www.sarahstierch.com/
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia <http://www.glamwiki.org>
> Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
> Art<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch>
> and
> Sarah Stierch Consulting
> *Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.sarahstierch.com/
>