The Women's Luncheon on Saturday was something I was very much looking
forward to, but it fell short of my expectations. I was enjoying bonding
with the women at my table, asking the speakers about their
presentations and hoping to form some more solid relationships with
veteran and new Wikipedians alike. Being required to sit back quietly
while 125+ women each stood up to introduce themselves felt like a waste
of an opportunity to build a stronger female editing community. Knowing
that the women are passionate about sharing was good, but wouldn't have
been more to the purpose to encourage networking so all the women in
attendance would be more inclined to stay active and recruit knowing
there was a pool of support they could personally draw upon?
[[User:Samarista|Samarista]] ([[User talk:Samarista|talk]]) 17 July 2012
I personally liked the intros. Perhaps suggest a common topic or two
people can discuss at tables?
Or have a separate meetups - a couple at different times, perhaps with
different themes. That might answer her concerns ?
Note that in the feedback section two of us mentioned that annoucements
of meetups needed to be better.
While this does not directly relate to the Wikimedia gender gap issues, I
thought many on this list would find the attached news article, which
appeared in The National Post (a Canadian Toronto/national newspaper) , to
be of interest. Perhaps we can draw some lessons from it, in particular
the treatment of women/women's issues as less important than men/men's
FYI - great place to also ask about fellowship opportunities - yes, you
can be a fellow (or a ladyfellow)!! (and not live in the States!)
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] IRC office hours with the Wikimedia Fellows
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:35:56 -0700
From: Siko Bouterse <sbouterse(a)wikimedia.org>
Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
The Wikimedia Fellows program will be holding IRC office hours in
#wikimedia-office this Thursday, August 2, 2012 at 21:00 UTC. Fellows
Tanvir Rahman, Peter Coombe, Jon Harald Søby, Steven Zhang, Sarah Stierch
and Jonathan Morgan will be there to discuss their current fellowship
projects (exact topics TBD based on who shows up with
questions/comments/feedback), and I'll take any questions on the
fellowships program that you may have. As always, links to time
conversion and other office hour info is on Meta. Hope to see you there!
1. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fellowship_News/Current, and this should
be even more current by Thursday :-)
Head of Community Fellowships
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
Wikimedia-l mailing list
On Jul 18, 2012 8:56 PM, "Carcharoth" <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 7/18/12, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 18 July 2012 10:47, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk> wrote:
> >> I remember it being referred to many years ago as long-standing
> >> practice, but I've dug around a bit in the discussion archives and
> >> can't seem to pin it down. It's probably pre-2004, maybe even pre-2003
> >> - anyone remember?
> > As with almost all our category system, it's basically ad hoc. I
> > suggest if you can propose something not insane to relevant
> > wikiprojects and are prepared to do the bot work yourself, you can
> > have endless fun clicking "save" in AWB for a few hours.
> For 1,000,000 articles? I think it should be done, but it will take
> more than a few hours. I think it could be done very quickly, if lots
> of people got involved.
Laura and I did it for Australian sports people. It is time consuming as
category structures need to be created.
> And I don't think the cases where it is
> unclear or a matter of privacy (a vanishingly small number) should
> preclude the obvious cases being done. It doesn't seem quite right
> that the potential for arguments over edge cases and how to handle
> them sensitively, would preclude being able to search by gender.
When used in category intersections, its really useful info for gender
Examples like these remind us how important a sense of humor is for successfully remaining and being productive in the grand work of Wikipedia. By the time I got through the series of comments LauraHale asks us to consider, I was again reminded of why I like Wikipedians and why I am outraged by Wikipedians. Gallows humor can set in, but hope is sparked too.
Stick with it Laura, you are making headway. There is decent (if exasperating) engagement going on, not bad.
Meanwhile, does anybody have an amusing joke to keep the rest of us amicably disposed to the "world brain' project? How about an anecdote?
