Gendergap October 2011

gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org

65 participants
79 discussions

Girl Geek Dinner Volunteers
by Fiona Apps 02 Oct '11

02 Oct '11

Hey guys! So, I've been speaking at Girl Geek Dinner events in the UK, spreading the good word about what it is we do, having editing sessions and then getting feedback from women on why they don't edit, or if they do, how they think Wikipedia can be improved to be more women-friendly. It's really interesting to do and the women who are involved are just the most wonderful people you could ever meet. I am emailing the head of Girl Geek Dinners at the moment to ask whether I can send an email out to all of the organisations asking if they would like to have a woman Wikipedian come and speak at their local event. Like I said, they're all absolutely wonderful, and the crowd size is usually about forty. They're a global organisation so anyone from anywhere can volunteer for this! My question is: Is anyone interested? If you are, please do email me with who your local chapter is and I will make a list so that if we are invited to these dinners I have a repository of people to invite to speak. The speech is already written, the format is already arranged and the women are friendly. So please, come one and all! Fiona /Panyd P.s. We usually bring cake too. Here's coverage from the Bristol event http://www.bristolwireless.net/2011/08/wikipedians-meet-girl-geeks-and-eat-c ake/

3 5

Re: [Gendergap] Women on Wikimedia Group
by Maggie 02 Oct '11

02 Oct '11

@Sarah If the woman on the list would prefer it to be private, I have no problem with that. I just didn't want it to seem like we were trying to hide anything. I am really familiar with all the issues in the gender community, and I know how feminism has tended to exclude non-white, disabled, or different gendered women in in the past. I would like the atmosphere to feel as inviting as possible. Trans*, genderqueer, intersex, whatever-it's all good. --Maggie

1 0

Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 9, Issue 16
by Maggie 02 Oct '11

02 Oct '11

A bit rude are we? It would have been more useful to simply mention the other list, which I clearly was not aware of. Also, "discussion followed on whether this is a positive development, and whether a number of other divisions will (or should) spring up after this." If anyone really would like to complain that this is sexist or not useful in creating a friendlier environment to women, then so be it, but these groups will exist either way. Because minority groups need to exist this moment in time for people to feel more comfortable in their own domains. This has consistently shown positive results with in diverse populations. Far in the future, when equality is achieved for all people, perhaps these types of groups will be null and void. The Gender Gap list will remain and allow for men to participate with women anyway, so it's no biggie. --Maggie > Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 08:47:45 +0100 > From: B?ria Lima <beria.lima(a)wikimedia.pt> > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Women on Wikimedia group > To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects > <gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Message-ID: > <CAA2XHjCrx4TY48wC_5rMAQVHbfyWMPbPentSEcapxwRNvCvSGw(a)mail.gmail.com > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Let's not reinvent the wheel, shall we? > > A group like Maggie described already exist - for years - under the name > Wikichix-l (see > http://lists.modernthings.org/listinfo.cgi/wikichix-l-modernthings.org ) > > Is a mailing list who exist since December > 2006< > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LSS/foundation-l-archives/2006_12_03-09>and > the sumary of creation was " > *Angela Beesley announced the creation of a mailing > list<http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikichix-l>and > Wiki <http://wikichix.org/> for female WMF-projects editors to discuss > gender bias and ways to make the projects more inviting for women. > Discussion followed on whether this is a positive development, and whether > a > number of other divisions will (or should) spring up after this.*" > _____ > *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.* > > >

3 2

Re: [Gendergap] Women on Wiki list
by Risker 02 Oct '11

02 Oct '11

Hi Maggie, when I clicked the link it said it was a private list and I had to be a member to read it. Has this changed? Risker/Anne On 2 October 2011 11:21, Maggie <rockerrepro(a)gmail.com> wrote: > @Risker/Anne > The Women on Wiki list, while membership is monitored, is archived and > public--anyone can read it. > Also trans women are absolutely accepted into this community. No question. > I don't want to exclude any women from this group. > > --Maggie > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >

1 0

Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 9, Issue 18
by Maggie 02 Oct '11

02 Oct '11

@Risker/Anne The Women on Wiki list, while membership is monitored, is archived and public--anyone can read it. Also trans women are absolutely accepted into this community. No question. I don't want to exclude any women from this group. --Maggie

2 1

Women on Wikimedia group
by Maggie 02 Oct '11

02 Oct '11

I've created this group as a women's-only group to discuss things without being inhibited by a male presence, if anyone is interested in joining. This group was not created with the goal of competing with Gender Gap, more as a companion or a friendly place for women to discuss their views. I would suggest this group in addition to Gender Gap rather than an alternative--because there are valid opinions to be heard all over. http://groups.google.com/group/womenonwikimedia --Maggie

9 11

Occupy Wall Street
by Sarah Stierch 02 Oct '11

02 Oct '11

A conversation taking place on this articles talk page about a photo of a topless woman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street#Bare-breast_photo This is interesting to me because it's something happening *right now*(seriously, four blocks from my apartment people are camping out!) and there are some unsigned contributions by readers involved and a discussion about shock value. -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/

4 4

Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 9, Issue 12
by Maggie 02 Oct '11

