I've created a small guide to editing articles about living people, with a
focus on sport people (and Australian Paralympians specifically). If anyone
has any feedback on the attached file, that would be really great. I wanted
to try to cover issues that tend to be the biggest pit falls in terms of
trying to edit articles about living people. The only area that, being self
critical, I think may need work is the photographs part... but maybe that
can be fixed by linking to another guide? there is a lot more out there
regarding uploading pictures than BLP editing.
I've spent the past two or so days working on it and I'm kind of stuck on
being more critical of my own stuff so any feedback would be much
appreciated. :)
--
twitter: purplepopple
blog: ozziesport.com
I've been spending a little bit of time this evening looking at beauty
related topics. I noticed most of them aren't tagged with any projects. I
looked at WP:Fashion, which specifically focuses on style/clothing/etc. I
have to admit, I'm a bit surprised there isn't a "Beauty and Personal Care"
type of project, or something...it'd be a great and prime category to get
beauty and make-up junkies (it's a cult!) to participate. The category could
even cover holistic body care, spa treatment, relaxation..and perhaps
similar subjects.
I don't have the time or heavy interest at this moment, but, it is
interesting that nothing like this exists...
But at least we have a project page for pretty much all NFL teams ;)
-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/
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 12:34:21 +1000
> From: Laura Hale <laura(a)fanhistory.com>
> Subject: [Gendergap] Wikipedia: Biography of Living People guide
> (focusing on sport)
> To: members(a)wikimedia.org.au, Increasing female participation in
> Wikimedia projects <gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CAGaPgkSE=PQOLjWQ7h=h-
> 9moV5EFqX24C3EmQ5YTqv7dLg+_Pg(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I've created a small guide to editing articles about living people, with a focus
> on sport people (and Australian Paralympians specifically). If anyone has any
> feedback on the attached file, that would be really great. I wanted to try to
> cover issues that tend to be the biggest pit falls in terms of trying to edit
> articles about living people. The only area that, being self critical, I think may
> need work is the photographs part... but maybe that can be fixed by linking to
> another guide? there is a lot more out there regarding uploading pictures than
> BLP editing.
>
Hi Laura,
I am going through it now and will email you a pdf with sticky notes directly :-)
Great job! I was so happy to hear that the paralympics project is happening!
Cheers,
Jutta
Hi, all.
I don't remember seeing this in the digests, so apologies if this work
has already been posted.
I came across an historical article from a 1968 edition of
Cosmopolitan, The Computer Girls [1] and this amazing add targeted at
female programmers [2].
This was cited in a recent Washington Post [2] story exploring the
absence of women in tech. The writer talks about women who worked as
Keypunch girls in the 60s and the ebb and flow of women programers
ever since. I think this kind of story is common knowledge, as I
remember reading similar things in the past, but I've never actually
seen the original Cosmo story or some of the stats that were included.
Like Sue experienced during her CBC interview, there's a common
misconception that the STEM gender gap is closing. This article helps
support what this list already knows:
In 1967, when Cosmo’s “The Computer Girls” article ran, 11 percent of
computer science majors were women. In the late 1970s, the percentage
of women in the field approached and exceeded the same figure we are
applauding today: 25 percent. The portion of women earning computer
science degrees continued to rise steadily, reaching its peak — 37
percent — in 1984. Then, over the next two decades, women left
computer science in droves — just as their numbers were increasing
steadily across all other science, technology, engineering, and math
fields. By 2006, the portion of women in computer science had dropped
to 20 percent.
I'm still fascinated by the Cosmo story! Hope this is useful.
[1] http://thecomputerboys.com/?tag=gender#
[2] http://thecomputerboys.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/susie-meyer.jpg
[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-computer-programming-was-womens…
--
--
Cheers,
Moka
Moka Pantages
415.839.6885 x 635
@moka
This is a NSFW photo....
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Korean_Vul…
Five for deletion, two for keep. This is its third nomination.
An admin came in today and declared it being kept because "No valid reason
for deletion, per previous decisions. Person is not recognizable." It has
been nominated twice, by anon IP's who have simply declared "porn" or
"obscene" as the deletion reason (not enough of a reason).
I nominated it, like I do many things, because it was unused on any project
since its upload in March of 2009, it's uneducational, and the poor
description proves that. I also think it's poor quality - if we need an
"educational photo of a vulva" we have two really fab ones on the [[vulva]]
article. Which of course was argued (a nude photo of a headless woman blow
drying her hair in heels with the blow dryer cord and shadow in the shot..
come...on...), and as FloNight noted, we can probably have some high quality
photos of a nude woman using a blow dryer that aren't taken in the bedroom
for the project..if it's that in demand.
<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Korean_Vulva2.jpg>
I shouldn't even act surprised...I guess.. :-/
Were the reasons we provided not valid enough? Can you even challenge
something like this? Did I miss something? Am I doing this wrong? Regardless
of the subject, I don't understand why the admin would declare the peoples
reasons in valid based on my knowledge of the Commons policies...: "Commons
is not a porn site", "private location, lack of model release" etc...
(And yes, I was a little snappy on my nomination (this was my original rager
when I nominated a bunch of stuff from the "high heels" category..)...so no
need to reprimand me....I've curbed my 'tude!)
Any help would be great,
Sarah
--
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for the Wikimedia
Foundation<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/
These are two others that I have stumbled across. I think it's really
interesting to look at these wiki's and see what makes them good/bad,
attractive/not, etc. I think there can always be something to learned..I've
looked at these extensively, and even made accounts on them to explore the
process. I encourage others to experience and perhaps share what you think
makes these different, good/bad, etc, compared to Wikipedia.
Global Women's Network has videos on how to do things a simple as create a
user account...which I think is nice.
http://www.global-womens-network.org/http://wikigender.org/index.php/New_Home
-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/
Interesting article that supports the idea that women and men perceive
content differently.
The research found that "in terms of gender differences, women rated online
pictures and jokes as significantly more harassing than men."
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/109493102753685863
We shouldn't generalize this to all people of a gender, but it is worth
remembering that at least some women are more uncomfortable with some types
of humor and images.
Sydney
I recently attended a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador training, in which
almost all the experienced Wiki hands were male and bearded, and the
newbies were both female and not. When I recounted this to my wife and
daughter, the wife speculated, "Does this mean that excessive time
spent editing at Wikimedia turns you male and/or bearded?"
--
Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey
male, bearded, about twenty+ years older than anybody else in the room
at the time
"When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food
and clothes."
-- Desiderius Erasmus
