Hi Charlotte,
My only suggestion to you would be that if you loved editting and had a good
time till you had this experience, don't let that spoil things for you. Best
to stop that particular type of editting that attracted the Recent Changes
troll and concentrate on those edits where you faced no opposition and
continue to enjoy yourself. Typically most editors face such incidents early
in their experience. If they are able to put it behind them, they are able
to then learn to "navigate" the system and have fulfilling editting
experiences. From what I read, you still have not got the happiness of
seeing your article come to life in Mainspace. I would recommend you hang
on, develop your article, move it into mainspace and enjoy Wikipedia.
Warm regards,
User:AshLin
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 20:50:38 -0400
> From: Charlotte J <ravinpa2(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [Gendergap] As I was passing through...
> To: gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <BANLkTimK-G9DLgdURpEOXo6LAhaBt-A3gQ(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hello, everyone,
>
> I joined this list a couple days ago after reading through its archives,
> which I embarked on after having come across the June 13th article in *The
> Signpost* discussing the tiny percentage of self-identified female
> Wikipedia
> editors. I'd missed the January *New York Times* article and all that
> flowed
> from it (including this list) until I started systematically looking
> through
> the "community" section of Wikipedia for the first time about 10 days ago,
> to see what my options might be to address my own recent negative
> encounters
> with other Wikipedia editors, although I hadn't yet stumbled upon the
> Wikipedia policies on "canvassing," etc., that apparently preclude any
> disclosure on this list of such experiences in a potentially identifiable
> manner.
>
> Having learned of that policy from reading this list's archives, I'm
> accordingly using an email account not associated with my Wikipedia user
> account, and I'm not disclosing my Wikipedia user name, so as not to arouse
> any concerns that I might be canvassing for support concerning that
> situation, which I'm not. In fact, I've even concluded that it's not worth
> the aggravation of pursuing Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, which
> from reading through **those** archives has impressed me as likely to be
> little more than an exercise in futility (if not also masochism!). I'm
> certainly neither fragile nor easily intimidated, but I prefer not to waste
> my valuable free time on such exercises, so I've now stopped editing
> Wikipedia and -- with one foot out the door, the other soon to follow -- am
> posting to this list now only because I hadn't seen anything its archives
> that expressed anything close to some of my own thoughts about a few of the
> topics discussed, which might perhaps be of some value to at least some of
> you who plan to continue in this effort.
>
> By way of background, I'm one of those older staying-at-home professional
> mothers Sarah Stierch had suggested in February might constitute a
> potentially fruitful demographic for female recruitment. I'm certainly no
> "geek," although I've picked up just enough basic HTML code along the way
> so
> as not to find Wikipedia's coding basics unduly daunting -- as long as I
> had
> the MoS "Cheat Sheet" handy. Well, aside from formatting references...
>
> I made my first few edits not quite 18 months ago, I believe, to an article
> about a park system I'd just been reading about, to which I made a few
> gnome-like corrections without blowing the place up accidentally or
> attracting notice. With that success in hand, I started drafting an article
> about a superb all-female dance company that a niece had recently
> introduced
> me to. After seeing them perform and coming to share her enthusiasm, I
> tried
> to learn a little more about their history, discovered there was no
> comprehensive article about them I could find anywhere online (although
> they
> would clearly and objectively satisfy WP's notability criteria), and
> decided
> that drafting one myself could be a useful exercise in teaching myself
> Wikipedia's coding and style conventions, while eventually benefiting
> others
> with the fruits of my research. I got about half-way finished with it in my
> userspace (utilizing the Article Wizard), then had to abandon the draft
> (and
> Wikipedia) a few days later due to some serious health problems one of my
> children developed unexpectedly.
>
> I didn't return again until two months ago, when a discussion elsewhere
> pointed me to another Wikipedia article (about whose subject I knew quite a
> bit) that was seriously deficient, so I signed in again for the first time
> in 16 months or so, added a number of references to that article, expanded
> it a bit and began "wikifying" it without generating any controversy or
> blowing the place up accidentally. I then encountered an egregious usage
> error a few weeks later in another Wikipedia article that had badly muddled
> a sentence's meaning, and corrected it, again without generating any
> controversy. I then checked for similar misuses of that and another
> commonly
> misused word on Wikipedia, discovered hundreds of examples, and so began
> correcting them in gnome-like fashion over the next month or so while
> watching films with my daughter after school and/or evenings and tracking
> down some uncommon but needed public domain images for a few other
> articles,
> until I unluckily attracted the attention of a chauvinist (in the original
> sense of the word) member of the "recent pages patrol" whose truculence and
> devotion to Huggle greatly exceeded his grasp of correct [international]
> English usage. What ensued persuaded me that my free time from now on would
> be *so* much better spent on volunteer projects other than Wikipedia (and *
> so* much better for my blood pressure!) that I'm not even going to bother
> finishing the draft article about the dance company or upload the public
> domain images I'd located. C'est la vie!
>
> Also by way of background, I'm a late-70s graduate of Harvard Law School,
> now retired from a successful legal career, and studying legal history (a
> long-deferred goal). The percentage of women in the two classes ahead of
> mine at HLS was approximately 8%, but it doubled to 16% in my class, which
> quite a lot of the male students and professors (all but one of whom were
> male back then) found extremely threatening. I mention this because that
> "abrupt increase" in female students at HLS had generated a very nasty
> backlash from many of the men, and at each stage of our early careers many
> members of my female cohort experienced that backlash repeatedly. I hope
> that a similarly "abrupt increase" in the percentage of female Wikipedia
> editors doesn't generate a similar backlash toward them, but given my own
> experiences, I recommend that those here working to increase female
> participation brace themselves (and the new recruits), just in case.
>
> This has probably been far too long already for a number of folks on the
> list, so I'll conclude for now and share my thoughts on hosting pornography
> on Wikipedia; recruiting Girl Scouts as editors; another potential
> consideration not yet raised as to why the WMF should be concerned, I
> suspect, about the relative dearth of female editors; bare-breastedness in
> depictions of "Liberty"; etc., in another email or two, after I've had a
> chance to look over again a few archived emails that it may help to quote
> or
> refer to specifically.
>
> I'm using a middle name to post here given that the list is open-archived
> on
> the internet, that my recent unpleasant experiences on Wikipedia included
> what I've concluded was harassment, and that I see no good reason to risk
> subjecting my family to any such potential consequences due to my
> participation on this list, however brief, so I will sign off for now just
> as,
>
> Charlotte
>
