Itp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(Street_Meat)
wish to go on record that this experience was personal, contentious,
humilliating and has had an intended stifling effect. The people who
took down "anonymous (street meat)" were some of the same people that had
been involved with the "Saturday Night Special" page and were angry that I
called attention to a page that went on for four years or more, took a
lengthy space of about two or three pages with nothing but laudatory
information about the short's director, cast and crew. This was personal.
I believe Wikipedia has changed, but not for the better. It's too
mean-spirited for most women's involvement. Thank you,
Kind regards,
--
Migdia & Cicero & Ulla & Tullia-Zoe & Clodia & Aurelius & Cato the Younger
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/
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
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.
Dear All,
I read these articles [[Childless]] and [[Childfree]] at the beginning of
the weekend to follow up on the removal of the aforementioned pointless
lists of childless men that used to be in them. And yes, while it is a good
thing to have deleted the pointless lists, the articles were still awful. So
appalling that I have spent my weekend working on them and just wanted to
have a rant here about it (apologies in advance). Begin rant ... It says
something about our editorship that one of the most important issues for
women throughout history and across the globe - something that has caused
unspeakable suffering, is related to serious illnesses, has brought down
kingdoms, caused wars and crime, destroyed relationships, damaged national
potential etc etc - was reduced to two muddled, myopic, arrogant, ahistoric
articles largely concentrating on an option available only to a few rich,
privileged women in a few wealthy areas of the world for the last thirty
years. That is, there were two articles, with two names, both mostly about
voluntary childlessness. Thus, did the encyclopedia ignore almost every
woman on the planet over about three thousand years and all their shared and
individual experiences with controlling conception when there were/are very
few options. Reading the pair of articles was equivalent to reading an
article on "Food" dominated by content about pistachio ice cream. So, yes,
we do need more women editors! I am one of the women fortunate enough to
have had "options" but I do know, unlike apparently the original articles,
that "childfree" is not an option for most of the world and until very
recently has not been a reliable option for anyone. I also know that
childlessness matters to many people for lots of different reasons. I have
separated the content of the two articles and included some of the very
serious issues to which childlessness is related as well as tried to give
the childfree one a more global perspective. End rant. Thanks for reading.
Yes, I know the articles are not finished. I am going back to my bricklaying
now (no, really!) and trying to earn a living (but not from bricklaying). I
will return though [?] PS If you want a real heroine, read about [[Catherine
Hamlin]] who has quietly and efficiently been restoring women's health and
giving them back their lives for over fifty years.
Gillian
Does anyone have time to help out with this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Women%27s_Voices_Women_Vote&…
It was sent to me by a Wikipedian who thought I might be interested in
helping -- I am, but I am over capacity with other stuff at the moment
:-/
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
Brandon, I still think we need to remake the logo. This was just a quick, basic whiz.
I would still love your graphic skills on this one if you can spare the time
... cause I am a woman and I truly appreciate amazing design
... and this award deserves it ;-)
> Ah, too fast for me! I was about to remake the entire thing, but got
> stuck trying to find an acceptable replacement font (the real one is for
> sale at the princely sum of $299.00!).
Hey all,
I want to encourage you all to give the new Mind the Gap and Ada
Lovelace awards, and then tweet about it and cc the Ada Initiative
(@adainitiative) so we can retweet it. Here's our blog post thanking
Sarah Stierch for leading the development of these awards and asking
for tweets:
http://adainitiative.org/2011/10/new-wikipedia-awards-ada-lovelace-and-mind…
Please feel free to share!
-VAL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide…
The first "unblock" statement shares the link to the joke and the reprimand
by an admin on the users page telling them they can get blocked for ongoing
comments like that. Fluffernutter points out that there is a "boyzone" in
Wikipedia and that it's not right to mock a users gender. I do appreciate
Fluffernuter speaking up about this, I know it's not always something that
she likes to get mixed up with (so to say - as we talked about in IRC
today).
A dialogue takes place ranging from people thinking the joke wasn't sexist,
to Fluffernutter is being "PC".
I don't believe that the user the joke was directed at participates in the
conversation - for all we know they might have not been offended - but, this
is just another example of how people seem to be unclear about what "sexist"
behavior is.
Where I've worked and attended school, it was always very clear that
behavior or comments like that were/are not prohibited, but more often than
not, people don't speak up when people behave poorly (silent victims).
Unlike on Wikipedia, where people generally do speak up - the shroud of the
internet, I suppose.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, an educational environment. And when people
have to start questioning "Is this offensive or not? Is it sexist or not?"
then clearly there is a problem with something in the culture and system.
-Sarah Stierch
--
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/
Is there any way to criticize a any action justified with "sexism"
without adding to the persecution complex here? Honest question.
Blocking a user for comments made a week prior falls a mile out of
standard process. Blocking a user who tries to explain himself without
begging for mercy falls a mile out of process. It was a ridiculous
power trip by the blocking admin and was over turned as such.
The only concerning thing in the thread was how a bogus block was
sized upon and defended as an opportunity to crusade against the
"boyzone [sic]".