It is impossible not to get upset. In my memory we worked to honor Alice
Paul. She never saw the ERA pass. (and neither have I)
It's is so soon in the history of the world that women have been able to
vote.It has not even been 100 years in the U.S.
Of course they are scared. of course they are mean. equality is terrifying
to them. so they do these kinds of things over and over and we fight back
little by little...but each day another woman steps up on
your shoulders and is carried to make an edit that changes their horridness.
it is a long slow fight.
I have been at it for years and years in the pre-Internet days and I drop
out for months at a time. Then go back. Your work, Sarah has been read by
an entire class I teach and given much heart to many young women.
Don't give up.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:44 AM, anna jonsson <annabarro(a)hotmail.com>wrote:
> [image: Emoji]for your good work !!
> Anna Jonsson
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 08:29:40 -0700
> From: sarah.stierch(a)gmail.com
> To: gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention on Commons and use on enwp
>
> Sorry if this gets a little off topic from the actual focus of the
> subjects. I just need to personally vent and this gives me a chance (thanks
> Katherine). I assume I can't be the only one who feels this way, and it
> seems you might also.
>
> I totally understand the "it depresses me" situation. I got involved in
> some of the discussions about the women's foo categories only to get
> bombarded with comments when I brought up "I don't know if anyone here is
> even a woman involved, from what I know, I think I might be the only woman
> here," and then to be snapped at "How do you know I'm not a woman?" by
> someone with a male user name (Jeremy). I felt like a total fail, and
> basically left the conversation only to get comments on my talk page. I
> have officially declared I'm "burnt out" on any and all gender
> conversations, specifically triggered by the recent category situation.
>
> 95% if not more of the people discussing all of these things are, from
> what I believe, identifying on Wikipedia as the masculine. It's really
> troubling for me, and right now I'm at the point where I just can't fight
> it right now. I'm feeling depressed about it, hopeless, and all of the
> other fun things that go with burn out. (Funny, I didn't suffer burn out
> this severe when I was a fellow, but I did have two minor bouts of burn out
> during that year, this is by far the worst)
>
> I basically had to stop doing the painful nomination and arguing about
> nudity and women's images on Commons. Part of this was because it was so
> demoralizing and depressing, and the other was the repeated "You'll never
> be an admin on Commons if you keep doing this," and I always wanted to be
> an admin on Commons. The fact that I let this argument - being made by male
> Commonists - trigger me to not participate in the conversations is an
> entirely different psychological issue in itself! Oy vey.
>
> Gah. :(
>
> -Sarah
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Katherine Casey <
> fluffernutter.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Came across this kerfuffle today. I'd love to see what more
> gendergap-focused people think about the following progression of events
> (note: the image is NSFW, but each of the links I'm providing are SFW if
> you don't click through to the image/article):
>
> - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Exhibitionism#Image_at_top_of_page<---discussion about whether to use an identifiable woman's topless photo
> on the top of an enwp article. The person raising the discussion notes
> that "*I find it hard to believe that this woman wants her picture on
> WP, and I don't think we have a right to show her because of a momentary
> indiscretion in a public place."*
> -
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mardi_Gras…<---Same image is nominated for deletion on Commons, with similar rationale
> - The image is kept.
> - Discussion on enwp spins off from the same issue:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPN#Photos_of_private_people_doing_…, splitting between one faction saying "It's legal, so it's fine" and
> another saying "It's a matter of ethics, not legality."
>
> Speaking personally, my takeaway from reading through this situation has
> gone through "mortification in empathy for the image subject, who was
> almost certainly drunk and unable to consent", "frustration with Commons's
> dismissive approach to the questioning of identfiable sexual images", and
> finally "realization that in all three discussions, I see *no *users who
> I know to be female. Not one. It seems quite likely that the issue of
> whether this woman's right to be protected by BLP extends to images of her
> breasts...is being discussed 100% by men."
>
> I don't quite know what my point is here, other than to note that to me,
> this feels very, very representative of the way women and women's issues
> are treated on WP and on Commons, even when we're supposed to be
> hyper-aware of the gendergap and its effects, and it depresses me.
>
> -Fluffernutter
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> *Sarah Stierch*
> *Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian*
> *www.sarahstierch.com*
>
> _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
It's official! The Chemical Heritage Foundation in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, has a Wikipedian in Residence...and it's a woman! They told
me it's official, and encouraged me to share the news (it's not online
yet).
This marks, as far as I know, the third woman Wikipedian in Residence in
the US! I'm so pleased. She's active in some great women's history projects
too:
https://twitter.com/MMOckerbloomhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mary_Mark_Ockerbloom
I'm so pleased with this decision! I know she has interested in doing
women's history stuff in relation to chemistry - so yay, more work for
WikiProject Women scientists :) I'm hoping I can get her to join this list!
