I just posted the following blog entry, but also attach my summary of the article (which itself is only ~3 pages).
[[ http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikipedia/collective-intelligence-and-…
2011 Mar 18 | Collective Intelligence and Women
A paper that I was happy to read while working on my draft of "Free As in
Sexist?" was the recent Science article "Evidence for a Collective
Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups". The researchers
found evidence of a "collective intelligence" factor on group tasks that
was less related to the highest intelligence member, or the group's average
intelligence, than to average social sensitivity, conversational
turn-taking, and the proportion of females in the group! They conclude "it
would seem to be much easier to raise the intelligence of a group than an
individual. Could a group's collective intelligence be increased by, for
example, better electronic collaboration tools?" I wonder if those using
electronic collaboration tools have their collective intelligence increased
via greater female participation?!
this entry posted to social/wikipedia;
]]
Dear Sue & All,
I am yet to experience sexism on Wikipedia however my reading of this list has only served to confuse me with regard to the gender gap issue. I am hoping that someone can clarify the following points with some kind of authority.
Is there any consensus in the Wikipedia/Wikimedia heirarchy that the Gender gap on Wikipedia is a problem that Wikipedia is trying to solve (apparently with the help of this list)?
Is there any consensus in the Wikipedia/Wikimedia heirarchy that women who attempt to contribute to Wikipedia are likely to be subject to chronic sexist remarks and that this is presumed to factor into the lower participation rates of women?
What is the responsibility of Wikipedia/Wikimedia in protecting individuals from harrassment and in particular, any systemic abuse which is believed to be endemic to Wikipedia?
How does Wikipedia take responsibility to ensure that when people come to Wikipedia to edit for the first time they are made aware of problems they may encounter (both due to their gender and more generally) and the actions they can take to address these issues?
What are the roles of the Wikimedia/Wikipedia hierarchy here on the list and do official representatives of these organisations have rights to determine the debate here that go beyond the power of other list members?
What, if any quality assaurance guidelines, structure or policy is behind this list and the goal of reducing the gender gap on Wikipedia and the relationship between the two?
thankyou for your time
Rosie Williams
http://women4wikipedia.nethttp://collectiveaction.com.au
@collectiveact
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 22:14:24 -0700
> From: Sue Gardner <sgardner(a)wikimedia.org>
> Subject: [Gendergap] This list
> To: gendergap <Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTimoLEv9O9cLNPhxoh7LGr+bUegrO1bR=9d+qBEd(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Wow! I was absent for two days and this list caught fire! The newer
> mails feel like we've been nearer a resolution, but still: there was
> lots of heat :-(
>
> I'm going to take a minute to try to summarize and reflect back a
> little. Bear with me: I'm on my phone, so I'm not going to be able to
> quote individuals or respond inline to earlier mails. But I have read
> everything.
>
> To recap: Laura originally made a proposal to ask the men on this list
> to leave. Her rationale was that men have been inappropriately
> dominating the discussion here, which had the effect of silencing
> and/or frustrating women who expect and want this to be a safe,
> constructive space. I believe that in making that proposal, she was
> acting out of frustration not just on her own behalf, but on behalf of
> other women here who've been feeling silenced, whether they've spoken
> up or not.
>
> If Laura's proposal had gotten significant support from women on this
> list, personally I would take that very seriously. It would make me
> sad to think that women here couldn't see a workable option that
> includes both women and men ----- but if there had seemed to be a
> consensus among women that a women-only list is desirable or better, I
> would buy that as a regrettable-but-accurate expression of where we're
> at.
>
> But, although some people expressed agreement with the basics of what
> Laura said, there wasn't much support for the idea of kicking men off
> the list. So on that basis, we won't do it.
>
> (To recap for anyone who doesn't know: Erik Moeller started this list
> at my request. That makes me the de facto owner, although I'm totally
> willing to share that responsibility with others, and I think we all
> have a responsibility to help self-govern.)
