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/
@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
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.*
>
>
>
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
>
>
@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
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
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/
@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.*
>
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
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>
>
> *
>
>
*
*