-Sarah
--
--
*Sarah Stierch*
*Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian*
*www.sarahstierch.com*
Adrianne raises a good point -
No women who edit Wikipedia have been featured in the press regarding the
recent categorygate (As we've started calling it!).
http://hastac.org/blogs/wadewitz/2013/04/30/who-speaks-women-wikipedia-not-…
-Sarah
--
--
*Sarah Stierch*
*Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian*
*www.sarahstierch.com*
Please see below.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Snyder, Sara <SnyderS(a)si.edu>
Date: Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 8:57 AM
Subject: [GLAM-US] Reminder: Smithsonian Institution - paid Wikipedian in
Residence applications are due today
To: "glam-us(a)lists.wikimedia.org" <glam-us(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Just a reminder that *today is the deadline* for applying to the
Smithsonian Institution to be our Wikipedian in Residence. Get your
applications in before midnight! Feel free to contact me if you have
questions.****
** **
http://www.smithsonianofi.com/blog/2013/04/18/smithsonian-wikipedian-in-res…
****
** **
The Smithsonian Institution is seeking applicants for a Wikipedian in
Residence for Summer 2013. This is an intern position. Founded in 1846,
the Smithsonian is the world’s largest museum and research complex,
consisting of 19 museums and galleries, the National Zoological Park, and
nine research facilities (learn more <http://www.si.edu/About>).****
The Wikipedian in Residence will help coordinate efforts across the
Smithsonian, strengthening the ongoing Smithsonian Institution WikiProject (
WP:GLAM/SI <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/SI>), and acting
as a liaison to the Wikimedia community.****
*Schedule:* 32-40 hours per week, minimum 10 weeks****
*Stipend:* $5000****
*Location:* Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.****
*Eligibility and Skills:*****
- You must be enrolled in a full- or half-time college or university
academic program for Fall 2013. (If not, please explain in cover letter
how your learning goals and interests match the learning objectives offered
by this opportunity.)****
- You must be an experienced contributor to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia
Commons and currently be in good standing within the community****
- Good communications skills and desire to strengthen them through oral
and written presentation****
- Experience working in teams and interest in honing your ability to
collaborate effectively****
*This internship will provide an introduction to – *****
- the broad range of disciplines across science, history, art, and
culture that the Smithsonian addresses through its collections and research
****
- the many different people, organizational units, and systems that
support the Smithsonian digital enterprise and how they work together****
*Projects may include the following:*****
- *Sharing knowledge* – By instructing Smithsonian staff and answering
questions about best practices and policies on Wikipedia and Wikimedia
Commons, you will further master Wikipedia skills****
- *Events* – Gaining event planning experience by planning special
outreach events such as a backstage pass & edit-a-thon, photo scavenger
hunt, or editing challenge****
- *Organizing categories* – Working with Smithsonian staff to analyze,
optimize, and document Smithsonian-related
categories<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories>as
applied to articles and assets on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons
****
- *Commons contribution* – Learning digital content management by
helping identify and transfer appropriate digital content from the
Smithsonian collections to Wikimedia Commons****
- *Technical tools *– Planning and creating tools and templates that
will make it easier for Wikipedia editors to identify, use, and cite
Smithsonian resources on Wikipedia****
*How to Apply*****
Your application must include:****
1) Cover letter – Please explain why you would like to be the Wikipedian in
Residence at the Smithsonian. Include your Wikipedia username and an
overview of your experience as a Wikipedia editor. Be sure to discuss
WikiProjects that you have been involved with and describe the technical
and other skills you would bring.****
2) Resume****
3) College transcripts (unofficial) reflecting all post-high school
education
*Please submit all elements of the application as a single pdf by April 30,
2013, to: **wiki(a)si.edu* <wiki(a)si.edu>*.*****
Questions? Please send to wiki(a)si.edu.****
** **
** **
Sara Snyder****
Webmaster, Archives of American Art****
Smithsonian Institution****
(202) 633-7987 | www.aaa.si.edu****
** **
_______________________________________________
GLAM-US mailing list
GLAM-US(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam-us
--
--
*Sarah Stierch*
*Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian*
*www.sarahstierch.com*
Came across this kerfuffle today. I'd love to see what more
gendergap-focused people think about the following progression of events
(note: the image is NSFW, but each of the links I'm providing are SFW if
you don't click through to the image/article):
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Exhibitionism#Image_at_top_of_page<---discussion
about whether to use an identifiable woman's topless photo
on the top of an enwp article. The person raising the discussion notes
that "*I find it hard to believe that this woman wants her picture on
WP, and I don't think we have a right to show her because of a momentary
indiscretion in a public place."*
-
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mardi_Gras…<---Same
image is nominated for deletion on Commons, with similar rationale
- The image is kept.
- Discussion on enwp spins off from the same issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPN#Photos_of_private_people_doing_…,
splitting between one faction saying "It's legal, so it's fine" and
another saying "It's a matter of ethics, not legality."
Speaking personally, my takeaway from reading through this situation has
gone through "mortification in empathy for the image subject, who was
almost certainly drunk and unable to consent", "frustration with Commons's
dismissive approach to the questioning of identfiable sexual images", and
finally "realization that in all three discussions, I see *no *users who I
know to be female. Not one. It seems quite likely that the issue of whether
this woman's right to be protected by BLP extends to images of her
breasts...is being discussed 100% by men."