>
> So. Having said that, personally I think the issues Laura raised are
> real, and the discussion they prompted was useful. I think some
> helpful stuff has gotten said, particularly when some of the quieter
> people started to speak up, and I'd like to now say a few things too.
>
> Essentially: since the list started, a number of people (including me)
> have observed that i) there are a lot of men here, maybe more than
> women, and ii) the men have talked quite a bit. Certainly there have
> been times on this list when I felt like a small number of men were
> dominating the conversation, and occasionally also seeming to me to
> deny women's experiences, and/or to tell them how to feel about them.
> (Lots of men were also asking questions or just listening or offering
> support of various kinds.)
>
> That didn't surprise me: I think it's "normal." If you're a man, and
> you've been trained that your opinion is valuable and wanted: well,
> then you are fairly likely to believe that, and to act accordingly.
> Similarly, a couple of women here have talked about how they've been
> socialized to stay quiet and to defer, and that therefore that's what
> they tend to do. In general, I think it would be hard to fault people
> too much for their cultural conditioning. And honestly, women here are
> likelier to be more aware of (and thoughtful about) our conditioning
> than men are, because as the non-dominant group we've had to think
> about it more. So I am not surprised that some men here haven't been
> (IMO) super self-reflective and self-moderating. And I am also,
> honestly, not surprised to see a few women get really, really angry
> about that, because my guess is this is not their first time at that
> rodeo ;-)
>
> I think that everyone here has a responsibility to try to be
> self-aware about how their behaviour is affecting other people. The
> Quakers have a really nice principle for their meetings, that in
> general, quiet people should aim to talk more, and talkative people
> should aim to restrain themselves. I think that's a really good rule.
> I would like to hear more from the people here who've been holding
> back. And I believe we would hear more, if the talkative people were a
> little more restrained.
>
> I also want to say something about men on this list, in general.
> Personally, I believe we need to have, and want to have, and should
> have, men on this list. I say that because I want Wikipedia to have
> more female editors, and I think that the men here can and should be
> (and want to be!) part of the solution, working towards that.
>
> Thirteen per cent of Wikipedia editors are women. I assume that many
> of those women have no interest in personally, themselves, working to
> increase the number of women editors on Wikipedia. Which is totally
> fine with me: why should they? If they didn't sign up to be gender
> warriors, then they shouldn't be gender warriors: they are in no way
> obligated to do it.
>
> But somebody's got to make this happen, and I'm happy to have allies
> regardless of their gender. I consider everyone on this list an ally.
> Nobody here IMO is trolling, and I'm really happy that nobody here is
> contesting the basic premise: that we want to fix this problem.
> Everybody's acting in good faith: I truly believe that. Some of us are
> probably inadvertently offensive, and some of that offence comes out
> of unexamined privilege, for sure. And some of the women here have
> expressed lots of anger and frustration, some of which probably
> doesn't belong on this list, but spills out here because it's been
> brewing for years due to their experiences elsewhere, in addition to
> their experiences on Wikipedia and/or this list.
>
> I think we all have a responsibility to try to be our best possible
> selves here --- by which I mean our most generous, constructive,
> helpful, collaborative, trusting, listening, understanding selves.
> Everybody's damaged; nobody's perfect; we're all going to make plenty
> of mistakes. But everybody here wants to solve this problem: that's
> why we're here. It's going to be a lot of work, and we're going to
> need all different types of people. A bunch of non-mutually-exclusive
> categories: we will need radical feminists, plus experienced editors,
> plus new editors, plus external observers, plus people who like to
> question and probe, plus staff people, plus men exploring their
> privilege and thinking about these issues for the first time, plus
> lurkers. Plus plus plus.
>
> We've all got a role to play. And I hope we all want to continue the
> work we've 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
> End of Gendergap Digest, Vol 2, Issue 27
> ****************************************
First, I would like to say that, as a male editor of Wikipedia, seeing the
discourse of this week, I was upset and I was inspired to look inward,
questioning my position here on gendergap. I will refrain from taking a
dominant position (if I ever did), and I have something legitimate to say
about a comment made on a recent digest. I have recently been posting every
day, but I assure you I will be much to busy to post on many days. I am
trying to make a gender-based survey with my peers, but I won't reveal
anything more until I am further into it, I just started it today.
