Clearly the arguments here are a rehashing of two different versions
of feminist action - and both have been successful in winning rights
and opportunities for women in the Western world. Which you prefer
often comes down to a philosophical difference about "essentialism" -
do you believe that women are essentially different than men? As that
question is unresolvable on this list, I suggest we turn to practical
questions to resolve this issue.
1) Since we cannot know contributors' sex for certain (and thus
predict their reactions based on any kind of essentialist philosophy),
I am unconvinced that forking the list would be effective in the way
that such groups have been for the feminist movement already.
2) Since the number of people in the Wikipedia community who want to
work on this problem is small, we should work together until such time
as multiple groups are even feasible. Too much fracturing diffuses the
impact we can make.
3) Many women react in ways that are just as sexist as men. Some of
the most damaging sexism I have seen on Wikipedia came from female
editors. We should not exclude male voices based on the assumption
that they could be sexist but allow any female voice.
My two cents.
Adrianne (User:Awadewit)
--
Adrianne Wadewitz
Teaching Fellow
English department
Indiana University
Wikipedia editors,
Can someone look into Danese's pages please?
She probably wouldn't mind if someone contacted her directly to find out
more.
- Susan Spencer Conklin
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Danese Cooper <danese(a)gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: Knitters and Coders: separated at birth?
To: Mackenzie Morgan <macoafi(a)gmail.com>
Cc: debian-women <debian-women(a)lists.debian.org>
danese on Ravelry, as in life ;-). I've written quite a lot about knitting
in public, although for some reason the Wikipedia community won't leave
those references on my page :-(.
D
On Apr 13, 2011, at 8:04 AM, Mackenzie Morgan <macoafi(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/4/13 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <jordigh(a)octave.org>:
>> This is a cute blog post:
>>
>> http://www.cs4fn.org/regularexpressions/knitters.php
>>
>> I know some of you knit, so perhaps you'll find this amusing. Btw, any
>> Debianistas on Ravelry? I'm JordiGH there.
>
> I'm macoafi on Ravelry, and I wrote a blog post about crochet & coding
> & reverse engineering a bit ago:
>
http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com/2010/10/algorithms-reverse-engine…
>
> (more of an Ubuntu person here, but I do maintain a couple Debian
packages...)
>
> --
> Mackenzie Morgan
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-women-request(a)lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmaster(a)lists.debian.org
> Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/BANLkTinpAtHeu2SNevs+4TmSnBYJtw8wNA@mail.gmail.com
>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-women-request(a)lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmaster(a)lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/BF0E13AC-DA93-4146-80A6-7888AFBEDF08@gmail.com
Hi Aaron and everyone,
This is a really painful thing for me to read. As a scholar, my research
work has been based around the representation of Indigenous peoples of
North America in media and culture. I sincerely doubt that any of the
"tribal members" I know would say that this is a valid work that would
showcase their Indigenous cultures as anything but another stereotype.
Just as I'm sure some women of Tahiti today would question the relevance
today of Gauguin's paintings which often showcased nude or partially
nude Tahitian women - art revered by both genders and the Western art
world. However, I'm not seeking to speak on behalf of these individuals
and communities, nor am I hear to discuss the creators goal or context
with this featured image. It's more of the fact that /this/ is
considered a choice for the featured front page and the concern that it
has given me as a female contributor to Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, etc.
You also stated that you do not want to compromise "our core values just
to try to close a "gap" that some feel is such a big issue, if it even
exists."
This gap does exist, in fact an entire mailing list (which I have cc'd
here and I encourage anyone interested in the topic to join) was created
to work towards bridging this gap. This was triggered by an article
titled "Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia's Contributor List" by Noam
Cohen, published Jan 30 2011 in /The New York Times/:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html
A great and interesting conversation took place by NYT to reflect on
this situation, which you can read here:
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/02/where-are-the-women-in-wiki…
I do hope that perhaps those two articles can show you that there /is /a
problem, and there are many concerned Wikipedians of all genders, skin
tones, and identities aiming to change that. That is when images like
this deter us from our expansive mission to be more inclusive.
And this has nothing to do with me being "sensitive to toplessness" -
you don't know anything about my lifestyle or character to assume that,
regardless of where I live or where I was born.
#wikilove,
Sarah
On 5/15/2011 10:53 PM, Aaron Adrignola wrote:
> Commons is not censored. It's a beautiful scene and it would be
> expected that the an imaginary tribal member would not have the
> American sensitivities to toplessness. Some images may offend. Some
> articles may offend. We're not going to compromise our core values
> just to try to close a "gap" that some feel is such a big issue, if it
> even exists.
>
> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 9:31 PM, CherianTinu Abraham
> <tinucherian(a)gmail.com <mailto:tinucherian@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> FYI
>
> Regards
> Tinu Cherian
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Sarah Stierch* <sarah(a)sarahstierch.com
> <mailto:sarah@sarahstierch.com>>
> Date: Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:33 AM
> Subject: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons
> To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
> <gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org>>
>
>
> Surely I'm not the only one who noticed this lovely gem of a photo
> of the day today. In my work environment - NFWS.
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
>
> Direct link to image:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:On_the_edge_-_free_world_version.jpg
>
> I mean really? /facepalm
>
> This is the kind of imagery I have no desire to see on the front
> page of Commons. I'm a very liberal person, but, this makes me not
> want to even allow my MOTHER to use Commons.
>
> #wikilove,
>
> Sarah
>
>
> --
> Wikipedia Regional Ambassador, D.C. Region
> Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Art
>
> Sarah Stierch Consulting
> Historical, cultural & artistic research, advising & event planning.
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.sarahstierch.com/ <http://www.sarahstierch.com>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>
Wikipedia Regional Ambassador, D.C. Region
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Art
--
Sarah Stierch Consulting
Historical, cultural & artistic research, advising & event planning.
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sarahstierch.com/ <http://www.sarahstierch.com>
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
Hi again, Andreas.
In February you'd responded to Fred as
follows<http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-February/000204.html>,
concerning pornographic images in Commons:
*"I have given notice that I perceive there to be a problem on-Wiki many
times, and the reply has always been the same: Wikipedia is not censored.
The suggestion that our editorial judgment with respect to illustration
should reflect and be based on the judgment our sources exercise in that
regard has not gone down well. We are all agreed that when it comes to
text content, we must follow sources. When it comes to images, however, the
community claims the freedom to apply its own ("OR") standards, which
naturally reflect our skewed demographics."*
Yes, after reading this thread I wandered through that hall of mirrors that
discussions of Sexual Content policies and guidelines constitute on Commons.
As Batman might say, "Holy Ontological Incoherence!!!"
You'd also responded to Fred and asked the
list<http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-February/000184.html>
:
*"On a different, but not completely unrelated issue, how do women editors
feel
about illustrations like those used here (Warning - not safe for viewing at
work):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogtie_bondagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bukkake
In my experience, any attempt to argue for editorial restraint in
illustrating
pages like this (e.g., using just *one* image, and leaving the rest to a
Commons
link) runs into a [[WP:NOTCENSORED]] brickwall. Female editors (with one
exception I believe, who has run into this brickwall repeatedly to no
effect,
and at some cost to herself) are rarely participants in such discussions."*
Unless the "primary producers" of the "Hogtie bondage" photos obtained and
tagged them with all the data required by the Section 2257 regulations
issued under the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of
1988<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Protection_and_Obscenity_Enforcement_Act>before
uploading them to Commons,
*and* Commons is storing that data and those tags along with the photos in
order to make them available to any would-be user, any such photos -- by
Commons' *own* standards -- should be speedily deleted (although from my
review of the various archived and recent Sexual Content discussions there,
this might come as a terrible shock to all or most of the Commons editors
who've weighed in on those discussions).
Section 75.1(n) of the 2257
Regulations<http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=962e99768c99d69c3a…>provides
that "Sexually explicit conduct has the meaning set forth in 18
U.S.C. 2256(2)(A)" (which -- unsurprisingly by now -- I could find
*no*evidence of
*any* Commons editors having *eve*r bothered to look up).
18 U.S.C. 2256(2)(A)
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html>
provides:
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B) [pertaining to child
pornography], “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital,
anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite
sex;
(ii) bestiality;
(iii) masturbation;
(iv) *sadistic or masochistic abuse*; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person"
"Sadistic or masochistic abuse" traditionally means, in virtually all states
of the U.S.:
"...flagellation or torture by or upon a person who is nude or clad in
undergarments, a mask or bizarre costume, or the condition of being
fettered, bound or otherwise physically restrained on the part of one who is
nude or so clothed."
http://law.justia.com/codes/idaho/2010/title18/t18ch15sect18-1514.html See,
also, e.g.,
http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=…http://law.justia.com/codes/idaho/2010/title18/t18ch15sect18-1514.html
"Mask" is usually be deemed to include any kind of gag.
So, pausing a moment to review, it's highly likely that all or most of the
photos on that page would be subject to Section 2257 recordkeeping
requirements by "primary producers" (photographers, filmmakers, etc.) and
"secondary producers" who display, disseminate, etc., the photos for sale or
"trade" (such as exchanging photos with other aficionados). I suspect that
the Wikimedia Foundation relies on the educational institution exemption in
order not to have to meet the Section 2257 recordkeeping or notice
requirements, but if Commons *doesn't* require the submission along with the
upload of such photos (or videos) of *all* the required Section 2257
documentation, then it would be* illegal* for any would-be U.S. commercial
"secondary producer" to utilize any of them.
According to the Commons:Copyright tags
page<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Copyright_tags#Non-U.S._works>
,
"All works hosted at the Commons must be legal to publish in the United
States"
and <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Copyright_tags#Unfree_licenses>
"The following copyright options are not acceptable at Commons. Images with
these tags will be deleted...
{{Noncommercial}} - Noncommercial copyright status. *This image will have to
be deleted*."
Although none of these Hogtie bondage photos may be marked "noncommercial,"
if Commons cannot supply a would-be U.S. commercial secondary producer with
all the data and tags required to be supplied under Section 2257 by the
primary producer and maintained by both of them for U.S. government
inspection, then those photos have *effectively* been rendered
"noncommercial use only" by *operation of law*.
I may weigh in further, later, as my schedule permits, on the sheer
ontological incoherence (not to mention ethical squalor and possible
tortiousness) of seeking at most only an "affirmation of consent" from
"uploaders
of self-produced sexual
content"<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Sexual_content#Prohibited_content>,
as well as on the dubious legality of the bukkake image, but hopefully this
will give those on this list who share your concerns something to chew on in
the meantime.
And given that this email has focused on legal issues, I also need to
include the requisite disclaimer.
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
*DISCLAIMER:* This email includes general legal information for discussion
purposes only which is not guaranteed to be correct, complete, or
up-to-date, and does not, nor is it intended to constitute, legal advice to
any individual recipient (intended or unintended). Receipt of this email
(intended or unintended) does not create an attorney-client relationship
between the undersigned (who is no longer actively engaged in the practice
of law) and any such recipient. No one should act upon the information
contained in this email without seeking legal advice from their *own*attorney.
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
Best,
Charlotte
Pete,
We did discuss the issues of 2257 record-keeping and so forth for several months last
year. But even the watered-down version of the proposed Sexual content policy was
roundly rejected in the "big poll":
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content/Archive_6#Sec…
This was the proposed policy that was put to the vote last December:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Sexual_content&oldid…
Our methods of establishing subject consent for sexual images have always struck me as
extremely dicey. By e-mail??? I have seriously considered whether we should ask porn
companies to donate sexual imags. (From GLAM to GLAMP.) At least the record-keeping
requirements would be fulfilled. Or ask university sexologists. But "girlfriend" pictures are a
liability. (And why is there not a single image of a black penis in Commons? Perhaps we
need to form another outreach list ...)
A small success I have achieved is that the Shankbone topless vacuum cleaner images are
no longer housed in the category "People using vacuum cleaners" (where they were the
only images present until a couple of weeks ago).
Another issue that came up recently was what to do about freely licensed, self-published
defamatory material. This is probably not the best venue for this, but on the other hand,
Charlotte being a lawyer, I would be interested in her view. The related discussion is
here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/06#Usin… (Don't click the encyclopediadramatica.ch link! It's just shock images.)
Andreas
Pete wrote:Charlotte, you present a well-researched and compelling point. There havebeen efforts to inject some rationality into the curation of images on
Commons; I'm hoping that some of those who've been involved with that will
comment here. It seems that your research could pretty easily be compiled
into a policy or set of guidelines, and be put to use without a great deal
of effort.
Fred, while that's an interesting debate, I'm not sure how it relates to
Charlotte's point? Charlotte's point turns on "sexually explicit conduct" as
defined in a specific piece of the U.S. code. I don't think the images you
reference could possibly be covered by that definition. Is there some
connection I'm missing?
Can anybody speak to how this part of the law is reflected in policies on
Commons, and whether there have been recent efforts to reconcile the two? My
sense is that Charlotte is probably right, and that posting the argument she
makes on the appropriate page in Commons could support the images' removal
without a whole lot of room for argument. I know these things can be
contentious, but I don't see much wiggle room on this one.
-Pete
Hi, Marc,
Back in February, you'd responded to
Brandon<http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-February/000148.html>:
"You are absolutely right, Brandon. This is a systemic problem that has been
in existence nearly as long as the Project has. And it has been documented
countless times. If this were a technical problem it would have been solved
long ago. *If it were a problem that the Foundation felt was affecting**
financial contributions to the Project, it would have been a problem given a
**high priority to solve.* Instead, the problem involves people. And the
powers
that be don't seem to know, and are not willing to learn, how to solve it.
The attitude seems to be, "If a person leaves, there are plenty to replace
them." There seems to be a high regard for content in the encyclopedia, but
a very low one for those who create it. This is a recipe for disaster."
(emphasis supplied)
I agree with you for more reasons than I'll get into right now, but when I
first read this -- right after returning from a lunch meeting with my
estates attorney to discuss updating my will, as luck would have it -- I
couldn't help laughing (ironically), given the context in which Wikipedia
had come up during that lunch.
My estates attorney is a dear old friend, so one goal for our lunch was to
catch up with each other, quite apart from and in addition to the business
purpose for our meeting. Consequently, as we ate, I regaled her with the
full story of what I'd recently experienced on Wikipedia. My estate is
structured to divide the bulk of my funds (such as they are) among
non-profits I've given time to over the years (assuming my children are
fully educated and launched into adult life by the time I collect my eternal
reward).
"So," she asked mischievously, after I'd concluded my sorry tale, "just how
much are you going to specify as a bequest to the Wikimedia Foundation in
the new will?"
"Not. *One*. Red. *Cent.*" I replied.
I'm only a single former female editor, of course, and a bequest from my
estate (such as it will likely be) would only be a tiny drop toward the
Wikimedia Foundation's funding goals, but as recent research on gender and
philanthropy has revealed,* "Most Women Give More Than
Men,"*<http://philanthropy.com/article/Most-Women-Give-More-Than-Men/125035/?sid=&…>so
the Wikimedia Foundation may well be shooting itself in its
metaphorical
financial foot it it fails to correct the gender imbalance and reduce its
offensiveness to women. Ideals have their place, of course, but money
purchases new hardware and keeps the servers running.
Just something the Foundation folks on the list might want to consider in
this context, since I doubt I'm the only woman to have had this reaction,
nor that I'll be the last.
Best,
Charlotte
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
>