Hi everyone,
I have released the data from my survey, Women and Wikimedia, here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Women_and_Wikimedia_Survey_2011
Please share and thanks to all who participated. I do hope people find value in this..I know I have....
Sarah
Sent via iPhone - I apologize in advance for my shortness or errors! :)
I've never particularly felt the "boys club" atmosphere on Wikipedia
that apparently deters some women. However, I am very angry right now.
I tried to add [[date rape]] as a "see also" link to the very
incomplete article [[college dating]]. The relevance seemed obvious to
me. It was removed by two separate people, and when I took it to the
talk page, its relevance was questioned, and I was told to "prove it"
because it was "obvious to whom?" Fine. I've proven it with sourcing,
adding a small section. I think that needed to happen anyway, but I'm
infuriated that I could not just add a see also link to it and tell
the students who are really working on the article that a section
needed adding. (The people who removed the link are seasoned
Wikipedians, not members of the class developing the article.) Am I
crazy?
LadyofShalott
Hi, everyone. I wanted to share this with you in case some of you haven't
seen it.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-10-22/India-women-names/508696
28/1?csp=mostpopular
You can dream of a moment for years, and still somehow miss it when it
comes. You've got to reach through the flames and take it - or lose it
forever.
YOU must be your strongest advocate.
Marc
--
"Do not go where the path may lead; go instead where there is no path
and leave a trail." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
I think that some people may have a police state mentality around these
parts. But, of course, there are wonderful diligent people, too. I enjoy
looking up odd subjects that help in my research -- whether college dating
or hazing.
Kind regards, Mig --
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 6:00 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? (B?ria Lima)
> 2. Re: Am I crazy? (Nathan)
> 3. Re: Am I crazy? (Daniel and Elizabeth Case)
> 4. Re: Am I crazy? (Daniel and Elizabeth Case)
> 5. Re: Am I crazy? (Nathan)
> 6. Re: Am I crazy? (Lady of Shalott)
> 7. Re: Am I crazy? (Sue Gardner)
> 8. Re: Am I crazy? (Gillian White)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:12:49 +0100
> From: B?ria Lima <beria.lima(a)wikimedia.pt>
> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Am I crazy?
> To: fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net, Increasing female participation in
> Wikimedia projects <gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CAA2XHjBUR3v-KNc2T4BBde12Tju0rkyL3XmW7LroLKS+338F3w(a)mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> >
> > *It would not have to be a gender related issue for this to occur.*
> >
>
> Fred is right in that point. I'm not a gender editor (my articles almost
> never have problems with gender issues), however, the topic is one where
> you
> can find the most biased people on earth: Religion.
>
> And I would say you case was not the worst one, the worst case i can
> imagine
> (and already happened with me several times) is to remove biased info (or
> include NPOV info) in an article about a religion / god / dogma who is
> watched by some believer of the same god / religion. ;)
> _____
> *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.*
>
>
> On 24 October 2011 18:54, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:
>
> > > I've never particularly felt the "boys club" atmosphere on Wikipedia
> > > that apparently deters some women. However, I am very angry right now.
> > > I tried to add [[date rape]] as a "see also" link to the very
> > > incomplete article [[college dating]]. The relevance seemed obvious to
> > > me. It was removed by two separate people, and when I took it to the
> > > talk page, its relevance was questioned, and I was told to "prove it"
> > > because it was "obvious to whom?" Fine. I've proven it with sourcing,
> > > adding a small section. I think that needed to happen anyway, but I'm
> > > infuriated that I could not just add a see also link to it and tell
> > > the students who are really working on the article that a section
> > > needed adding. (The people who removed the link are seasoned
> > > Wikipedians, not members of the class developing the article.) Am I
> > > crazy?
> > >
> > > LadyofShalott
> >
> > No, that is the usual reaction of biased editors of all persuasions, to
> > throw their mind out of gear, when obvious conclusions which contradict
> > their bias are advanced.
> >
> > It would not have to be a gender related issue for this to occur.
