Hi Folks - I know there is a page in Wikipedia with ideas/projects to
address the gendergap which I forgot to bookmark and can't find in search.
Can someone be kind enough to send me the link, please?
Thanks,
Amy
--
*
co-founder, 1X57
www.1x57.com <http://1x57.com/>
M: 202.423.6609
T: @sengseng <http://twitter.com/sengseng>
*
I searched for "hairdresser" and was directed to barber.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hairdresser
Kind of interesting, that it directs to barber and then discusses male
barbers and men's haircutting culture.
Surely I can't be the only person who finds this odd...
Really needs some gender neutrality... Cosmetology is the closest thing to
any article that discusses "hairdressers" "hair stylists" and it's basically
a paragraph.
Just surprises me..no "hairstylists" content on Wikipedia. If I am missing
something, or passing over it, please correct me! Another example on the
struggles we have here... (for example, the hair stylist Frederic Fekkai
links to barber....and he's an icon of women's hair styling and is
considered a "hairdresser" or stylist)
-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/
Hi everyone,
Sorry to open a big can of worms. If you have been following the image
referendum insanity on the enjoyable experience known as Foundation-L, you
may have seen today's post about how the majority of German editors to
Wikipedia protest the image filter. Foundation-L is heavily male dominated
(like many lists)...having an especially large number of highly opinionated
individuals from around the world (probably one of the largest and most
opinionated vocal groups in our culture - and this includes folks like
myself ;) Not meant to be offensive..just an observation).
Males are primarily the one's chirping in on this conversation, aside from a
small group of women who have and continue to do so (many who are active on
this list and seem to be from the US).
I was curious if any women from German Wikipedia would feel comfortable
perhaps sharing their thoughts on the image referendum. I bring it up here
on Gender Gap since this has served as a "safe place" for people to share
their honest points of view. I trust everyone here to remain civil and
respectful, as we have thus far :) (The convo has gotten a little insane on
Foundation-L!)
I support the referendum, but, I'm sure after conversations here, many of
you understand why. I like the idea of being able to give every individual
the power to delegate what they instantly view on Wikipedia, and their
family.
Thanks!
-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/
The last few days we talked about appropriate nudity in medical images.
I have an example of appropriate clothing now.
I think applying such rules as decency, respect, etc. are not totally
sufficient.
I think that the main principle should to avoid erotic content in order
to focus on the cognitive effort to understand the physiology. And in
such a context an erotic content would not only be offensive, it would
be a pollution for the cognitive intention.
I just worked on this document ( ~ 7 Mo download) :
http://arnaudherve.free.fr/Sugery_table_with_female_patient.pdf
It comes from a vendor of surgery tables. The document was originally in
German and has been translated to French. Anyway you don't have to
understand the language, because the medical words are almost the same,
and the images are obvious anyway.
What I wanted to show is that the patient is clothed, although in a real
life surgery situation, she would be naked.
The answer for that is not really in respect for the person, although it
is present here. The main intention is semantic. It mean the sellers
work seriously at making tables, they talk to buyers who work seriously
using those tables, and the focus is on the tables and not the patient.
By the way you will notice here and there the arm of a nurse, without
her face. The arm is naked and the shoulder clothed, which doesn't mean
the nurse is decent, it means she is working. So her face would not only
be a violation of anonymity, it would be a pollution to showing her arm
manipulating the tools.
I think that is the spirit. For images of organs of course it will be
more difficult, but still the focus must be on understanding the
anatomy, or physiology, or pathology. Or in other words, discourage
those who want to drool over female bodies, BUT encourage those who want
to acquire knowledge.
I think the principle applies to women in sports too. Have a look at this :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadia_Com%C4%83neci
Here you can see, or at least I can see immediately, that the focus in
on the sports feat and not on decency or desirability.
Don't know if that makes sense to you. So to sum it up it would not be
sufficient to merely REMOVE the erotic content, it is necessary to
IMPOSE the cognitive content. Then if you want to positively impose the
cognitive content, the negative removal of erotic content comes very
naturally.
Arnaud
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes! I have never edited or contributed anything to wikiquote. I have
> contributed to Wikisource, and I'm starting to think I'm the only woman who
> ever has, even though it was two documents. I don't even think there is much
> of anything related to women's history on Wikisource...
Ahhh, a topic worth talking about! If we want more women in our
community, I very strongly believe that wikisource is our greatest
chance of bringing them in. librarians and local studies in Australia
are mostly women, and they are usually led by women as well, who can
be good champions for our community. It is a nice quiet environment,
the editing tasks are 'simpler', which provides a nice training ground
for newbies, and the ability to shine new light on old information
gels well with information workers who prefer to blog about insights
into old texts rather than fight to have their text added to
Wikipedia.
FloNight is active whenever she can find time.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User:FloNight
(i.e. I am confident you can twist Sydney's arm to help you on Wikisource)
One of the two 'crats on English Wikisource is a women. She is very
active in moderating the tone of the community.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User:BirgitteSB
There are many more ladies who have been very involved over the years,
and they usually arnt far away.
(people dont rage-quit Wikisource. Wikisource looses contributors
because they rage-quit English Wikipedia, and they stop editing
Wikisource at the same time.)
If you're looking for a topical place to start, we have portals such as
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Portal:Women
When preparing for a training sessions for Australian
librarians(mostly women) in Miles, Queensland, I extracted a list of
women from a book of notable Australians
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index_talk:Johns%27s_notable_Australians_1908…
Sadly the Wikipedia training session went over the allocated time and
we didnt look at this. We have another training session for
Queensland librarians coming up soon.
--
John Vandenberg