https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incid…
After multiple complaints by other editors about this, I decided to
bring an ANI. It might not be the best constructed one possible. And
maybe I'm not the best person to do it, being a little "too" outspoken
(I even make jokes!) and "controversial" with too many enemies (guys who
don't like women who stick to their opinions on hot topics?)
But the project is so disrupted I cannot even put up the resources page
because I know that it will be gutted down to zilch by one editor
especially if I do. (He's been wikihounding me and reverting me for over
a year and multiple complaints have come to naught.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carolmooredc/My_Sandbox_1
The community has to face the fact that this is the only Wikiproject
under attack.
Like I said, other projects don't permit it.
Can you imagine if it were permitted on the Palestine or Israel
wikiprojects and they were going at each other? Or the Christian and
LGBT? Absurd...
At least Mr. Wales agrees... sigh...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#WP:ANI_on_.E2.80.9Cdisr…
CM
Hello all,
I'm organizing a feminist edit-a-thon in Seattle at UW for February or
early March. This event will be a conversation about media literacy and
reading between the lines in light of the Wikipedia Gender Gap, an editing
tutorial, and a space for editing/writing on missing entries.
The event will be primarily geared for folks affiliated with the UW, but
also for the public.
As a feminist event, I'd like to provide childcare, particularly since it's
likely the event might be happening on a Saturday.
For those of you who have organized edit-a-thons before, how have you
accommodated for dependents? If you've arranged childcare at edit-a-thons,
would you be willing to share what you did and how it went?
Please feel free to email me directly. Also, if there are any
Wikimedians/pedians in Seattle who I haven't met, I'd love to be in touch.
Happy Halloween all -- and thanks, as always, for a fiery and inspiring
listserv and all the work many of you are doing. I've been a member on this
list for a long time, and the contents of this list really do bring me joy
-- and have also inspired action. Thanks. :)
All the best,
Monika
www.monikasengul.com
jones.monika(a)gmail.com
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 5:00 AM, <gendergap-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> Send Gendergap mailing list submissions to
> gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> gendergap-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> gendergap-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Gendergap digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: University of Sydney women's #wikibomb (Roberta Wedge)
> 2. Re: University of Sydney women's #wikibomb (Toby Hudson)
> 3. Re: Look who's in the paper!! :) (Roberta Wedge)
> 4. Re: Encouraging in the paper!! :) (Kathleen McCook)
> 5. New wikipedia group for Los Angeles (Sarah Stierch)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:20:48 +0000
> From: Roberta Wedge <roberta.wedge(a)wikimedia.org.uk>
> To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the
> participation of women within Wikimedia projects."
> <gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] University of Sydney women's #wikibomb
> Message-ID:
> <CAAKod=Qc0JvwpJ2TOfyvLi7D2d2qWwhD39FeW7jERR=
> 8EWtVXg(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Re COI for academics: I've recently come across Melodee Beals, a senior
> lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University. Her userpage
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mhbeals> strikes me as an exemplar of
> one way for academics to engage with Wikipedia. She has given thought and
> space to making a declaration of interests, spelling out how she intends to
> handle affiliations and her understanding of self-promotion.
>
> Declaration of interest: Dr Beals is the colleague of a friend of mine.
>
> Roberta
>
> ------------------------
> *Roberta Wedge*
> *Gender Gap Project, **Wikimedia UK*
> roberta.wedge(a)wikimedia.org.uk
> 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
> +44 (0)20 7065 0921
>
> Wikimedia UK is the British chapter of a global movement. We support, but
> do not control, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and
> other related Wikimedia projects.
> Wikimedia UK is both a limited company (Registered No. 6741827) and a
> charity (Registered No.1144513).
>
> Visit wikimedia.org.uk <http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/> and @wikimediauk
>
> On 30 October 2014 10:58, Toby Hudson <tobyyy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/University_of_Sydney_…
> >
> > This is going to be big. There are 39 signed up (mostly female academics
> > and students), but we are expecting nearer 100.
> >
> > How Wikipedians can help:
> >
> > We will have a decent number of experienced editors on site, but we will
> > be stretched. Anyone who can provide online support 03:00-07:00 UTC
> > tomorrow (Friday) would be much appreciated. Please add your name to the
> > project page with a note so that we know who we can call on. Here's some
> > ways you can help:
> >
> > 1. Any sandbox started by a wikibomb participant should be added to
> *Category:University
> > of Sydney Wikibomb 2014
> > <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:University_of_Sydney_Wikibomb_2014>*
> so
> > that we can all find it.