> >
> > Fred
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gendergap mailing list
> > Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> >
>
Archive Spam Delete Move to Inbox Labels
More
3 of 3711
Gendergap Digest, Vol 9, Issue 62
InboxX
gendergap-request(a)lists.wikimedia.orgSend Gendergap mailing list submissions
to gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org To s...
8:50 PM (11 hours ago)
Reply |Migdia Chinea to gendergap
show details 9:15 PM (10 hours ago)
Hi Sarah -- I don't wish to issue make this my raison d'etre. My intentions
were honorable -- my film was programmed in several prestigious festivals
before and without Wikipedia. A number of side stories are associated with
this film -- for example, it was screened with 24 other shorts in Seoul
(SESIFF) and Berlin on the Metros -- in over 14,000 TV monitors for a
viewership of over 3.6 people. That is a new and innovative way to
screen festival films. I'm aware of an 8 minute program having to do with a
Hispanic family currently being screened in the Los Angeles metro. The
prospect of screening films like that opens up a totally new world of
possibilities for filmmakers.
I will wait and see what the article on the Huffington Post looks like. The
article will link my film. The article will expose predatory by a bank and
how it may be tied to the "Occupy" movement if at all.
Thanx for your comments and Dominicks's kind observations. I still think
that the orange fellow and others used innuendo and personal attacks which
you can clearly see in comments on this forum. They also questioned whether
the film was even screened in Cannes, which it was, and this information was
provided with a link to the Cannes catalogue.
--
Migdia & Cicero & Ulla & Tullia-Zoe & Clodia & Aurelius & Cato the Younger
tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(Street_Meat)
This deletion was filled with personal remarks and innouendo. It was
discouraging of the posting bny any women. I'm angry and frustrated to have
been singled out. Is that treatment to be expected? Thank you --
Migdia Chinea
--
Migdia & Cicero & Ulla & Tullia-Zoe & Clodia & Aurelius & Cato the Younger
The issues brought forth by "anonymous (street meat)" are/were social and
gender-based -- the film has been well-received and its reception has
preceded anything on Wikipedia. The page was not written in any
self-promotional mode -- but in an informational mode. I think I stepped on
someone's toes because more than a year go I called attention to "Saturday
Night Special" a short which was extremely laudatory of its director, cast
and crew. I suggested an edit. No one paid attention to it and when they
did, after being on the web for four years or more, it was selective. I
believe that the Wikipedia page on that short (which was, incidentally,
passing itself off as a full length feature without anyone even questioning
it at all, as I certainly didn't know) was written and maintained by
someone close to that person. The deletion was 11th hour because I brought
up issues is selectivity and double-standard -- and I believe that they were
there.
The orange gentleman seems to think that he was polite when he's been
accusing me of self-promotion and lying while ignoring all I had to say over
and over and over again in several different exhausting venues. I pointed
out that films by women are precious few and far between -- films by
Hispanic women even more so -- that in and of itself is noteworthy if anyone
should ever look it up on Wikipedia. The rudeness of that man's remarks are
mean-spirited and I think he was particularly so because I am a woman, but
it's an unnecessary attitude in regards to anyone of any gender. The page
for "Saturday Night Special" was removed without nary a comment. My
comments and their remarks were kept on, I believe, to humiliate me. I have
concluded that this is an exhausting unkind process as evidenced by bullying
as a deterrent. It's no wonder more women do not contribute.
I have an assignment to write.
Thank you and kind regards --
Mig --
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:35 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. Women's Voices Women Vote | feminist lobby group wants help
> (Audrey Cormier)
> 2. Women, collective intelligence, and Wikipedia (Pete Forsyth)
> 3. and to contrast...one stop Commons hosiery shopping!