I have a little one:
Somehow I'd surfed my way into a situation (seemed all male) where an admin (a) had taken to task, threatened, and ultimately exaggerated the sins of a (supposed) Canadian teenager(t) who'd created a segment on a page donning himself the First Lord or Baron of somewhere - something like that. The (a) was not very civil and after I visited the 'lord' page, I believed (a) had taken the facts and got ahead of himself. It was clear to me an exuberant new Wikipedia contributor (t) got deeply into being a lord, and was especially fond of envisioning and detailing lordly regalia, sabre weaponry, and medals to enhance his lordliness.
I decided to weigh in and defend (t) suggesting admins needed to take this (obvious youth) with a grain of salt, gently guide the newcomer, helping create an environment where he distinguishes online gaming characters from what really exists, facts vs. fantasy, if you will. Well, I posted to that effect, because I worried the 'lord' (t) would disappear from Wikipedia forever (and it was obvious he showed 'promise'). Other admins got in on it, agreed with me, and the last I knew, they'd taken (a) 'out behind the woodshed.' I thought that reaction harsh too. I likely posted some kindly comments on Virtues. My ideas were defended, not attacked. I surfed off somewhere else... I hope (t) stayed on board, corrected, and survived his first lordly battles...
A little over a week after Wikimania, where I participated in the “10 women in 10 minutes” session Sarah led, I have gotten the article my group worked on, [[Adrienne Bolland]], through DYK to the Main Page queue, with two other editors who worked on it sharing in the credit. It is currently scheduled to run on July 25, in the evening rotation in Europe, afternoon here in North American Eastern time where I live and morning on the West Coast, and early morning July 26 in Oceania/Asia.
I have two takeaways from the experience to offer anyone else participating in, or running, one of these events.
1.. Cast a wide net for sources when looking to expand a stubby article. I was attracted to this one because the Francophone Wikipedia has a longer article on her; unfortunately it’s tagged as lacking sources. But at least I can read French well enough to figure out what should have been included in the English article, and that helped to guide us. Reflecting the multilingual group we were, the final article has sources from not only French and English (Monash University in Australia has a nice set of pages on aviation pioneers) but German and Spanish as well (The German book we cited actually seems like a good source; it seems to be meant for younger readers and thus was at about the right level for me to read—somehow, when I looked at it, German (which I’ve never formally studied) came through clearer than it ever has. Unfortunately the Google preview ends right when the story starts getting good. Perhaps some German reader can find the hardcover book and see if there’s anything else worth adding). Other sources tapped include the Air France inflight magazine, a school website in France and the World Postal Union website (which would seem to be a good, reliable, authoritative source for stamp information).
2.. Not all the work done by editors physically collaborating shows up in the history. Sitting there putting our heads together, we were able to come to a consensus on whether a particular source was reliable and, when two of our sources conflicted as to a particular fact, which to include.
I hope you like the final result as much as I liked writing it (Mme. Bolland makes a nice feminist role model—after her aviation career, she was in the French women’s-suffrage movement, then supported the Republicans during the Spanish Civil War and was active in the resistance during the war. The more I researched, the more I liked her and felt honored to be improving her Wikipedia article.
Now, I hope, the French article can be properly referenced and the other articles expanded. User:Maire, who was in our group, promised she would get around to doing a Polish translation, which left me with Russian among the languages I’d feel comfortable editing in that aren’t represented yet among the interwiki links. Which I’ll do when I can figure out how to properly transliterate her first name and which of four possible pronunciations I can think of for her last name is the right one.
Or someone else here can take up the challenge. It’s worth it.
Just noticed this template added to an article I started (And expanded
with another woman editor!):
Scroll down and you'll see a template. I'm sure other languages and
countries also have halls of fame for women? Many states do here, and
there is also the national hall of fame (which I've written a lot of
If you open the template you'll see there are a lot of red links...
Very cool template and I encourage others to do the same!!!
*/Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow/*
>>Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate today