Marc--the women's group is not about that, that is what Gender Gap is
about. The woman's group is a place for women to discuss things
without the presence of men. It's not a group to sit around and
complain about men or Wikipedia, it's a group for women to talk freely
about these issues. I've also pointed out that this is not in
competition with Gender Gap. In fact, it links to this mailinglist in
the description. The goal of that group is to give the 9% of women a
place of their own.
Forwarding this along in relation to the original post I made in terms of
ideas and if anyone is interested in working on this or has other ideas. :)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Laura Hale <laura(a)fanhistory.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: [wmau:members] Grant to improve the lift of women in the ACT
To: "Ms. Anne Frazer" members(a)wikimedia.org.au
Cc: Leigh Blackall <leighblackall(a)gmail.com>
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Ms. Anne Frazer wrote:
> This is good news. And of course this is an excellent opportunity to avail
> ourselves of funding that is on offer to promote female participation - as
> an unshackled open approach to sharing knowledge. We shouldn't need to
> incarcerate women's thinking into any one particular pathway or content.
> That the grants emanate from ACT is indeed a good opportunity to advantage
> our northern sisters and brothers. Your idea needs a commitment from a group
> of women and men reading this (or who know someone who might like to help)
> and to begin by coordinating it through one volunteer who would like to get
> this up and running.
I was trying to think of things that could be done to generally meet this
grant and work with existing goals. My initial thought was some scanning
related project related to women's rights in Australia and possibly working
with the National Library and contacts there to do that. I just don't know
if that could be argued as a way to help improve the lives of local women.
My next thought was we could try to work with an international student
department at either the University of Canberra, Australian National
University, CIT or ADFA to develop a textbook aimed at female international
and aboriginal students who move to the territory to attend university. The
purpose of the textbook would be to provide a female specific guide for
issues upon arrival, things like visas, getting care specific to being
female, how to be safe in the city, how to socialise, customs that may be
different than other countries, The book could possibly be developed in
multiple languages, by trying to find bilingual female students who could
write a version for their native language.
This could be done on something like wikibooks.
to be some what similar in terms of scope. Ask for something like
$3,000 to $5,000 with $1,000 for printing costs, $2,000 for staff training
and incentives to contribute to the development of the book, $2,000 for
recruiting local female international students to contribute and incentivise
them to contribute.
If something like that could be done successfully, then it could be done a
as a model for other universities around Australia. It would also help with
some of goals as they pertain to LangCom with developing materials in other
It just isn't something I would be peachy keen to do on my own.
The state I live in in Australia is offering $100,000 worth of grant money
to improve the quality of life for local women. Details are available at
http://www.dhcs.act.gov.au/women/grants_and_scholarships . The money is for
one off programs, with a maximum of $25,000 available.
Should members of this list, local chapters and the WMF be looking to apply
for these types of grants? Is there any opportunity to apply for grants like
this which would help with goals WMF related goals, help in the development
of relationships like WMF has with GLAMs, with the idea of increasing female
participation or improving female related content on Wikipedia? What sort
of activities could be done if this was an area that people thought was
valuable and an idea worth exploring?
A lot of things I think about, and I'm sure a lot of other people here think
I'm sure this blog won't be well received on other WMF-related mailing
lists, but, I have to admit - for me - I feel like she's speaking for me.
I don't want to be a censor, I just want people to have common sense, good
judgement, customer service and logic. And when people call *me* a censor,
it's just as offensive as the other names I've been called.
I have beencalled a prude, bitch, agitator, bore, conservative, censor,
"anti-woman"... someone with an agenda...etc. I can only thank you Sue for
speaking on behalf of me - when I clumsily try to express myself on
Foundation-L and fear being shot-down and having my "Wiki" self-esteem torn
down.....I just feel like "giving up."
