> From: Laura Hale <laura(a)fanhistory.com>
> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Proposal: Forking gendergap: Main list for
> women and transgender, sublist for male supporters
> 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.
Laura, the problem is that we're online, so we can't tell for sure
who's a man or woman anyway. I agree that women act differently around
men, but I think that will continue even when we only suspect we're
around men. So setting up a women-only list wouldn't work unless we're
willing to abandon anonymity and really get to know each other. That
would be wonderful if we could ever trust each other that much, but I
don't think this is the list to try it with.
I've been lurking this list for some time and have been getting a bit
depressed by the direction it's taking as of late. It was all cha-cha-cha in
the beginning, but now I've seen references to women not wanting their
children exposed to vulgarity, women and transgendereds needing a separate
list to feel comfortable, and women on Wikipedia being compared to rural
Africa as served by NGOs.
As a chick that likes computer stuff, I've encountered this before in
looking for peer groups and it makes me feel double alienated--I don't even
*like* children and now they're part of a conversation about me as a female
on the internet.
Personally, broad statistics about women nearly never ring true, and that's
a conversation block. Nerdy guys have taught me Wordpress, torrenting, and
heaps of other useful internet skills. In turn, I have taught some lady
friends. It would be more encouraging to get back to what we know and how we
can share it.
I don't edit Wikipedia because I've never taken the time to learn the system
and I'm afraid I'll screw up. I assume it would feel like making a big
mistake in a newspaper and having the whole neighborhood scoff, and I think
that becomes a part of my Wikipedia profile forever and ever. I'd like to
find a YouTube video to walk me through basic involvement. If it's that cute
guy from Portland who is now a Wikipedia community manager presenting it,
well all the better. I could also be encouraged to edit if the community had
an offline component that included meeting for microbrews.
Yep I do find both of those videos too basic (
http://www.commoncraft.com/wikipedia-video). I get the nuts and bolts of how
to click around, I know basic html when I see it, and I remember neutral
tone and proper citations from college and time in publishing (but gotta
love a video on the internet that explains that you need an internet
connection). The Howcast referenced the Wiki:Cite page, which I then find
confusing because I don't get when to use each citation method.
A Strunk & White version of the rules is what I need! There's so many women
in publishing, that could be a good group to target for women on Wiki
involvement, as someone said before. I just need to know how wiki editing is
similar and different from AP Style, for example.
I would also be interested in a video that explains the community, which is
both one of the primary barriers and primary motivations I have for
participating. I didn't know about barnstars and awards, for example. Then I
eventually found this Editor Assistance page (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance) which looks like
something handy-- I didn't know there was a place to ask for help. Then,
what are user talk, user boxes, who gives awards, who are some key figures
(Jimbo, etc), what is the user/editor/moderator relationship, and what are
some things that can happen once I start editing and interacting. That's
what a video would be handy for. It all feels like trying to get into Lost
in the last season-- all these time tunnels and smoke monsters that I
couldn't trace to their original form if I tried.
Sadly, I see no meet ups in Portland or Mexico City, yet...
Thanks for all the suggested videos. My recently set up forum at http://women4wikipedia.net/vanillaforums.com has Tutorials as one of it's categories. I intend to label them as Novice, Intermediat or Advanced. I've reproduced the post here for the first tut.
Instructional videos on Wikipedia: Novice Level
Wikipedia:Beneath the Surface created by North Caroline State Universities
For people who may have read Wikipedia but don't know much about contributing.
1. Example of a user page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smartse
How to Create a Wikipedia Article by Howcast.com
Very basic, for people who have very little to no experience with Wikipedia
1. How to Cite Wikipedia Style (English site) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CITE
eg Ritter, Ron. <i>The Oxford Style Manual</i>. Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 1.
"Citations for World Wide Web pages typically include:
* name of the author(s)
* title of the article within quotation marks
* name of the website
* date of publication
* page number(s) (if applicable)
* the date you retrieved it (required if the publication date is unknown)"
2. Wikipedia Help Page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents
"The best place to look depends on what kind of help you need:
* If you're doing research and need to know where to find a particular piece of information, or just want the answer to a trivia question, try Wikipedia:Reference desk.
* Are you a contributor who wants to get help with the editing process and understanding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? If so, ask a question at Wikipedia:Help desk.
* Ask about technical issues at Wikipedia:Village pump, which is a page where folks especially knowledgeable about Wikipedia hang out. The village pump is a metaphor for a community watering hole where lots of people gather to discuss many interesting topics."
Wikimedia Foundation Video on Neutral Point of View
Starts out annoyingly basic but shows a good example of how to handle controverisal subjects.
Wikimedia Foundation Video 'Inside Wikipedia'
We had our first Women4Wikipedia face to face meetup a few days ago and a couple of us got really good advice from Laura Hale about steps to take to help protect our contributions from deletion. I think this advice is very useful and timely and I expect to include this info in a future tutorial. I agree with what Fred said that the process is out of step with induction. I would add that Wikipedians seem to want to solve every problem with a wiki and I think this inhibits people from the benefits of using other forms of communication and learning where it would be more useful. Wikipedia is just so big and there are an enormous number of policies to get across and I think this is inconsistent with the idea that people can 'just edit a page'. I think the exhortations that it is easy to edit Wikipedia implies that it does not require much if anything in the way of preparation and I think this contributes to people then coming up against protocols they are not aware of and getting into conflicts.