Collective Action said something very thought provoking today:
"I imagine if Girl Develop IT set up a group to debate the issues rather
than just getting on with finding women to help women then they'd likely
still be debating the issue (as is this list) rather than actually
addressing the gendergap in IT. If women feel uncomfortable with a
women-only list I don't see this being as much of a problem as women having
a problem with male dominated lists since almost every programming list on
this planet (other than ones set up by and for women-only) are male
dominated. There are no shortage of lists for women to join who feel
uncomfortable with women-only environments. Providing environments for women
who feel uncomfortable in male-dominated environments is what is needed
since the other is already provided by default on the internet. There does
not need to be a debate about the rights and wrongs of this -just the option
of both being available so that everyone has the choice to join a supportive
environment with the gender balance of their
choosing."
Before this, I was mostly opposed to forking. But if this were separated
into a female, male, and co-ed group, and perhaps each person could be a
member if one or two appropriate ones, then we would not have such a
problem. And people part of both lists could correspond with ideas.
Then,this would not be so separate, and maybe not so much opposition and
trolling. Does anyone agree? I think that Collective Action's idea is good,
thoug I don't think that they had the exact same idea that I did.
Aw,
We were doing so well there for a minute and then it got into wars! I agree
with Carol about needing to move on to a new topic. Laura, I think your
emails are getting out of line with the purpose of the group.
Let's get back to producing ideas and methods, no?
Carissa
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 6:14 PM, <gendergap-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>wrote:
> Send Gendergap mailing list submissions to
> gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> gendergap-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> gendergap-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Gendergap digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: FW: Proposal: Forking gendergap: Main list for women and
> transgender, sublist for male supporters (Ryan Kaldari)
> 2. Re: The problem is aggression.... was ... Proposal: Forking
> gendergap: (carolmooredc(a)verizon.net)
> 3. Re: The problem is aggression.... was ... Proposal: Forking
> gendergap: (SlimVirgin)
> 4. Re: Proposal: Forking gendergap: Main list for women and
> transgender, sublist for male supporters (Erik Moeller)
> 5. Re: Proposal: Forking gendergap: Main list for women and
> transgender, sublist for male supporters (Fred Bauder)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:49:00 -0700
> From: Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] FW: Proposal: Forking gendergap: Main list
> for women and transgender, sublist for male supporters
> To: gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <4D814C6C.8020602(a)wikimedia.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Marc, I don't think you're improving the "communication problem" you
> describe by telling people their ideas are "nonsense", "self-serving",
> or "insulting". Yes, Laura's ideas are challenging, but getting overly
> defensive doesn't help the discussion.
>
> Kaldari
>
> On 3/16/11 1:58 PM, Marc Riddell wrote:
> >
> > ----------
> > *From: *Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net>
> > *Date: *Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:49:32 -0400
> > *To: *Laura Hale <laura(a)fanhistory.com>
> > *Subject: *Re: [Gendergap] Proposal: Forking gendergap: Main list for
> > women and transgender, sublist for male supporters
> >
> > Laura, your interpretation of my words is strikingly self-serving, and
> > your solutions would serve to widen whatever gap exists in the
> > Project. This entire "problem" is not one of gender, but of individual
> > persons having problems communicating with a particular group of other
> > persons. My question to all of those who state that they have a
> > problem communicating with, or feel intimidated by, a male in the
> > venue of a mailing list such as this, is do you have the same problem
> > in person? There are many, many strong, intelligent voices in the
> > Wikipedia Project who also happen to be female. And to include them in
> > this "gendergap", and suggest that this is strictly a gender issue, is
> > an insult to them.
> >
> > Marc
> >
> > on 3/16/11 4:06 PM, Laura Hale at laura(a)fanhistory.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Marc Riddell
> > <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > This is simply, nonsense!
> >
> >
> > That is your opinion, and you're welcome to it. In my experience,
> > there are two general groups of women:
> >
> > 1. One who welcome men as participants in events specifically
> > targeting women, because the women feel the men can learn.
> > 2. One who don't want men involved because they feel women should
> > work towards their own self interests and that women behave
> > differently around men.
> >
> > Don't you people realize that separating this List
> > into two distinct ones would underline, reinforce and actually
> > signify the
> > very "gendergap" you are allegedly trying to resolve.
> >
> >
> > This pretty much is why I think we need men off the list. While
> > you're intending to or not, I'm reading this as "Don't you
> > understand that the only way women can succeed it by having men
> > involved! You need men!" If you're not intending to send the
> > message: Women cannot succeed with out men!, then you may want to
> > reconsider your wording.
> >
> > And I'd argue the opposite: Men have done an awful job at
> > recruiting women to be involved with Wikipedia. The current
> > problems exist because men have tried to "solve" this problem.
> >
> > This is people talking
> > with people. If there is a female or male here who has a problem
> > communicating with, or in the presence of, another gender -
> > they do have a
> > problem.
> >
> >
> > Translation: "Women! You're the problem! If you could stop
> > engaging in female modes of communication, we could fix this
> > problem! "
> >
> > This list is NOT a general list for increasing the participation
> > rates of people. If you want to have a list dedicated to
> > generally increasing the participation rates of people on
> > Wikipedia, then fork off and do that.
> >
> >
> > But a website Mailing List such as this is not the place to
> > resolve
> > it.
> >
> >
> > Am I supposed to interpret this as you claiming that this list has
> > a mission that will never succeed because it acknowledges there
> > are gender differences and different approaches are needed to get
> > different audiences? As a woman, a representative of a minority
> > group on Wikipedia, how am I supposed to respond to you? I can
> > tell you that this post of yours makes me feel distinctly
> > uncomfortable posting to this list. It seems to put men in the
> > position of power above women, demanding that women participate
> > only in male modes of communication, that women on the list can't
> > talk about genuine concerns they have as women because they are
> > going to get blown off, and that feelings of men on the list are
> > more important then women.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gendergap mailing list
> > Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
My understanding is this list is about increasing women's participation
rates on Wikipedia, relative to the participation rates of men. There are
two days to do this: 1) Encourage existing male participants to stop
contributing to Wikipedia, or 2) Encourage women to participate on Wikipedia
at rates higher than Wikipedia acquires new male contributors.
For this list to work, the policies need to be structured around the needs
of women. The needs of men are clearly being met, as their participation
rates are around 87%. Beyond that, men need to learn the following and the
following things need to be done:
1. They are not being discriminated on this list. Women have not said men
suck, men should die, men aren't needed, Wikipedia would be better off with
out men, men don't have anything to offer. Men are not being discriminated
against. When men on this say this or imply this, they create an
environment on a list dedicated to getting women involved that runs counter
to the list's mission.
2. Men need to realize that if they are present on the list, they are here
to learn. It runs counter to the group's mission of decreasing the
gendergap when men operate from a place of privilege. This means, men need
to stop saying gender doesn't matter and women should get over it. (If that
was the case, this list wouldn't exist. If that was the case, we'd have gay
marriage. If this was the case, the media wouldn't care about the low rates
of female participation rates.) The whole conversation started with a
discussion aimed at women on the list about the problems created by some
participants. The men on the list, rather than say: Huh, I never considered
that women might feel that way... immediately jumped on the bandwagon to say
WE ARE BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND, NOR DO I ACCEPT
THE OPINION OF WOMEN. ALSO, GET OVER YOURSELF. If men are really here to
learn, as people like Fred and others have said, they learn by listening.
They learn by asking questions. They do not learn by telling women that
they are wrong. (Which is what the dogpile of men crying discrimination
was and hurt the list's credibility and the list's mission.)