> (Sarah Stierch)
> 4. "anonymous (street meat)" (Migdia Chinea)
> 5. Re: "anonymous (street meat)" (Nathan)
> 6. Re: "anonymous (street meat)" (Michael J. Lowrey)
> 7. Deterrent (Mig)
> 8. Re: Deterrent (Jeremy Baron)
> 9. From Jezebel: "Men?s Rights Fight Breaks Out On Wikipedia"
> (Sarah Stierch)
> 10. Re: "anonymous (street meat)" (Dominic)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 17:57:12 -0400
> From: Audrey Cormier <cormier.home(a)yahoo.ca>
> Subject: [Gendergap] Women's Voices Women Vote | feminist lobby group
> wants help
> To: gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <EC558D9B-4CC3-4B8B-9B8D-09C93ADEEB72(a)yahoo.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> I can add info from the draft to the article (under new title to reflect
> the organization's new name) this evening, if no one else has done it
> already. Will copy edit as well if needed.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 08:42:18 -0700
> From: Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [Gendergap] Women, collective intelligence, and Wikipedia
> To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
> <gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <C3A999FC-5154-4225-9B54-8396642CC390(a)gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> Hi all,
>
> Eugene Kim, the consultant who facilitated Wikimedia's amazing five-year
> strategic planning process, has just posted an interesting blog post (with
> his new consulting agency, Groupaya).
>
> http://groupaya.net/blog/2011/10/do-women-make-groups-smarter/
>
> An excerpt:
>
> > Tom Malone is the director of MIT?s Center for Collective Intelligence. A
> few months ago, he published research with Carnegie Mellon?s Anita Woolley
> suggesting that groups with more women exhibited greater collective
> intelligence. It?s not that women have higher IQs than men. (Individual IQ
> had little correlation with collective intelligence.) It?s that women tend
> to exhibit more social sensitivity than men, and social sensitivity is a
> much stronger contributing factor to group intelligence.
>
> Kim goes on to discuss the implications for Wikipedia, a project that is
> highly collaborative and mostly male. He concludes with the idea that, in
> the interest of pursuing more effective collaboration, Wikipedia would
> benefit from more participation by women.
>
> A good read, I recommend it.
> -Pete
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:20:16 -0400
> From: Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [Gendergap] and to contrast...one stop Commons hosiery
> shopping!
> To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
> <gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CAKiGLfqA_RUi9_X8US3c=krc34k8XOAmDoh1NAD+6Y_jHt+5KQ(a)mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> While reviewing new content for my scoop.it (
> http://www.scoop.it/t/women-and-wikimedia), where I posted the recent blog
> link that Pete shared..I was suggested this: (safe for work)
>
>
> http://hosieryadvocate.blogspot.com/2011/10/hosiery-in-wikimedia-sexy-hallo…
>
> The blog writer has an entire set of tags devoted to photographs of women
> in
> hosiery that are found on Wikipedia/Media/Commons.
>
> Here is the blog when the writer praises Commons for it's excellent job at
> categorizing hosiery.
>
> http://hosieryadvocate.blogspot.com/2011/05/hosiery-in-wikimedia.html
>
> "Wikimedia Commons <http://commons.wikimedia.org/> does a great job of
> finding hosiery photos for you, when you search for hosiery, pantyhose,
> tights and stockings, but there are many photos on the site, that do not
> turn up with those searches. Those photos show up under different searches,
> and will do just fine."
>
> -- On a personal note, my first high end retail job, at 18, was working in
> the hosiery department at Nordstroms. I became well aware of the fetish
> around hosiery due to a selected clientele we had. But this gave me quite a
> chuckle and brought back "Early retail" memories.
>
> I'm impressed that so many men know so much about women's hosiery on
> Commons, presuming that the majority of categorizers handling that
> department are males....(I could be wrong, but statistically...)
>
> Sarah
>
> --
> 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/
>
Thanks so much
Sent from Migdia's iPhone
On Oct 18, 2011, at 4:35 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. Women's Voices Women Vote | feminist lobby group wants help
> (Audrey Cormier)
> 2. Women, collective intelligence, and Wikipedia (Pete Forsyth)
> 3. and to contrast...one stop Commons hosiery shopping!