I also have some other crictisims about policies when applied Biographies of Living Persons but I think I can write a feature length article on that one so will leave it for the appropriate occasion.
I was looking at Wikipedia and one of the articles I watch got moved into a
subcategory: Women's national team for Australia. I checked the main
category, and none of the men's teams were in a subcategory by gender.
These sorts of little things suggest bias towards men, and imply that
women's content isn't as important.
Could some one create a bot or help put together a proposal in sports to
address this imbalance, that suggests that women's national teams are a
subset of national teams and that only men's teams are real national teams?
As one of the organizers/attendees for Recent Changes Camp Boston 2011, I
just wanted to share what happened during the Gender Gap session through
pictures taken by wikiHow admin ttrimm. This was the most popular session,
followed by a session about Wiki Politics:
Gender Gap session
(I am the woman in purple next to the easel on the right who is scratching
- If you have any questions about the notes, please feel free to ask me
either here or off-list.
40% of the conference attendees were female. Most of these women were
wikiHow admis, but also Anne Goldenberg (the facilitator and one of the
co-organizers), a woman who created websites using Tiki as well as a woman
who was just getting started editing Appropedia.
I think the conclusion that we came to was that making it easier for people
to become part of the community (for example, being less argumentative with
newbies), would help to lower the barriers to entry and get more people
involved. Basically, anything that would help the newbies like clearer
documentation and being super gentle with people who are editing wikis for
the first time. While newbie friendliness, may not be specific to women, we
felt that it would help get more new editors on Wikipedia and the other WMF
projects, including more women.
I apology if the issue has already been covered (I do not follow the
list with 100% attention).
I am looking for *any* study, stats, reports, which would have been made
in the past or is ongoing regarding the use of Wikimedia projects and/or
the use of Wiki software generally, by specific groups of people such as:
* poorly educated people
* people with mental disabilities
* people with physical disabilities
* people living in poor suburbs in "so-called rich" countries
* people deeply socially disconnected
In particular with regards to how Wikimedia projects or the use of wiki
software/concept might have improved their situation (better integration
in society for example).
Any little bit might help. Do not hesitate to contact me privately if it
is not a feedback directly in the scope of this list.
Thanks in advance
I revisited Wikipedia as a newcomer to test the idea and newcomer
experiences a year ago and didn't really see that. What I *did* experience
was that it was complicated and *that* was discouraging. Part of the issue
is that standards are stricter and quality expectations are such that
newcomers are less likely to edit appropriately first time round, and
therefore some kind of support or inculturation is needed that wasn't in
2004 - 05. Some knowledge is needed before (or as) you "edit this page"
whereas before intuition was enough. Our approach to new joiners has not
updated to reflect the fact that "just get on with it and find your own way"
is no longer appropriate.
Specifically, we aim to encourage groups who are not net geeks, and
therefore need a different kind of support and induction, and at the same
time the project has got more quality conscious and there are more policies
affecting what may and may not be done than there were in 2004 - 05.
Both of these argue that our means of inducting joiners is hopelessly out of
date, and it is this which causes newcomers to leave or be discouraged;
what is perceived and sometimes described as a hostile environment is mostly
a reflection of the divergence it involves.
I guess there are too many rules now to ignore them all and just jump in.
Now here’s something. As soon as I saw it, I thought “This belongs in the Gendergap Digest!” It is a Meta essay called “Don’t be a Dick”. I know that many people will rally for or against it, but before we do, we have to do four things:
1. Read the essay at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick. It isn’t that profane. Also read the disclaimer “This is an essay. It expresses the opinions and ideas of some wikimedians or Meta-Wiki users but may not have wide support. This is not policy on the Meta-Wiki, but it may be policy or guideline on other Wikimedia projects. Feel free to update this page as needed, or use the discussion page to propose major changes.”
2. Realize that this essay uses a vulgar, yet not excessively profane, casual line of speech that is inherently manly. Women might not like that.
3. Wikipedia is supposed to be a melding of knowledge and opinions.
4. Wikipedia and its sister projects advise against personal attacks (yet this deals with being attacked, or accused of being a dick and politely dealing with a dick).
5. Wikipedia and its sister projects advise against removing content for the benefit of any group, no matter how large or powerful (the only exception is hardcore pornography).
Considering these four things, I believe that the best course of action is to read a lot of essays. They are often the opinion of one or a few editors.Reading the opinions of many people can help broaden your mind, even if it is a little vulgar. Take it with a little salt. They didn’t say something like “If you’re a dick, I will f***ing blank your p***y c** page because you’re a sl***y b****y c*** who I hope gets raped by a b***h p***y n****r every day because you’re a dick!”
Finally, I hope that using the word “dick” in this entry has been excused. I believe that this can be seen offensive to both men and women, but mostly women. But, I believe that if “Don’t be a dick” inspires anyone to leave Wikipedia or its sister projects, that person shouldn’t have even been on Wikipedia in the first place. Wikipedia is supposed to be a melding of opinions. As this is an essay and not an article, it is supposed to be a place for exclusively opinion.
> Are we seriously suggesting that women, as a class, are not editing
> > Wikipedia because sometimes editors use naughty words?
It's just Brandon, Pete, Joseph, Daniel, Fred (and now me) ruling the
discussion on women's needs.