3. Men need to realize that if this list is to be successful, they need to
recruit women. People of all genders need to reach out to women and
encourage them to join. This list is fundamentally about decreasing the
gendergap. The only way the gendergap will decrease is if women get
involved. If men need to stay (because they feel discriminated against and
those icky women need to learn to work with men because that's what is best
for them and the only way that men feel increasing participation rates will
increase), then they need to go out and encourage every woman they know to
join the list, encourage them to talk about why they do or don't edit
Wikipedia, and then encourage these new women that they've recruited to
recruit more of their female acquaintences to join.
4. Men need to realize that for this movement to work, women's needs need
to be prioritized above their own. If you feel discriminated against, it is
understandable... but your feelings of being discriminated against are
irrelevant in this context. This list is not titled "teachingmen" or
"makingmenfeelgoodaboutwomen". The purpose of this list is not to create
dialog to teach men about gender issues. If men on this list genuinely want
to learn, there are plenty of resources available on the Internet (or
resources that could be created on Wikiversity) to teach men about
feminism. This list is not about men's needs. In the context of this list,
men's needs as man need to be made secondary.
5. Men need to ask themselves: What are the public relations implications
of my statements regarding female participation rates on Wikipedia? Erik's
comment saying we need a male and female moderator is a nightmare. How
would this go over on a feminist blog? Like a bag of stones. (In this
case, probably with Erik's body and tossed overboard by feminists.)
Michael's comment saying women need to act like men, and that the only way
for women to participate on Wikipedia is to act like men (which is exactly
how his comment of WOMEN SHOULD ACT LIKE PEOPLE reads. Pretend that Michael
was white. Then pretend that Michael said that African Americans or
Aboriginals could participate correctly if they stopped acting like African
Americans or Aboriginals and instead acted like people, RE: WHITE PEOPLE WHO
ARE THE DOMINANT GROUP.)
There are some very well meaning guys on this list. I've chatted with them
on G!Talk and IRC. They are very emphatic with the position of women,
realizing that women have these issues. They've been watching, reading and
learning quietly. They've been offering support offlist for projects.
The vocal men on the list are not learning these things. The adminstrators
are not stepping in and correcting sexists comments. The list has stopped
being about decreasing the gendergap and instead become about addressing
men's needs or general needs that are not specific to women. If these men
on the list can't be quiet, can't stop insisting that they are being
discriminated against, can't start helping by quietly going about their
business of helping when asked...
... then this list is a failure.
--
twitter: purplepopple
blog: ozziesport.com
Hi folks,
Wow! I was absent for two days and this list caught fire! The newer
mails feel like we've been nearer a resolution, but still: there was
lots of heat :-(
I'm going to take a minute to try to summarize and reflect back a
little. Bear with me: I'm on my phone, so I'm not going to be able to
quote individuals or respond inline to earlier mails. But I have read
everything.
To recap: Laura originally made a proposal to ask the men on this list
to leave. Her rationale was that men have been inappropriately
dominating the discussion here, which had the effect of silencing
and/or frustrating women who expect and want this to be a safe,
constructive space. I believe that in making that proposal, she was
acting out of frustration not just on her own behalf, but on behalf of
other women here who've been feeling silenced, whether they've spoken
up or not.
If Laura's proposal had gotten significant support from women on this
list, personally I would take that very seriously. It would make me
sad to think that women here couldn't see a workable option that
includes both women and men ----- but if there had seemed to be a
consensus among women that a women-only list is desirable or better, I
would buy that as a regrettable-but-accurate expression of where we're
at.
But, although some people expressed agreement with the basics of what
Laura said, there wasn't much support for the idea of kicking men off
the list. So on that basis, we won't do it.
(To recap for anyone who doesn't know: Erik Moeller started this list
at my request. That makes me the de facto owner, although I'm totally
willing to share that responsibility with others, and I think we all
have a responsibility to help self-govern.)
So. Having said that, personally I think the issues Laura raised are
real, and the discussion they prompted was useful. I think some
helpful stuff has gotten said, particularly when some of the quieter
people started to speak up, and I'd like to now say a few things too.