Thanks. And I promise everyone, some of us are working towards this, and
working towards a change and a towards a conversation that is adult, logical
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia <http://www.glamwiki.org>
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
Yes I know that the 9% is women on WP. I referred to that in my post. It
doesn't matter if you are also a woman. Women can be sexist against their
own gender. It happens a lot.
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 15:26:17 +0100
> From: B?ria Lima <beria.lima(a)wikimedia.pt>
> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 8, Issue 76
> To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
> Do you actually know that the 9% I reffer is the study who shows that only
> 9% of wp users are female, right? Because for your answer I don't quite
> think you did.
> And I'm here because I'm a woman and a wikipedian. I'm sorry if I don't
> under group pression and thinks exactly like you do.
> *B?ria Lima*
> Wikimedia Portugal <http://wikimedia.pt>
> (351) 963 953 042
> *Imagine um mundo onde ? dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> acesso ao somat?rio de todo o conhecimento humano. ? isso o que estamos a
I was once warned for canvassing, because I told people offsite how to vote
in a discussion about to keep certain page. These people were mostly of a
female audience and interested in women's history, and the group who were
wanting to delete were mostly anglo men.
Also, Peter, when a person is offended by something someone else has said
and you don't understand it---it's probably best not to comment on it.
I actually *have* read it very closely due to that situation. But thanks for
assuming that I am not capable of doing so.
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 10:02:22 -0700
> From: Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [Gendergap] Canvassing
> To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
> Message-ID: <CEFD590F-2C51-468E-9274-2DCC9C7CAA3C(a)gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> On Oct 1, 2011, at 6:55 AM, Maggie wrote:
> > 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.
> Maggie, I can relate to the frustration you're expressing. But I'd like to
> draw a distinction between the Canvassing guideline itself (which I consider
> a helpful and insightful document, that illuminates important collaborative
> practices) and the way accusations of Canvassing may be made in certain
> The Canvassing guideline is an important part of our world. If you haven't
> read it recently, I highly recommend it:
> It is often quoted by people who, I think, *haven't* read it closely, and
> used to criticize behavior that is actually constructive. That is a problem,
> but it's not a problem with the guideline itself.
let me introduce myself to you. I'm a female editor and long time
volunteer in the german wikipedia. To answer your question: I voted
against the image filter and I didn't have a problem with the vulva
picture on the front page (Ok, I saw better pictures on the front page
over the years, but I was not shocked and did not think this was such
a big thing).
As far as I can overlook the recent discussions on the german
wikipedia, the german blogosphere, facebook and a lot of personal
talks I had to other female editors in the last weeks most of them
thinks exactly the same. Why that? I don't know. Maybe because filters
aren't very popular in germany at all, maybe it's because we have
state schools with a curriculum in sexual education and you can see
those pictures in your school books.
Maybe that wasn't the answer you expected but I had the feeling I had
to answer to this.
P.S. And, no, I'm not to shy to post on foundation-l but I'm not
interested in subscribing _to_much_ mailinglists, so I'm happy to read
the web-archives (And I will do exactly the same with this list after
So how can we measure what impact we're having on getting women to
Over the next few months Wikimedia UK's very going to be adopting a rather
more formal set of reporting procedures. I just wondered if people on this
list had any thoughts about how we could build in some gender impact
assessment into this reporting.
It should be fairly easy for the Board to ask for statistics on how many of
the people attending events are men and how many are women. Ideally we would
also have statistics on how many people attending events *who then go on to
edit/join/otherwise take part* available by gender. It should be even easier
to monitor the diversity of our staff (currently we have 2, both are male)
and Wikimedians in Residence (also currently 2, both male) and indeed the
board (err.... 7 men) - hopefully these statistics will be a bit better in a
Does anyone have any more thoughts on how we should approach this?
PS. Also, you might be interested to know that we've identified a £10k
budget for "broadening impact" - i.e. additional funding for projects which
are aimed at women, Scotland, Wales, ethnic or linguistic minorities - I
think this is a good thing but we do need to make sure the remaining £500k
isn't spent only on white Englishmen ;-)