Hi. I'm Carolmooredc and since I edit on controversial political topics
I get in lots of trouble with guys who don't like opinionated females
who don't shut up and go away when they are told to. I wish it got me
down enough to leave and do something more profitable, but I'm stubborn
- and semi-retired with lots of time on my hands.
I'd like to get more educated and retired people involved and think
there are tens of thousands who could be attracted - if we could deal
with the bar room brawl aspects of wikipedia as this exaggerated but
amusing article describes: "Wikipedia: This is a man's world"
If the Egyptians can get rid of Mubarak, we can get rid of incivility on
Wikipedia. (And it is catching; I tend to catch it myself when editing
on one or two articles where there's lots of it and before you know it,
I'm bringing (mild versions of) it elsewhere where all is peaceful. But
at least I'm always willing to apologize and strike my (relatively mild)
Anyway, bottom line of why I am posting here is to alert people to at
least one place where relevant discussions listed (now just haphazardly
in talk). Which is
don't know if other languages have such projects.)
Perhaps "WikiProjects Women" on all language Wikipedias are necessary to
draw in women who for various reasons might not go to a "Wikiproject
Anyway, an idea of current issues below on en. wikipedia below in case
anyone wants to jump right in:
Someone else proposed language to WP:Civility to make slurs vs.
homosexuals a no -no and I pointed out it wasn't clear that slurs
against women as women are not sufficiently outlawed in the proposal (or
now). And of course people are now saying adding one or two words to
make both clear is just too much bureaucracy.
Proposal to delete in order to to try to have a unified policy because
some categories allow people/organizations to be categorized who may be
bigoted and others don't. Because of consensus on the talk page (formed
by who?) Category:Homophobia doesn't allow it and I have a feeling
Category:sexism wouldn't allow some of us to put all the overtly sexist
(via WP:RS) males and organizations in that category.
Do we need stronger warnings to new users (esp women) that using real
names (or sex) can lead to harassment? Or even a check mark box for them
to check they've read about that possibility on registering ?
(Obviously, using my real name, I've had problems!)
Main relevant proposals are relating to easier blocks for bad behavior.
(Elsewhere dealing with editors who gang up on others, whether from POV
or just enjoy trashing females, has been discussed so that may yet be a
related proposal on that page.) I was working on a proposal when the NT
TImes articles came out and got sidetracked. Anyway, we definitely need
more female input.
Carol in dc
Information for the list
This is the email I sent Sandra; hardly "a long email back stating that
feminism shouldn't be about revenge. ..."
Sandra could we see the email you think you got?
--------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Women4Wikipedia
From: "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net>
Date: Thu, February 17, 2011 9:03 pm
To: "Sandra" <sandratordonez(a)gmail.com>
Serious, but actually it can be funny. A feminized environment is awkward
for a man and provides opportunity for humor.
> Fred r u being funny or serious - I can't tell.
> Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 7:39 PM, "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net>
>>> It has occurred to me to wonder what Wikipedia would look like if 85%
>>> its editors were female?
>>> Rosie Williams
>> It would be pretty awful. Scenes like that are not welcoming.
>> Gendergap mailing list
Well, the title of this thread does say HELP!
I see that Carol and Andreas are down at [[Bukkake]] and [[Snowballijng (sexual practice)]]. Both have problematic images.They are going to be absolutely eaten alive, so go down there and help them out.
It's not that anything can be accomplished. That would be quite impossible, I've worked with these editors extensively over the past months, and they are ruthless, relentless, clever, and utterly without scruple. Their motivation? Don't get me started. And because of the of the subject matter one cannot expect any support from the admin corps, rather the opposite if anything.
But Carol and Andreas might appreciate the gesture anyway.
Having asked the original question on this thread I thought I might
chime in with my thoughts to the responses. When I posted it I imagined
I'd get responses from women rather than men so it was interesting that
the initial responses came from men and then a discussion ensued about
the merits/disbenefits of the idea of Wikipedia dominated by women as it
is presently dominated (statistically) by men.
I was thinking of it more in the context of the content on Wikipedia
given the issues previously raised on this list so it was interesting to
see my idea interpreted in terms of relationships. It had not occurred
to me that in asking people (in my mind women) to imagine what Wikipedia
would look like if the contribution stats were reversed on the variable
of gender that this might be interpreted as some kind of agenda so I
ought to state how I do see the issue of women's participation for the
purposes of my own campaining Women4Wikipedia http://women4wikipedia.net
It has been insteresting and informative reading about the experiences
of various women with Wikipedia both in the media and on this list.
Given that my prior experience with Wikipedia is adding one article and
reading it for various purposes almost daily, I was not aware that women
in general felt they were treated differently on Wikipedia than men or
that there were cases where certain topics were potentially the subject
of concerted campaigns.