02 Oct '11

@Beria Oh my god, feminism is all about being equal--it's called egalitarianism. I've been "attacking" or "ganging up" on you because you were rude, sexist, and said things that made me extremely angry. I don't really care about the OP's post to be honest--and I didn't agree with all of it. But this is about what you said. It made me angry. It made me angry that a woman said this--effectively saying that because women are not readily visible in these issues, their opinions are invalid. That was how I understood it. And how you personally feel on the issue is irrelevant. JUST because a woman is not commenting on an issue doesn't mean she isn't offended by it. There are only 9% of women on WP after all. Perhaps women don't mind, but there is not an appropriate representation of the real-world population of women, and you are saying because the 9% of women in the minority are not "screaming to tear apart images" then obviously women are not against it. What an ignorant assumption. That is ignoring any opinion of any woman who uses WP. Then the irony of it all--several men tell me to calm down in a matter of ways. I could also say more things about anti-feminist women, and how they always behave the same way--but I won't stuff your mailboxes with anymore of this. Just remember, men: when a woman is offended by something she's allowed to voice those complaints, and it doesn't have to be productive by your standards. --Maggie Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 21:50:47 +0100 > From: B?ria Lima <beria.lima(a)wikimedia.pt> > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 9, Issue 3 > To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects > <gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Message-ID: > <CAA2XHjA3n0RNomZo7ZFeeD7BTTbYqiHxH++oMM+E_PQ1+NnF0w(a)mail.gmail.com > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Please see Theo's post in answer to one of yours. And read my mails. I'm > not > sexist. Not towards mans, not towards womans as well. I'm NOT a feminist, > true, but I'm not paternalist as well, I believe we all should be equals > and > be threaded that way. > > You really should read my mail again, I have the feeling that you didn't > understand a bit of what I said since you continue to "give me" ideas I do > not subscribe at all. > > PS.: Would be good if you keep the name of the treads you're answering. > Answer to "Digest" mails break the treads and makes everything a mess. > _____ > *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.* >

2 1

Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 9, Issue 5
by Maggie 02 Oct '11

02 Oct '11

I apologize if you are offended and find this discouraging, but I am not apologizing for what I've said. And putting a happy face at the end of your comment does not mean you haven't invalidated my opinions. I voiced opinions that I know several people on this list, let alone many women on Wikipedia, are thinking. I may be very blunt in my style, and this might put people off of me, but I found what Beria said to be more insulting and "discouraging." First of all, she claimed that the OP lied--when the op simply wrote an opinion piece about how she feels Wikipedia should work to create a more diverse atmosphere and friendly environment for women. While opinion can be wrong, while you can tell lies in your opinion, several of us found no lies in her comments, and Beria had no evidence in her comment linked to support her claim, just comments disagreeing with the OP's blog post. Second, she referred to women as girls. Which, as far as I know with any woman, is incredibly insulting and a way of one-upping someone. I'll assume you are a man because your name is Rupert. I'm sure you know if another man called you a boy it would be emasculating. It is the same for women. It's also something women have battled with for years--people still call grown women girls, no matter how much we fight it. Third, the 9% of women's opinions were completely invalidated by her, as well as the over all opinion of women who do not have accounts on WP, those who merely view WP--those who have only edited as IPs, etc. And as I said overall women's opinions are not allowed on crucial issues due to canvassing rules. These rules are specifically made to serve the community, who is mainly male, and not serve the readers, which WP is creating its pages for. Because these womens' opinions can't be heard, there are no "girls screaming to tear apart all images." It's because the women who are angry about them are silenced. To address Erik's point from the same post, I would also hesitate to say that WP is the result of reasonable, thoughtful, intelligent people. Oh yes, there are some that fit that description, but to assume that everyone on there works this way is just wrong. Many of the people who spend the most time there are those who have little to do with their time. Those who are busy putting flat-out porn on the site are not of the reasonable sort. Those busy making it their hobby to delete pages and categories without regard to reason are not of the intelligent sort. True we have fine people on Wikipedia--they are varied like the population on earth. But to say they are all intelligent, reasonable, and thoughtful is incredibly naive. There are also users who have no problem letting people know about their possibly illegal or creepy activities via their edit history, apparently. You should probably find this encouraging more than anything--and I would find it interesting if a grass-roots canvassing campaign were put in place to get more women involved in WP. --Maggie On 10/1/2011 10:08 AM, rupert THURNER wrote: maggie, this email was not very nice and encouraging ... maybe even the opposite of nice and encouraging :) On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 15:55, Maggie <rockerrepro(a)gmail.com> wrote: @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.* _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

9 12

Re: [Gendergap] Logo on WIkipedia?? Re: Wikipedia: Changing the Ratio
by Amy Senger 02 Oct '11

02 Oct '11

Hi Carole - I just added the Wikipedia:Change The Ratio logo to Wikicommons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_Change_The_Ratio_Logo.jpg Amy -- * co-founder, 1X57 www.1x57.com <http://1x57.com/> M: 202.423.6609 T: @sengseng <http://twitter.com/sengseng> * On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 10:09 AM, <carolmooredc(a)verizon.net> wrote: > Just sent out to 40 facebook friends most likely to respond at least with > a like. Is the Logo on WIkicommons so I can put on my user page?? Thanks. > > On 9/30/2011 10:48 AM, Amy Senger wrote: > > Hi Folks - I just posted my thoughts on a "Change the Ratio" campaign for > Wikipedia<http://1x57.com/2011/09/30/changing-the-ratio-wikipedias-battle-for-diversi…>, > that includes a logo my company created with the design help of JESS3 (who > did that State of Wikipedia video: > http://jess3.com/the-state-of-wikipedia/). > > In it I mention a Facebook event that I'll be promoting this weekend for > people to change their profile pic to the Change the Ratio logo on Ada > Lovelace day (one week from today, Friday Oct 7): > https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=154261054664442 > > I'd love to hear your thoughts/comments. There have been so many great > ideas generated on how to address the gendergap issue. I'd love to see more > people executing ideas at the grassroots level and seeing what works:) > > Best, > Amy > -- > * > co-founder, 1X57 > www.1x57.com <http://1x57.com/> > M: 202.423.6609 > T: @sengseng <http://twitter.com/sengseng> > > * > > * *

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

Gendergap October 2011