> (Sarah Stierch)
> 4. "anonymous (street meat)" (Migdia Chinea)
> 5. Re: "anonymous (street meat)" (Nathan)
> 6. Re: "anonymous (street meat)" (Michael J. Lowrey)
> 7. Deterrent (Mig)
> 8. Re: Deterrent (Jeremy Baron)
> 9. From Jezebel: "Men?s Rights Fight Breaks Out On Wikipedia"
> (Sarah Stierch)
> 10. Re: "anonymous (street meat)" (Dominic)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 17:57:12 -0400
> From: Audrey Cormier <cormier.home(a)yahoo.ca>
> Subject: [Gendergap] Women's Voices Women Vote | feminist lobby group
> wants help
> To: gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <EC558D9B-4CC3-4B8B-9B8D-09C93ADEEB72(a)yahoo.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> I can add info from the draft to the article (under new title to reflect the organization's new name) this evening, if no one else has done it already. Will copy edit as well if needed.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 08:42:18 -0700
> From: Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [Gendergap] Women, collective intelligence, and Wikipedia
> To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
> <gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <C3A999FC-5154-4225-9B54-8396642CC390(a)gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> Hi all,
>
> Eugene Kim, the consultant who facilitated Wikimedia's amazing five-year strategic planning process, has just posted an interesting blog post (with his new consulting agency, Groupaya).
>
> http://groupaya.net/blog/2011/10/do-women-make-groups-smarter/
>
> An excerpt:
>
>> Tom Malone is the director of MIT?s Center for Collective Intelligence. A few months ago, he published research with Carnegie Mellon?s Anita Woolley suggesting that groups with more women exhibited greater collective intelligence. It?s not that women have higher IQs than men. (Individual IQ had little correlation with collective intelligence.) It?s that women tend to exhibit more social sensitivity than men, and social sensitivity is a much stronger contributing factor to group intelligence.
>
> Kim goes on to discuss the implications for Wikipedia, a project that is highly collaborative and mostly male. He concludes with the idea that, in the interest of pursuing more effective collaboration, Wikipedia would benefit from more participation by women.
>
> A good read, I recommend it.
> -Pete
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:20:16 -0400
> From: Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [Gendergap] and to contrast...one stop Commons hosiery
> shopping!
> To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
> <gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CAKiGLfqA_RUi9_X8US3c=krc34k8XOAmDoh1NAD+6Y_jHt+5KQ(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> While reviewing new content for my scoop.it (
> http://www.scoop.it/t/women-and-wikimedia), where I posted the recent blog
> link that Pete shared..I was suggested this: (safe for work)
>
> http://hosieryadvocate.blogspot.com/2011/10/hosiery-in-wikimedia-sexy-hallo…
>
> The blog writer has an entire set of tags devoted to photographs of women in
> hosiery that are found on Wikipedia/Media/Commons.
>
> Here is the blog when the writer praises Commons for it's excellent job at
> categorizing hosiery.
>
> http://hosieryadvocate.blogspot.com/2011/05/hosiery-in-wikimedia.html
>
> "Wikimedia Commons <http://commons.wikimedia.org/> does a great job of
> finding hosiery photos for you, when you search for hosiery, pantyhose,
> tights and stockings, but there are many photos on the site, that do not
> turn up with those searches. Those photos show up under different searches,
> and will do just fine."
>
> -- On a personal note, my first high end retail job, at 18, was working in
> the hosiery department at Nordstroms. I became well aware of the fetish
> around hosiery due to a selected clientele we had. But this gave me quite a
> chuckle and brought back "Early retail" memories.
>
> I'm impressed that so many men know so much about women's hosiery on
> Commons, presuming that the majority of categorizers handling that
> department are males....(I could be wrong, but statistically...)
>
> Sarah
>
> --
> 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/
>
I believe that men editors have targeted me for and with their biases and have done everything they could to humiliate me publicly , which acts as a deterrent to female editors who are not well connected with wikipedia ranks. Please refer to my page. Thank u. Migdia Chinea
Sent from Migdia's iPhone