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
> > about gender and fundraising? Some data from a 2010 study and a 2011
> > German study (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
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I don't think an Admin should get any more weight as any other editor working on writing an article when they are contributing to it in an editor role (like POV-pushing over an info box, to demonstrate the high esteem in which they place pretty breasts). If they keep overriding other editors when the consensus is going against them, then why not complain to another Admin about their behaviour and have them sanctioned for it? The Admins are not above the rules, and it should be pointed out to them more often by regular editors when they decide to act like assclowns.
I have the impression that a lot of the bias problems, whether sexism, elitism, racism, etc., whatever the expression of the bias, a lot of the time the root problem is all about inflated egos. "Little tin god" syndrome. Some people contributing to Wikipedia set themselves up to be an "expert" on a topic, say Widgets. It doesn't matter that they are really not a world expert on Widgets; they will shout down anyone else who challenges their POV or their perception of themselves as World's Foremost Authority on All Things Widget-Related Because They Control the Wikipedia Article on It and Therefore Influence All Global Knowledge On Widgets.... Sadly, as long as they can succeed at shouting down other contributors by abusing the system (using WP red tape and bureaucracy to their advantage), they are in fact kind of the owner of the WP article in Widgets, and in practical terms, they do have an overly weighty influence over world knowledge of "widgets". I'd
like to see the WP red tape streamlined, for sure...
When it comes to writing an article on anything that might be perceived as less important to the male-dominated WP editing community than say Human Penis Size (one of Wikipedia's most-read articles), I take a few steps to try to make it less justifiable for any jerks to try to have it deleted. My main tactic is quantifying the subject as much as possible. A lot of guys think in terms of "How long? How many? How often? How far?" So, give lots of numbers: she earns $XXXXXX a year, the movie was seen by XX million people, the book was on the NY Times bestseller list for XX weeks, the song was Number 1 on Billboard for XX weeks, she increased sales by XX% last year, she has businesses in XX countries, she sold XXXXX units this year, etc., and cited the numbers properly with reliable sources. I know it's a double standard in demanding more extensive "justification" for a women's topic (or a minority topic, or a global south topic, etc.), but some people
are idiots, that's just the way it is. Another good tactic is to include an official institution of any kind as a source of info on the subject -- is it possible to connect the article in any way to a museum exhibit? Or a university course, publication, etc.? Has the woman ever spoken at a large conference, or has the topic been the subject of a conference or lecture somewhere? Has the woman been cited as a possible expert source by another writer, in a book, newspaper article, interview, documentary, TV program, etc. (which would make them notable)?
A few months ago Kelly Wearstler appeared - I think on this list. I had
never heard of her, but, a small stink was being made on her talk page
about whether to feature the Playboy model infobox for her page. So, I
took a look, and of course got sucked in. I rewrote the article and
blahblabhlah. One user was claiming that only claim to fame Kelly
Wearstler has is being a Playboy model.
Someone linked me to an interesting comment on some arbcom case. Now,
I'm not into getting involved in the drama llama known as Arbcom, but
I'm a bit irked by this guy's comments here:
And I'm not sure the protocol to going about handling this. It really
irritates me, and now he's making some assumption that Kelly " Wearstler
herself would rather that her Wikipedia page emphasize her interior
design business rather than her Playmate past." Uhhh...I wrote the
page, to emphasize that she wasn't just a Playboy model (and consensus
agreed on the talk page that it wasn't her main claim to fame). I also
have NEVER MET KELLY WEARSTLER let alone do I own her books, nor did I
know who she was (I'm just that involved in the fashion industry
So, I'm fairly aggravated that this person is claiming that it was
Wearstler doing the manipulating to the article and that by revamping
the page I'm saying (or someone is) that being a Playboy bunny is
inherently bad. It states it in the lead that she was Playboy of the
Month, and there is a section for it -
Her clothing and interior design items are sold at Bergdorf Goodman
(which is a VERY high end store - think 1% ;-) ) and she's published a
number of books including a LA Times best seller.
Obviously I'm pissed, so how does one go about saying "Listen dude, I
didn't write it FOR her, and if you don't think there's more to her, you
need to really look a little closer," without getting sucked into an
Arbcom drama? I try to assume good faith, that perhaps he's just
misunderstanding something, or I don't know what...
It also doesn't help that I've had artist biographies I've written
lately speedy nominated because the speedy nominators 1) don't know
anything about art 2) don't do their research properly.
So yeah, I'm grumpy.
Sarah Stierch Consulting
Historical, cultural, new media & artistic research & advising.
A little background:
Kww, the candidate for arbcom about whom we are talking, was one of the
users who insisted that it was a good idea to have a specific playmate
infobox in the article on Wearstler. The box in question is one which makes
the bust, waist and hip measurements the most prominently displayed data on
the subject. It has no room for information on any non-Playboy-related
facts (in other words: her entire career).
After the box had been removed by me, it was restored by a couple of other
users (an IP and a user called Dismas). After I had called attention to the
issue at the BLP noticeboard (archive:
-- the discussion is worth reading -- and Scott MacDonald, an admin long
active in BLP issues had become involved, Kww appeared and restored the box
I had discovered the article a while earlier and had considered doing
something about it, but the discussion left a bad taste in my mouth and I
decided against it. I later called Sarah's attention to it, after noticing
that she both had an interest in art and design and was involved in gender
issues on Wikipedia, and she did an excellent job of improving the article.
A couple of days ago, after having looked at the Wearstler article again
and checking the "what links here" for the page, I noticed that Kww had
returned to the issue in a reply to a question in his arbcom candacy Q&A
page. Here he states that
>>...being a Playmate of the Month is probably the most notable single
thing she has ever done. Yet, the standard Playmate infobox was deemed too
unsightly for her page, primarily because Wearstler herself would rather
that her Wikipedia page emphasize her interior design business rather than
her Playmate past. <<
What I mainly find disturbing about this is Kww's obstinate and continuing
unwillingness to recognize the testimony of all the sources cited in the
article and in the BLP/N discussion as to the notability of Wearstler's
design career. Despite her well-documented success in the design business,
despite the quote from The New Yorker, calling her "the presiding grande
dame of West Coast interior design", Kww still feels that posing nude
before a Playboy photographer seventeen years ago is more important.
- Is this a bias against interior design or even design in general? Well, I
just find Kww's attitude puzzling; it makes no sense to me. It certainly
doesn't show the ability to read, understand and weigh sources that I would
hope to find in someone who aspires to be on the arbitration committee (or
even in an administrator).
- Is this a gender issue? Well, in this particular case it certainly is.
- Is bias against interior design in general a gender issue? That is a
rather difficult question, but stereotyping interior design as female (and
this stereotype certainly exists, as the BLP/N debate showed) arguably
makes it into a gender issue. There are probably age-related biases
involved in the coverage or non-coverage of a particular subject area. Even
though I don't know if this applies in the particular case of the Wearstler
article and the people involved in this debate, I suspect that it may have
some relevance for the coverage of interior design in general.
(Sorry for not "threading" properly, but I just subscribed and have only
seen Sarah's messages in the web archives.)