Essentially: since the list started, a number of people (including me)
have observed that i) there are a lot of men here, maybe more than
women, and ii) the men have talked quite a bit. Certainly there have
been times on this list when I felt like a small number of men were
dominating the conversation, and occasionally also seeming to me to
deny women's experiences, and/or to tell them how to feel about them.
(Lots of men were also asking questions or just listening or offering
support of various kinds.)
That didn't surprise me: I think it's "normal." If you're a man, and
you've been trained that your opinion is valuable and wanted: well,
then you are fairly likely to believe that, and to act accordingly.
Similarly, a couple of women here have talked about how they've been
socialized to stay quiet and to defer, and that therefore that's what
they tend to do. In general, I think it would be hard to fault people
too much for their cultural conditioning. And honestly, women here are
likelier to be more aware of (and thoughtful about) our conditioning
than men are, because as the non-dominant group we've had to think
about it more. So I am not surprised that some men here haven't been
(IMO) super self-reflective and self-moderating. And I am also,
honestly, not surprised to see a few women get really, really angry
about that, because my guess is this is not their first time at that
rodeo ;-)
I think that everyone here has a responsibility to try to be
self-aware about how their behaviour is affecting other people. The
Quakers have a really nice principle for their meetings, that in
general, quiet people should aim to talk more, and talkative people
should aim to restrain themselves. I think that's a really good rule.
I would like to hear more from the people here who've been holding
back. And I believe we would hear more, if the talkative people were a
little more restrained.
I also want to say something about men on this list, in general.
Personally, I believe we need to have, and want to have, and should
have, men on this list. I say that because I want Wikipedia to have
more female editors, and I think that the men here can and should be
(and want to be!) part of the solution, working towards that.
Thirteen per cent of Wikipedia editors are women. I assume that many
of those women have no interest in personally, themselves, working to
increase the number of women editors on Wikipedia. Which is totally
fine with me: why should they? If they didn't sign up to be gender
warriors, then they shouldn't be gender warriors: they are in no way
obligated to do it.
But somebody's got to make this happen, and I'm happy to have allies
regardless of their gender. I consider everyone on this list an ally.
Nobody here IMO is trolling, and I'm really happy that nobody here is
contesting the basic premise: that we want to fix this problem.
Everybody's acting in good faith: I truly believe that. Some of us are
probably inadvertently offensive, and some of that offence comes out
of unexamined privilege, for sure. And some of the women here have
expressed lots of anger and frustration, some of which probably
doesn't belong on this list, but spills out here because it's been
brewing for years due to their experiences elsewhere, in addition to
their experiences on Wikipedia and/or this list.
I think we all have a responsibility to try to be our best possible
selves here --- by which I mean our most generous, constructive,
helpful, collaborative, trusting, listening, understanding selves.
Everybody's damaged; nobody's perfect; we're all going to make plenty
of mistakes. But everybody here wants to solve this problem: that's
why we're here. It's going to be a lot of work, and we're going to
need all different types of people. A bunch of non-mutually-exclusive
categories: we will need radical feminists, plus experienced editors,
plus new editors, plus external observers, plus people who like to
question and probe, plus staff people, plus men exploring their
privilege and thinking about these issues for the first time, plus
lurkers. Plus plus plus.
We've all got a role to play. And I hope we all want to continue the
work we've 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
----------
From: Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:49:32 -0400
To: Laura Hale <laura(a)fanhistory.com>
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Proposal: Forking gendergap: Main list for women
and transgender, sublist for male supporters
Laura, your interpretation of my words is strikingly self-serving, and your
solutions would serve to widen whatever gap exists in the Project. This
entire "problem" is not one of gender, but of individual persons having
problems communicating with a particular group of other persons. My question
to all of those who state that they have a problem communicating with, or
feel intimidated by, a male in the venue of a mailing list such as this, is
do you have the same problem in person? There are many, many strong,
intelligent voices in the Wikipedia Project who also happen to be female.
And to include them in this "gendergap", and suggest that this is strictly a
gender issue, is an insult to them.
Marc
on 3/16/11 4:06 PM, Laura Hale at laura(a)fanhistory.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net>
wrote:
This is simply, nonsense!
That is your opinion, and you're welcome to it. In my experience, there are
two general groups of women:
1. One who welcome men as participants in events specifically targeting
women, because the women feel the men can learn.
2. One who don't want men involved because they feel women should work
towards their own self interests and that women behave differently around
men.
Don't you people realize that separating this List
into two distinct ones would underline, reinforce and actually signify the
very "gendergap" you are allegedly trying to resolve.
This pretty much is why I think we need men off the list. While you're
intending to or not, I'm reading this as "Don't you understand that the only
way women can succeed it by having men involved! You need men!" If you're
not intending to send the message: Women cannot succeed with out men!, then
you may want to reconsider your wording.
And I'd argue the opposite: Men have done an awful job at recruiting women
to be involved with Wikipedia. The current problems exist because men have
tried to "solve" this problem.
This is people talking
with people. If there is a female or male here who has a problem
communicating with, or in the presence of, another gender - they do have a
problem.
Translation: "Women! You're the problem! If you could stop engaging in
female modes of communication, we could fix this problem! "
This list is NOT a general list for increasing the participation rates of
people. If you want to have a list dedicated to generally increasing the
participation rates of people on Wikipedia, then fork off and do that.
But a website Mailing List such as this is not the place to resolve
it.
Am I supposed to interpret this as you claiming that this list has a mission
that will never succeed because it acknowledges there are gender differences
and different approaches are needed to get different audiences? As a woman,
a representative of a minority group on Wikipedia, how am I supposed to
respond to you? I can tell you that this post of yours makes me feel
distinctly uncomfortable posting to this list. It seems to put men in the
position of power above women, demanding that women participate only in male
modes of communication, that women on the list can't talk about genuine
concerns they have as women because they are going to get blown off, and
that feelings of men on the list are more important then women.
I'd just like to show my support for Laura Hale in this discussion. I'm not resonsible for running the Gendergap list, merely here as occasional participant but I will describe my reasons for going women-only for my own forum which is aimed at encouraging/supporting female Wikipedia editors.
I wasn't sure what membership policy I should have with regard to my own forum at http://women4wikipedia.net but this list has shown me that including men causes issues for women participants, I believe, more than having a women-only environment causes problems for women so I have subsequently decided to make the Women4Wikipedia forum women-only similar to http://www.meetup.com/girldevelopit-sydney/ .
I imagine if Girl Develop IT set up a group to debate the issues rather than just getting on with finding women to help women then they'd likely still be debating the issue (as is this list) rather than actually addressing the gendergap in IT. If women feel uncomfortable with a women-only list I don't see this being as much of a problem as women having a problem with male dominated lists since almost every programming list on this planet (other than ones set up by and for women-only) are male dominated. There are no shortage of lists for women to join who feel uncomfortable with women-only environments. Providing environments for women who feel uncomfortable in male-dominated environments is what is needed since the other is already provided by default on the internet. There does not need to be a debate about the rights and wrongs of this -just the option of both being available so that everyone has the choice to join a supportive environment with the gender balance of their choosing.
With a female-only list women really do need to change their perceptions about what they and other women can do because there are no men around to rely on. Here I am speaking of women such as my own demographic who are not already practiced 'geeks'. I'm talking about women who do not define themselves as developers, geeks or as overly comfortable with technology. Other women tend to understand where women are coming from in their efforts to change themselves psychologically to take on an 'inner geek' better than men do. A man can be very intelligent but this is not the same thing as being a woman and where it comes down to women expanding their own identities about what they are capable of I think women need other women that they can identify with to support them in trying something they have never done before.