However in getting more women involved with Wikipedia I have to wonder
whether, for the person who simply adds a page or two or makes a few
edits, whether the image presented in the media is going to represent
their experience with Wikiepdia? It doesn't reflect mine and I'm not
trying to be or get women to become heavily involved in Wikipedia
necessarily but just to 'add their crumb' as the saying goes. I hasten
to add that I do not wish to invalidate the negative experiences some
women have had with Wikipedia. I feel for people who have been in the
position of fighting a battle for what they believe is right and found
Wikipedia to have failed their rights and expections. I understand that
they feel violated and burned out. I do not wish to justify or
invalidate their experience.
I do wish to say though that this experience might depend on the level
of controversy of the topic one is editing, not to discount this
conflict, but to say that in getting women (or men) involved around the edges of
Wikipedia that this is not necessarily going to be their experience. I
got in, created my page and got out. I never talked to anyone during
this process because there was no need to. I expect that if I were to
continue to edit Wikipedia I'd run the risk of entering into an edit war
sooner or later. So it is good to see how other people have faired and
try to create a supportive environment for women who may encounter such
This is one of the things I am trying to create through Women4Wikipedia.
This is not to suggest women are always going to agree but in a sea of
men it is nice to find a female face and also (for me) to gain
confidence through self-reliance rather than relying on the nearest geek
who is often a male. That's what I'm doing here anyway and the way I
see my campaign. To me the idea of open source is not much if relatively
normal people can't come along and play round the edges, if it is all
for the super geeks then it just becomes another silo. I think Wikipedia
is fairly unique in this regard in that it is open to everyone and you
don't have to be a developer or an expert. A lot of open source groups
seem to be for developers whether they brand themselves that way or not.
I see no reason not to also want to help male novices with Wikipedia but
given the current issue for Wikipedia is its lack of female
contributors I decided to focus on women given that I am one and
apparently one of the few. I am currently hosting weekly Twitter chats
at http://wthastag.com/Women4wikipedia starting
9am UTC/GMT Monday or 8pm Australian Time (Sydney). Readings &
transcripts are at http://women4wikipedia.net
The mailing list format is all well and good, but it's led to problems;
people are talking "too much", there are concerns about editing attitude,
and it's a relatively obscure and odd-to-wrangle interface for those not
familiar with it. In addition, the structure of mailing lists by default
means that things that suggestions which aren't immediately popular tend to
drop off the face of the earth. With the usability and Strategic Plan
projects, a dedicated wiki was created where people could turn up and
discuss ideas and projects in a far more open and easily navigable format.
Would it be an idea to create gendergap.wikimedia.org, or
outreach.wikimedia.org, or *something*, where we could apply that open and
familiar format to this problem as well?
(Sorry, I did not mean to start a new thread. I was trying to respond to an existing thread,
and don't know how to format the subject header to do this (wish there were instructions)).
This is my last post to this thread, and I'll talk more about that at the bottom of the
We do expect our admins to be fair-minded, and on most subjects they
are. However, we
also expect our admins to be 18-to-28 year old
childless single males with a particular
mindset. They are only human, and I am not decrying this this, simply noting it.
Obviously, most of the problem here with admins and most editors is of the "But what's
wrong with the
pinup calender, I just can't understand your objection, please explain it again
for the five hundredth time so I can decide if your being insulted is valid" variety.
But that's not true of every single editor.
Oliver, I am not insinuating anything. I am stating something clearly.
I work with these editors very regularly and have for a while. It is very difficult work. I loathe it
and often dread sitting down at the keyboard. I very very much prefer doing translations and
other work like that. However, if you volunteer to work in the soup kitchen you also have to
scrub the pots.
I know more about this particular narrow subject than probably anyone. It is hard gained
knowledge. I know what am talking about. So I don't appreciate the abuse, although I am
quite used to it and expect it.
These people - a few editors, but not that few - are very dedicated. Dedication is admirable,
depending on what you are dedicated to. Motivations vary between and even within
individuals and are tricky to discern and characterize. I'll just say that these people are not
National Organization for Women members and leave it at that.
I don't offer a solution because I don't have one.
Oliver, I do not appreciate your going into combat stance and also putting me in this
position. I didn't start this thread, did not name it HELP, and make no claim for aid on my
own behalf. I was pointing out a a couple of people who might be in for a difficult experience
and might appreciate a friendly face.
(Actually, the folks I am talking about may have gone to ground for awhile. But they'll be back when you all have moved on.)
Finally Oliver, Fred, and some others - and I'll include myself - not as a matter of being
male, but as a matter of being clueless and insensitive - would it be asking
too much for you to back off and give the sisters some space? I have a talk page on the
English Wikipedia and am willing to engage there with other males in in combative tests of
verbal jousting skill. Not posting to this thread again, suggest some others might consider
If 85% of Wikipedians were women I don't think there'd be quite as much porn on there. ;-) I think there is also an age bias among Wikipedia contributors (according to the research) and I think this does bias tone of the site along with gender. However I'm more about getting women editing Wikipedia than pondering the sociological questions (despite my degree in sociology!).
I guess it was the sociologist in me that asked the question about what the resource would look like if the gender stats were reversed but there may well also be differences if the average age of contributors were different.
> From: gendergap-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Gendergap Digest, Vol 1, Issue 96
> To: gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 00:20:21 +0000
> Send Gendergap mailing list submissions to
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Gendergap digest..."
> Today's Topics:
> 1. Re: Women4Wikipedia (Oliver Keyes)
> 2. Re: PZ Myers takes on the gendergap (wrt atheism) (Sandra)
> 3. Re: PZ Myers takes on the gendergap (wrt atheism) (Ism Woonpton)
> 4. Re: Implications and solutions... Hardcore images essay -
> HELP! (Carol Moore in DC)
> 5. Re: PZ Myers takes on the gendergap (wrt atheism) (Sandra)
> 6. A proposal (Oliver Keyes)
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 22:13:54 +0000
> From: Oliver Keyes <scire.facias(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Women4Wikipedia
> To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> It depends. I don't think you can generalise and say that gender is the
> distinction here; rather, it's a distinction of interests and norms. I
> recommend http://www.mindspillage.org/wiki/Women_on_Wikipedia as a good
> read. " the culture is not biased against women, but rather biased toward
> certain traits and against others--and that generally men are more likely to
> be in the group whose characteristics are more accepted"; in other words, we
> could have an identical culture if 85 percent of the editors were female,
> they'd just be a very specific subset of women.
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Collective Action <
> collective_action(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > It has occurred to me to wonder what Wikipedia would look like if 85% of
> > its editors were female?
> > regards
> > Rosie Williams
> > http://women4wikipedia
> > @collectiveact
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gendergap mailing list
> > Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Yesterday Moscow State University journalism Professor and Arthur C. Clarke
specialist Larisa Makhaylova cited Naomi Klein's 20 minute TED talk --
http://youtu.be/0ZhL7P7w3as as supporting interstellar colonization from a
I suspect female Wikipedians would be likely to agree, and I hope everyone
enjoys the different perspective.
I know PZ and his atheism might not be to everyone's taste, but apparently
atheist organizations are also struggling with a gender gap. He made a post
on his blog yesterday that really resonated with me. The full post is
but what really resonates with me is this bit:
"You want women to find your organization pleasant and interesting and worth
contributing to? Then don't form panels full of men trying to figure out
what women want, talking over women who try to get a word in edgewise,
belittling women's suggestions with jokes, and trying to determine how We
Well-Meaning Men can give Those Women what we think they want."
Listen to the women instead of talking over them, guys. Seriously.
While I had a problem with general discussion of the topic, once I got
to Bukkake article, a term I never had heard of before, I could easily
see the problem and that there are needed solutions both to make it
inviting to women and to discourage any kind of sexism related to
extensive editng of these articles. (After looking at a dozen of these
articles in last couple days I noticed I've had run ins on other types
of articles with a few of the editors that were uncomfortable.)
First, note that Bukkake is an example of the infamous "circle jerk" (a
notable male only activity with lots of WP:RS) but not only is there *no
article about it,* but the term forwarded to an article about people
masturbating each other - not even accurate.
And of course Gay Bukkake which I just searched and has WP:RS isn't
mentioned. So instead of two similar graphics of a woman being the
object, they obviously need one with a man being the object. The
"snowballing" article, something else new to me similarly showed two
women doing it, even though overwhelmingly it is gay men and
heterosexual couples doing it. All that just shows quite a bit of sexist
and even homophobic POV.
Anyway, more females and gay males (another under-represented here?)
willing to deal with these POVs would help. Plus two suggestions below.
Also, admin wise, maybe Sexual Content needs its own ANI do it doesn't
freak out all the people who don't want to hear about it.
On 2/17/2011 1:15 PM, Brandon Harris wrote:
> It's absolutely possible to deal with this by simply following the
> principle of "least surprise".
> In this specific case, the problem could easily have been avoided by:
> a) Moving "Bukkake" to "Bukkake (Sexual Act)"
> b) Making the "Bukkake" page a disambiguation page with a pointer to
> "Udon" and one to the sexual activity.
--- On *Thu, 17/2/11, Ryan Kaldari /<rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org>/*wrote:
So do we all agree that the Principle of Least Astonishment needs to be
encoded into some kind of policy or guideline? In other words, images
with a sexual context should only appear in articles/categories that
also have a sexual context. Otherwise, Wikipedia naturally tends towards
an editorial policy dictated by 20-year-old single white males who see
no problem with keeping pictures of naked women in every corner of
Wikipedia and Commons.