An RfC has been opened on the continued use of the photo of a nude pregnant woman as the lead image at [[Pregnancy]], remarked upon here recently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pregnancy#Lead_image_RfC
I found the response by HiLo48 to my !vote (where I raised the to-me relevant issue that I didn't see anyone else talking about directly) very revealing for our current discussions and this list in general.
Daniel Case
@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.*
>
>
Hi folks,
The article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dinner_Party - which is about
the artwork by feminist artist and writer Judy Chicago, has some issues.
The issues lie in the "lists" that cover all the women featured in the
installation.
I'm in the process of a research project about the piece and the
controversy of the exhibition (...gotta get that master's) and I'm going to
start rewriting Chicago's biography while on winter break.
While I am very busy right now, I am seeking volunteers who might have
interest in evaluating how the list of women on *Dinner Party* article can
be better developed. Perhaps a separate page called "Women represented in
The Dinner Party" or a chart that is placed on the artworks own page. But,
as you can see, this list is rather poor and not the most pleasant on the
eyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dinner_Party#Women_represented_in_the_plac…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dinner_Party#Women_represented_on_the_cera…
I'd prefer people to take action, over just sharing ideas with me right now
(sorry to be bossy, but, I trust *you!)*. So BE BOLD and let's make that
list as wonderful and visually appealing as the artwork itself!
Anyone who can lend a hand will receive the Archives of American Art
Barnstar (since Judy Chicago is represented in the archives collection,
where I served as Wikipedian in Residence)!
Thank you gender-gap comrades,
Sarah
--
<http://www.glamwiki.org>
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sarahstierch.com/
2011/11/29 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>
> On 29 November 2011 21:51, emijrp <emijrp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dear all;
> >
> > We have heard many times that most Wikipedians are male, but have you
> heard
> > about gender and fundraising? Some data from a 2010 study[1] and a 2011
> > German study[2] (question 20th of 22). People have said that Wikipedia
> is a
> > sexist place which excludes women to edit. Looks like women neither are
> > interested on editing nor funding free knowledge.
> >
> > Is WMF working to increase female donors just like female editors?
>
> I think the first step would be to try and figure out if women are
> visiting the site and not donating or just not visiting at all.
>
>
So, the first step would be to try and figure out if women are visiting the
site and not editing or just not visiting at all, before saying nonsense
about sexism and Wikipedia community.
> You would also want to make sure there really is a significant
> imbalance and that it's not just that men are more likely to fill out
> the survey form.
>
>
That affects to all surveys, again.
Looks like people only care about surveys which say what they want to read.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
Hi everyone,
This came across my radar; perhaps there are a few of you (of any
gender, of course!) interested in participating who might not know about
this:
January 2012 San Francisco Hackathon - Jan 20-22.
" Developers in the Bay Area and Silicon Valley, you can create cool
hacks with and on Wikipedia. Our first San Francisco hackathon is
happening Jan. 20-22, and we'll be there teaching you about MediaWiki
(our software), about our API and about our framework for JavaScript
feature development. Learn to reuse Wikipedia content in your own apps,
create new functionality for every Wikipedia user around the world, or
just tailor your own experience."
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/January_2012_SF_Hackathon
It's being led by Sumana Harihareswara who is the Wikimedia Foundation's
Volunteer Development Coordinator and one of Femmeonomics
<http://femme-o-nomics.com/2011/10/top-50-women-to-watch-in-tech-part-ii/>
top 50 women to watch in tech this year.
A great opportunity to meet other developers, learn about
MediaWiki-ness. And of course, for any female tech geeks - a great
opportunity to work with other female developers and programmers in a
laid back and welcome environment (which I assume it will be having
worked with Sumana!). Please forward to your colleagues and fellow-geeks!
-Sarah
--
Sarah Stierch Consulting
--
Historical, cultural, new media & artistic research & advising.
http://www.sarahstierch.com
Dear all;
We have heard many times that most Wikipedians are male, but have you heard
about gender and fundraising? Some data from a 2010 study[1] and a 2011
German study[2] (question 20th of 22). People have said that Wikipedia is a
sexist place which excludes women to edit. Looks like women neither are
interested on editing nor funding free knowledge.
Is WMF working to increase female donors just like female editors?
Regards,
emijrp
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2010FR_Donor_survey_report.pdf
[2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Detailed_results.pdf
hi,
a collegue made me stumble upon a german user page with a couple of
interesting notes concerning wikimedia participation:
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer:DrJunge&oldid=96427767
there is quite a lot of statements why the author thinks the current wmf
and wmde suggestions for increasing participation and image filtering are
"headless" and will not lead to any success. and, there is one idea which i
find very appealing:
to increase female participation, drjunge suggests to implement "post-it"s.
they can be placed on any position into wikipedia pages, and are only
personally viewable in a first step. later the visibility might be extended
just like with other social networks. one funny side-usage of these
post-its is that they of course can be placed onto images one does not like.
as i am not female and not non-participating, i'd wonder what you think
about such an idea?
rupert.
Hey folks,
http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/beauty/6041397/Kiwi-women-are-slobs-Wikip…
"According to Wikipedia women in New Zealand are unfeminine, wear
masculine clothing and spend ''little time on makeup and personal
grooming''."
Somebody might want to take a look at this -- the article is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_New_Zealand.
This is the relevant paragraph:
"Lack of femininity: Women in New Zealand are supposedly unfeminine,
for example wearing masculine clothing and spending little time on
makeup and other forms of personal grooming. This can also be seen in
a positive light; Kiwi women are portrayed as not being held back by
ideas about being 'ladylike' and are therefore willing to take on
'masculine' tasks such as car maintenance and playing rugby. Former
Prime Minister Helen Clark is often seen as an embodiment of this
stereotype, for good and bad: critics point at her lack of children
and her choice on one occasion to meet the Queen while wearing
trousers; supporters like her passion for mountain climbing and
ability to hold her own in parliamentary debates.[24]"
If nobody else has time to look at it I'll try to do it sometime in
the next few days :-)
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