When I set my own forum up on such short notice and with such little experience of Wikipedia I felt I had to include my son to answer questions on Wikipedia, despite his lack of availability. However soon after I had women join who have far more experience editing Wikipedia than he and no doubt he's glad to be off the hook- just as I'm glad to find female role models rather than relying on men. A group which is solely women allows us to take on roles we may not normally consider appropriate to ourselves as women. As novices such as myself go through the process of finding the 'geek' within and defining ourselves differently the last thing I feel I need to be dealing with is how men feel about the way I'm changing. I'm not saying this is an issue on this list but it may be an issue in the everyday lives of women we want to edit Wikipedia.
I have no ownership of Gendergap and don't expect to influence things here. I just wanted to endorse Laura's courage in putting her beliefs on this list and explain why I've taken the decision on Gender policy on my own forum.
regards
Rosie Williams
http://women4wikipedia.nethttp://collectiveaction.com.au
@collectiveact
I wanted to reply to several messages, but I decided that it would be best
just to say something without a whole lot of quotation. I've read here that
men are more likely to have bad ideas about bringing women into Wikipedia.
Like "We want to increase female participation! Join now!", I heard from Amy
Roth, undermines the cause and is a little to in-your-face (at least that's
what I got out of it). That's a completely okay opinion. But isn't that a
bad reason to fork into two lists, one for men and one for women and
transgenders? That is counter-productive. Then we'd have a whole lot of "We
want to increase female participation! Join now!", and no women to say
anything to it. And then men would go out saying that thinking that they're
helping when really they're repelling could-be editors. I, for example,
being a male editor, took the "We want to increase female participation!
Join now!" approach a few times. Now I know not to do that. Besides, we need
more people for more ideas. Women, if you really think that men don't get
it, be LOUD! Some men might never know the right way unless they are told
otherwise. I can assume that no man will be trolling and be taken aback by a
good-willed suggestion from a woman and say "Why do I have to listen to you,
stupid woman?" If that does happen, that will be a whole different problem.
As for men continuing to dominate the conversation (also from Amy Roth),
that might just have to be the way the cookie crumbles. It is to be expected
after Gendergap was mentioned several weeks in a row a few weeks ago on the
Wikipedia Signpost to an 87% non-female Wikipedia. That's how I found out
about it
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RayquazaDialgaWeird2210
I'm looking for a rationale as to why men are needed on a list dedicated to
help increase female participation. Most of the successes I'm seeing in
this area comes from women. Look at Wikipedia4Women. It is run by women.
Maybe I just can't see all the wonderful things men are doing. It would be
great to get a man's perspective on how men are specifically helping to
address this gender gap:
1. What women's focused content have you, as a man, improved on Wikipedia
and other projects since joining this mailing list?
2. What offline events specifically have you, as a man, created and run
specifically run that were marketed at women to help specifically increase
the participation of women on Wikipedia?
3. What online events specifically have you, as a man, created and run
specifically run that were marketed at women to help specifically increase
the participation of women on Wikipedia?
4. As a man, how much time do you spend thinking about the content of your
posts and how people, who specifically identify as women, will view the
content they post? Do you worry about your posts being viewed as using
gendered language, and insulting to women?
5. What help have you provided to women on this list, when the women have
expressed concerns? (Note: Responding to an e-mail does not count.) How
many good article situations that people have mentioned have you stepped in
to help with? How many articles, categories, policy pages have you, as a
man, gone to edit because of requests for help on the list?
6. What have you, as a man, done to help make women, specifically because
the contributor is female, become administrators on all WMF projects since
joining the list?
7. How many times have you, as a man, contacted other men offlist because
of the other man's onlist behaviour being problematic and discriminatory
against women, working counter to the goal of helping increase women's
participation on Wikipedia?
8. As a man, how many contacts have you provided to women on the list to
help them accomplish of increasing women's participation on Wikipedia? As a
man, how much assistance have you provided with web programming? As a man,
how much financial assistance you have provided towards women run projects
to increase women's participation on Wikipedia? As a man, how much legal
assistance have you provided for women trying to run these projects?
I can't wait to hear about all the good work that men on the list have been
doing to help increase the participation rates of women!
--
mobile: 0412183663
twitter: purplepopple
blog: ozziesport.com