I just checked the Wikipedia article on Liberation Theology. Not a woman
theologian mentioned. Not a word about the debates in liberation theology
about women's human rights as central to poverty eradication. Not a word
about the disciplining of women liberation theologians., Not a woman expert
cited or a publication by a woman cited in the references. A totally
irrelevant line about an Andrew Greeley novel included. Now, in part, the
reason is that men in liberation theology do not think these are important
issues and brush them away. And the men in liberation theology hang out
together and therefore quote and write about each other. If a woman were
adding data and not dismissed by the male "experts" other information that
some segment of society finds important would be included - and would not be
considered POV.
Frances Kissling, visiting scholar
Center for Bioethics, UPenn
202 368 3954
This exchange about who women are, the influence of religion on gender roles
and participation may have some relevancy to Wikipedia's gender gap. It
certainly exposes some differences in knowledge and perhaps experience of
what is going on in the field of women and religion and some cross cultural
assumptions that women working in that field as well as in international
development, NGO advocacy and politics are doing - and public opinion on
religion through polling and other communications mechanisms and Wiki
entries could make knowledge available. Miguel, I work extensively in both
the US and Latin America and one of my major fields is women and religion,
especially but not exclusively Catholicism ( I am leaving tomorrow for El
Salvador to do a workshop there with women). The reality of what is going on
in LAC and the US is so very different from what you describe. I wonder how
Wikipedia articles and biographies in English and Spanish versions reflect
the enormous shift in the way women who are "faithful" are changing religion
itself? You have sparked my interest in taking a look at which women
leaders in religion have bios on Wikipedia, which movements and events are
chronicled, how the bios of male religious leaders reflect their stances on
women. For example, does the bio of bishop Samuel Ruiz, an advocate for
indigenous people's rights and broker between the Mexican government and the
Zapatistas mention his threat to excommunicate legislators in Chiapas who
voted for legal abortion in that state? While I don't think the gendergap
list is a place for a forum on the substance of women's identity, life, etc
and indeed some of what has been said here pushes my buttons and some of it
amuses me, I think it may help illuminate what is missing on Wikipedia
regarding events, ideologies, trends, thinking about women and the world and
what, if women were convinced Wikipedia was an important place for that
knowledge to be located, women would contribute to more relevant and up to
date info being online .
Frances Kissling, visiting scholar
Center for Bioethics, UPenn
202 368 3954
Abraham and Sarah were already very old, and Sarah was past the age of childbearing. So Sarah laughed to herself as she thought, “After I am worn out and my lord is old, will I now have this pleasure?”
Then the LORD said to Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh and say, ‘Will I really have a child, now that I am old?’ Is anything too hard for the LORD? I will return to you at the appointed time next year, and Sarah will have a son.”
Sarah was afraid, so she lied and said, “I did not laugh.”
But he said, “Yes, you did laugh.”
There's a couple of questions here:
1) Why Almighty God chose to be a man?
2) Why did Almighty God get angry with the laughter of a simple female mortal? Would he have gotten angry if she, just for *ignorance*, wouldn't have even made herself that question?
For all of you who read the Bible, this could be a nice topic for reflection. :)
Regards
Miguel Ángel
On 2/9/11, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ideas for a name -- "Wikipedia Women's Week" (or Month) or just
> "Wikipedia Women".
>
> Sarah
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin
This really is only tangentially related (hence the change in subject
name), but the comments above gave me the idea for a Facebook Group,
"Wikipedia Women" or "Women Wikipedians". There does not seem to be
anything of that sort in existence. Do you think there'd be any
interest in starting one? I'm not sure how much use it would get -
that would depend entirely on the people who joined. It would be a way
though for those of us who do participate both in Wikipedia and
Facebook to tell our friends that we do... and perhaps be a subtle
nudge to their trying it as well.
Thoughts?
Aleta
User:LadyofShalott
~~~~~~~~
"Beauty is before me, and beauty is behind me, above me and below me
hovers the beautiful... In beauty it is begun. In beauty, it is
ended."
-Navaho
> On Wednesday, February 02, 2011, jidanni at jidanni.org wrote:
> > K> our "mascot"? An overtly sexualized, large-breasted woman who people
> > K> regularly draw in bikinis and maid costumes? I mean, I know
> > K> Wikipe-tan is not actually The Problem. But she's the most egregious
> > K> example I think we have of the sort of unconscious "boyzone" culture
> >
> > Ah, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan .
> I had never seen that, and now that I have I find it embarrassing for Wikipedia.
I agree; my wife's reaction was "Urrgh", and she points out that if you go
to the youtube channels of our 14-year-old son's mates, you find that sort
of image there. ;)
But first things first: I am Andreas, self-employed, living in the UK; have
been editing WP since 2006 (I think), as User:Jayen466. I mostly edit in the
area of new religious movements, with a bit of German history and popular
music on the side.
My wife is my business partner and, frankly, sometimes resents the degree
to which I get sucked into Wikipedia (as I do myself); it's not something
she'd ever want for herself.
However, she has written a couple of music articles. She is a former music
journalist and says the thing that turned her off most about trying to
contribute here was that her first article was deleted within hours, because
it had a key word that set off a bot (the article cited three mainstream
press sources that had in-depth coverage of the subject). The comments by
the new-page patroller made it clear to her that he hadn't even read the
article. Her second article was speedied by a new page patroller within
minutes of her first clicking Save, while she was still in the process of
expanding the article and adding sources. This patroller is a chap who,
somewhat unusually, has awarded himself eight barnstars on his user page –
one of them patting himself on the back for the fact that "You play whack-a-
mole with terrible new pages like no one I've ever seen! Awesome!" He made
himself look ridiculous in her eyes, and she resented having to discuss
music with someone who clearly had none of the prerequisites required to
judge the notability of the topic concerned, and just seemed keen to get
another deletion under his belt in his private whack-a-mole fantasy.
I helped her out, and both articles eventually made DYK, but my wife's
enthusiasm was permanently dimmed. While she can live with the clunky mark-
up language, she would have welcomed a different attitude towards new
contributors.
I think women react differently to incidents like this. A bloke will dig his
heels in and on some level relish the pissing contest, and if need be waste
three hours online on it.
A woman will think, "I can't be bothered to waste my time arguing with that
ignorant twerp", and go and do something else – and remember that WP ain't
worth her time. In this way, enthusiasm is killed very quickly.
This is just anecdotal evidence, but it may mirror the experience of many
other people.
Best,
Andreas
Number one rule, practice self control: don't reply to list unless it's
important for everyone to know,not just that you want them to know it
;-) Otherwise, reply to individual poster or not at all. Of course
this applies more to the more assertive posters.
However, if one is generally reluctant to post, thinking one's
contributions are not important enough, one should not be discouraged by
this. And the fact there is less gratuitous posting may mean more
reluctant posters feel more free to post.
Also self-control cuts down on eventual debate on what should or should
not have been moderated.
Carol in dc
Howie has the data I believe.
_______________________________
Philippe Beaudette
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone, please understand any misspellings or errors.
----- Reply message -----
From: "Oliver Keyes" <scire.facias(a)gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2011 5:45 pm
Subject: [Gendergap] Example of Typical Response from Some Women
To: "Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects" <gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
As said, we need a proper survey on the matter. Surveys are always going to
be beset with statistical errors, but this seems a fairly vital thing. I
think I mentioned before that, last year, the WMF did a general survey of
people who had left Wikipedia and why. I think a good first step would be
finding out where that data is and, if it included gender in the filled-out
forms, comparing male and female reasons for leaving. If it did not, take
the general statistical model and apply it again, including a gender entry,
and compare the results.
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Sandra ordonez
<sandratordonez(a)gmail.com>wrote:
> I think it does affect women more, but this is just my personal
> observation. And I should have put "typical response I ve gotten from
> women." This is why i love wikipedia - really helps you be very aware of
> your language. Thanks Oliver!!
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Oliver Keyes <scire.facias(a)gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Yah, that's what I meant; newbie ignorance isn't a problem. Our attitude
>> to newbie ignorance is the problem :P. This is something I think all new
>> editors are at risk of (being shouted at and falling off the grid as a
>> result) - I'm not sure why it would affect women more, or if it does at all.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:13 PM, Dominic <dmcdevit(a)cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Newbie ignorance is never a problem. All newbies are, by nature,
>>> ignorant of our policies and practices. We all started out that way. And the
>>> great thing about wikis is that that is okay and you can still contribute.
>>> If anything, the problem is intolerance of newbies. (That may be what you
>>> really meant anyway, but I think it is better to turn that phrase "newbie
>>> ignorance" around.)
>>>
>>> Dominic
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/11/11 5:49 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote:
>>>
>>> "Typical response from some women" should be "a response from a woman".
>>> So the problem, then, is newbie ignorance about our rules and policies?
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Sandra ordonez <
>>> sandratordonez(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just wanted to share. Yesterday I put something on my facebook re:
>>>> gender gap. My friend from high school, who totally would be a woman who
>>>> would enjoy editing an encyclopedia, posted the following:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Whenever I edit it usually gets taken down but some OCD nerd, that
>>>> probably wants no one touching "their" site so I stopped bothering."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gendergap mailing list
>>>> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gendergap mailing list
>>> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Sandra Ordonez
> Web Astronaut
>
> "Helping you rock out in the virtual world."
>
> *www.collaborativenation.com*
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
Hey folks,
I know there have been a couple of threads discussing the idea of an
outreach-to-women Edit Wikipedia Day/Week/Month.
I'm curious to know if we all want to take a crack at it?
We've been kicking it around at the Wikimedia Foundation, and although
we're daunted by the timeline, we'd be willing to give it a shot. I
feel like there's really good momentum building around this issue
right now, and we should take advantage of it.
I'm imagining something a bit like the 10th anniversary: a wiki page
where we could publish a manifesto of some kind describing the
project, and people could post their events/activities supporting it.
I'm imagining events/activities could range from "I pledge to teach my
sister how to edit Wikipedia on March 8," to "I will persuade at least
six of my female colleagues to try editing, by posting to all my
academic listservs," to "the French chapter will hold an edit-a-thon
at the public library in Paris, and will specifically aim to recruit
women to turn up, every weekend in March." You know what I mean: that
kind of thing.
Do we want to do this? If so, let's get a page started :-)
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
After editing many years at Wikipedia, I think the most problematic
aspect of the system is that all user guidelines are on behavior. If you
have a problem editor who stays within the rules, they can and will keep
going and going on content issues till they win. And unless they break
some behavior rule, this can go on forever, especially in controversial
areas. What I want to say here is that man generally are far more likely
to keep pushinga dn pushing till they have their way content wise.
If we are serious about fixing this issue, the focus needs to shift from
behavior to content. I am not going to hit the hottest button of all,
but we need a way to reign in content warriors by providing a way to
resolve content disputes without having to wait till one of the parties
violates a behavioral policy. By the time they start violating those,
most women have left already.
Do others share this observation?
Kim
--
http://www.kimvdlinde.com
