Gendergap September 2011

gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org

61 participants
73 discussions

Wikipedia: Biography of Living People guide (focusing on sport)
by Laura Hale 15 Sep '11

15 Sep '11

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

10 11

(no subject)
by Tomas Ayala 15 Sep '11

15 Sep '11

please remove me from your mailing list. Thank you

1 0

Wikiquote
by Maggie 15 Sep '11

15 Sep '11

Interesting if you look at the Selected Pages, all the people are men. Perhaps we need to add more women to the pages.

3 3

"beauty" project
by Sarah Stierch 15 Sep '11

15 Sep '11

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/

2 1

Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 8, Issue 40
by Jutta von Dincklage 15 Sep '11

15 Sep '11

> 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

1 0

Cosmo Mag 1967: The Computer Girls
by Moka Pantages 15 Sep '11

15 Sep '11

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

1 0

So this is how Commons works?
by Sarah Stierch 15 Sep '11

15 Sep '11

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/

18 55

Other "women's" wiki's
by Sarah Stierch 14 Sep '11

14 Sep '11

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/

2 1

Sexual Harassment in Online Communications: Effects of Gender and Discourse Medium
by Sydney Poore 14 Sep '11

14 Sep '11

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

1 0

Gendergap humor
by Michael J. Lowrey 13 Sep '11

13 Sep '11

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

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

Gendergap September 2011