I don't quite know what my point is here, other than to note that to me,
this feels very, very representative of the way women and women's issues
are treated on WP and on Commons, even when we're supposed to be
hyper-aware of the gendergap and its effects, and it depresses me.
-Fluffernutter
Wikimedia community member Liz Henry blogs here:
http://bookmaniac.org/journalists-dont-understand-wikipedia-sometimes/
and does a little bit of digging into edit histories.
"Just from these three samples, it does not seem that there is any
particular movement among a group of Wikipedia editors to remove women
from the “novelists” category and put them in a special women category
instead. I would say that the general leaning, rather, is to stop people
who would like to label women writers as women writers *in addition* to
labeling them as writers, claiming there is no need for Category:
American women writers at all and that it is evidence of bias to
identify them by gender. ... The sexist thing we
should be up in arms about isn’t labelling women as women! It’s the
efforts to delete entire categories (like Haitian women writers, for
example) because someone has decided that that meta-information is
unnecessary “ghettoization”..."
--
Sumana Harihareswara
Engineering Community Manager
Wikimedia Foundation
No, I'm 100% with you. It's not sexist to recognize that women are studied separately, hell, we have a whole field dedicated to women and gender. I think its incredibly helpful to have women in a separate category to assess our level of coverage for women in that field; knowing where our coverage is deficient is the first step to combating systemic bias.
I think people should be up in arms about sexism on Wikipedia, but the sexism isn't in the existence of "women x" categories, it's in how sparsely they're populated.
Kei
Sent from my HTC One™ S on T-Mobile. America’s First Nationwide 4G Network.
----- Reply message -----
From: "Sarah Stierch" <sarah.stierch(a)gmail.com>
To: "Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects" <gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [Gendergap] Liz Henry on women novelists, English Wikipedia, and labelling
Date: Sat, Apr 27, 2013 7:32 PM
????
Regardless...I'm beginning to feel like I'm the only person on earth who
feels having a category for "Women foo" is a good idea for the sake of
women's studies and feminist studies. I find immense value in categories
based around gender and ethnicity - it makes my writing and work a lot
easier (as a researcher who writes about women and minorities) when working
in Wikipedia and wanting to expand content about those subjects. As long as
they get listed in other appropriate non-gender/non-ethnicity/non-foo
categories, I think it's okay. We're not a library, we're an online
collaborative encyclopedia.
Even on Wiki, I feel like one of the few people voicing my opinion about it
only to get told I'm in the wrong. It's really depressing.
I almost feel like a jerk for feeling that way. Go figure.
-Sarah
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Akhil Mulgaonker <liberalufp(a)gmail.com>wrote:
> Women are inferior to men and exterminated like ants.
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 7:17 AM, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk>wrote:
>
>> The recent discussion on this (which never really came to a clear
>> consensus):
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_101#A…
>>
>> - Andrew
>>
>> On 27 April 2013 01:49, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> > If people are concerned about sexism in Wikipedia categories they
>> should be
>> > drawing attention to edits like this:
>> >
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Gillies&curid=19682193…
>> >
>> > While the rest of the world is moving away from gender-specific job
>> names
>> > (like policeman and actress), Wikipedia is moving in the opposite
>> direction.
>> > That seems like a much worse problem than categorizing women as women.
>> >
>> > Ryan Kaldari
>> >
>> >
>> > On 4/25/13 11:34 PM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:56:39 -0400
>> >> Sumana Harihareswara <sumanah(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Wikimedia community member Liz Henry blogs here:
>> >>>
>> http://bookmaniac.org/journalists-dont-understand-wikipedia-sometimes/
>> >>> and does a little bit of digging into edit histories.
>> >>>
>> >>> "Just from these three samples, it does not seem that there is any
>> >>> particular movement among a group of Wikipedia editors to remove women
>> >>> from the “novelists” category and put them in a special women category
>> >>> instead. I would say that the general leaning, rather, is to stop
>> people
>> >>> who would like to label women writers as women writers *in addition*
>> to
>> >>> labeling them as writers, claiming there is no need for Category:
>> >>> American women writers at all and that it is evidence of bias to
>> >>> identify them by gender. ... The sexist thing we
>> >>> should be up in arms about isn’t labelling women as women! It’s the
>> >>> efforts to delete entire categories (like Haitian women writers, for
>> >>> example) because someone has decided that that meta-information is
>> >>> unnecessary “ghettoization”..."
>> >>
>> >> Seems like good write-up and I tend to agree. It's too bad there was so
>> >> much
>> >> misunderstanding in the media about it.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >>
>> >> Shlomi Fish
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Gendergap mailing list
>> > Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> - Andrew Gray
>> andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *AKHIL MULGAONKER *
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
--
--
*Sarah Stierch*
*Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian*
*www.sarahstierch.com*
