An RfC has been opened on the continued use of the photo of a nude pregnant woman as the lead image at [[Pregnancy]], remarked upon here recently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pregnancy#Lead_image_RfC
I found the response by HiLo48 to my !vote (where I raised the to-me relevant issue that I didn't see anyone else talking about directly) very revealing for our current discussions and this list in general.
Daniel Case
Hi Folks - I just posted my thoughts on a "Change the Ratio" campaign for
Wikipedia<http://1x57.com/2011/09/30/changing-the-ratio-wikipedias-battle-for-diversi…>,
that includes a logo my company created with the design help of JESS3 (who
did that State of Wikipedia video: http://jess3.com/the-state-of-wikipedia/
).
In it I mention a Facebook event that I'll be promoting this weekend for
people to change their profile pic to the Change the Ratio logo on Ada
Lovelace day (one week from today, Friday Oct 7):
https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=154261054664442
I'd love to hear your thoughts/comments. There have been so many great ideas
generated on how to address the gendergap issue. I'd love to see more people
executing ideas at the grassroots level and seeing what works:)
Best,
Amy
--
*
co-founder, 1X57
www.1x57.com <http://1x57.com/>
M: 202.423.6609
T: @sengseng <http://twitter.com/sengseng>
*
Hey guys!
So, I've been speaking at Girl Geek Dinner events in the UK, spreading the
good word about what it is we do, having editing sessions and then getting
feedback from women on why they don't edit, or if they do, how they think
Wikipedia can be improved to be more women-friendly. It's really interesting
to do and the women who are involved are just the most wonderful people you
could ever meet.
I am emailing the head of Girl Geek Dinners at the moment to ask whether I
can send an email out to all of the organisations asking if they would like
to have a woman Wikipedian come and speak at their local event. Like I said,
they're all absolutely wonderful, and the crowd size is usually about forty.
They're a global organisation so anyone from anywhere can volunteer for
this!
My question is: Is anyone interested? If you are, please do email me with
who your local chapter is and I will make a list so that if we are invited
to these dinners I have a repository of people to invite to speak. The
speech is already written, the format is already arranged and the women are
friendly. So please, come one and all!
Fiona /Panyd
P.s. We usually bring cake too. Here's coverage from the Bristol event
http://www.bristolwireless.net/2011/08/wikipedians-meet-girl-geeks-and-eat-c
ake/
http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
A lot of things I think about, and I'm sure a lot of other people here think
about.
I'm sure this blog won't be well received on other WMF-related mailing
lists, but, I have to admit - for me - I feel like she's speaking for me.
I don't want to be a censor, I just want people to have common sense, good
judgement, customer service and logic. And when people call *me* a censor,
it's just as offensive as the other names I've been called.
I have beencalled a prude, bitch, agitator, bore, conservative, censor,
"anti-woman"... someone with an agenda...etc. I can only thank you Sue for
speaking on behalf of me - when I clumsily try to express myself on
Foundation-L and fear being shot-down and having my "Wiki" self-esteem torn
down.....I just feel like "giving up."
Thanks. And I promise everyone, some of us are working towards this, and
working towards a change and a towards a conversation that is adult, logical
and respectful.
<3
-Sarah
--
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia <http://www.glamwiki.org>
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Art<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch>
and
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sarahstierch.com/
Hello everybody,
let me introduce myself to you. I'm a female editor and long time
volunteer in the german wikipedia. To answer your question: I voted
against the image filter and I didn't have a problem with the vulva
picture on the front page (Ok, I saw better pictures on the front page
over the years, but I was not shocked and did not think this was such
a big thing).
As far as I can overlook the recent discussions on the german
wikipedia, the german blogosphere, facebook and a lot of personal
talks I had to other female editors in the last weeks most of them
thinks exactly the same. Why that? I don't know. Maybe because filters
aren't very popular in germany at all, maybe it's because we have
state schools with a curriculum in sexual education and you can see
those pictures in your school books.
Maybe that wasn't the answer you expected but I had the feeling I had
to answer to this.
Kind regards
Anneke (Kellerkind)
P.S. And, no, I'm not to shy to post on foundation-l but I'm not
interested in subscribing _to_much_ mailinglists, so I'm happy to read
the web-archives (And I will do exactly the same with this list after
this post).
I know this survey isn't perfect, but...I've had a really healthy, honest
response from women thus far, and I hope that any female editors here, and
beyond, will contribute. If you know someone who participates in Wikimedia
projects and is comfortable with English, please share it.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?hl=en_US&rm=full&formkey=dDR3a…
This is an independent survey done by me as a fellow Wikimedian, not on
behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation.
The responses I have been getting have ranged... everything from not caring
about bringing women to Wikimedia (a very small percentage thus far, mind
you), to emotional and heart-wrenching stories about treatment,
relationships and thoughts about Wikimedia.
Not to toot my own horn, but, I've wanted to do a woman-based survey for a
while, with some presentable content that will hopefully benefit the work
that I hope to explore in regards to WMF's strategic plan of closing the
gender gap in Wikimedia. Again, I know the survey isn't perfect, but, after
a large group of folks looking at it...for the laid back and honest approach
I'm taking, those participating seem quite comfortable with the format. (And
if you have personal problems with it, please email me offlist.)
I'm hoping I can present some of this content to WMF in late October.
"Thanks for doing this, and good luck on your project. It's about time
someone actively sought out the opinions of female editors as the stats show
us to be a very small minority."
<3
-Sarah
--
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia <http://www.glamwiki.org>
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Art<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch>
and
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sarahstierch.com/
A few weeks ago Kelly Wearstler was brought up on list regarding Playboy
centerfolds. An argument was taking place on her talk page between two users
- one an advocate for using the Playboy infobox with chest size as the
infobox for Wearstler, a world famous fashion and interior designer (to be
honest, I had no clue who she was until I researched her, heh). I snuck in
and added a normal biographical infobox and Wikipedians proved the Playboy
user wrong - he had declared that the only information he could find online
was content about her being a Playboy model (which she posed for once, as a
centerfold, to pay off her student loans and start her own business).
Well, they were wrong (they must have been searching for her name and
"Playboy")...and, now she's a DYK for her interior design, not her
Playboyness ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Wearstler
Go team!
I love that we can share interesting, not so interesting, or troublesome
articles and fix them up and expand content. Just one of the reasons why
this is my favorite list <3
-Sarah
--
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia <http://www.glamwiki.org>
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Art<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch>
and
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sarahstierch.com/
I have been editing [[Cordelia Fine]] because her book *Delusions of
Gender*is up for many awards. In case anyone is interested in the
nature/nurture
debate, Fine's book takes the nurture line (that is, men's and women's
brains are different). She is obviously a talented, intelligent and
successful author/academic but I note that the debate is undiminished even
after the long time that I have been watching it. In the interests of
balance, I also added a reference on the Fine article to a critique of the
nurture view. The author of the critique is another talented, intelligent
and successful author/academic who argues that the reason feminists like the
behaviourist view is that "anything else makes femaleness a disadvantage,
out in the world beyond domesticity. The minute you allow difference - say,
''males are more driven'' - you make non-maleness second-rate".
I'm pointing out this book, article and debate on this list in case anyone
is interested in the arguments and current publications about it. As I said,
the debate goes on and so does the research ...
Gillian
[[User:Whiteghost.ink]]
Hi everyone,
I've had a few conversations, and heard/read a number of comments about the
term "WikiChix." Now I've never been much of a "chick", and it seems other
women tend to agree in the terminology as being a bit...hokey, old school
and not the most contemporary.
I'd like to see how we can re-develop the concept into something else. I've
been using just the simple term of "Women in Wikimedia" etc, but I know
that's not the most quirky or exciting sound term when it comes to trying to
be clever at a luncheon or whatever. There's also the "Women of Wikimedia"
but "WoW"...hehe... "Oh is this a Warcraft meet-up?"
I also joined the WikiChix mailing list over a month and ago and there has
been no activity. I'm starting to think perhaps we can retire the term for
the sake of contemporary thinking.
But, perhaps I'm just being uber and everyone thinks it's the cutest name
ever and should be kept.
Thoughts?
-Sarah
--
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia <http://www.glamwiki.org>
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Art<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch>
and
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sarahstierch.com/