> > 2. Monitor *These Related Changes
> > <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:Meetup/…>*
> to
> > look out for editors having trouble.
> > 3. Write (kind) sandbox_talk page comments if you see *promotional
> > language*. It seems that some participants are intending to write
> > articles about their friend/colleague/boss. The organizing team now
> all
> > understand how much COI <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COI>
> editing
> > is discouraged, but I'm afraid academics are harder to herd than
> cats. We
> > are at least trying to ensure that everyone declares their employer on
> > their userpage, and declares any COI they have on the article talk.
> > 4. Assess articles' *readiness to move into mainspace* (also post a
> > note on the talk page). Experienced Wikipedians will do these moves,
> but
> > for COI and general stress relief, it would be good to have third
> party
> > eyes over it.
> > 5. *Categorize, prettify, wikidatify, wikiprojectify* ({{WP Australia
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:WP_Australia>}}{{WP Biography
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:WP_Biography>}} etc) any
> > articles that do make it into mainspace. We will not have time to
> > concentrate on any of these things.
> > 6. *Ping me (99of9 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:99of9>)*
> or
> > another involved Wikipedian if you spot any problems.
> > 7. Publicise on *Twitter (#Wikibomb)* with a link to the project page
> >
> > Thanks for helping!
> >
> > Toby/99of9
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gendergap mailing list
> > Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> >
> >
>
Dear Gendergap Mailing List friends,
I wanted to let you all know about my IEG renewal request to further expand
my successful program of workshop series and teaching. It's still a work in
progress and I would be very interested in hearing feedback!
Thanks all,
Emily
On Facebook..started by a WikiWoman... yahoooooo
https://www.facebook.com/groups/869710869719333/
If you're interested in what's happening in LA or you LIVE in LA, join the
group!
--
Sarah Stierch
-----
Diverse and engaging consulting for your organization.
www.sarahstierch.com
I am going to share this with many women students. It gives courage. And it
is correct in the minimal way many women who are included may be covered.
Many can be upgraded.
Thank you for this.
--Kathleen
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Roberta Wedge <
roberta.wedge(a)wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
> What a lovely article, really well contextualised. Congrats to interviewer
> and interviewee.
> Are there any British (or UK-based) women on this list who'd like to talk
> to the press? WMUK can help put you in touch. Just let me know.
> Roberta
>
> ------------------------
> *Roberta Wedge*
> *Gender Gap Project, **Wikimedia UK*
> roberta.wedge(a)wikimedia.org.uk
> 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
> +44 (0)20 7065 0921
>
> Wikimedia UK is the British chapter of a global movement. We support, but
> do not control, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and
> other related Wikimedia projects.
> Wikimedia UK is both a limited company (Registered No. 6741827) and a
> charity (Registered No.1144513).
>
> Visit wikimedia.org.uk <http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/> and @wikimediauk
>
> On 29 October 2014 22:55, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The super awesome WikiWoman Christine Meyer is!
>>
>> This is a most excellent article - thank you Christine for your ongoing
>> work!
>>
>> http://www.inlander.com/spokane/writing-her-place/Content?oid=2372780
>>
>> Sarah
>>
>> --
>>
>> Sarah Stierch
>>
>> -----
>>
>> Diverse and engaging consulting for your organization.
>>
>> 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
>
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/University_of_Sydney_…
This is going to be big. There are 39 signed up (mostly female academics
and students), but we are expecting nearer 100.
How Wikipedians can help:
We will have a decent number of experienced editors on site, but we will be
stretched. Anyone who can provide online support 03:00-07:00 UTC tomorrow
(Friday) would be much appreciated. Please add your name to the project
page with a note so that we know who we can call on. Here's some ways you
can help:
1. Any sandbox started by a wikibomb participant should be added to
*Category:University
of Sydney Wikibomb 2014
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:University_of_Sydney_Wikibomb_2014>*
so
that we can all find it.
2. Monitor *These Related Changes
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:Meetup/…>*
to
look out for editors having trouble.
3. Write (kind) sandbox_talk page comments if you see *promotional
language*. It seems that some participants are intending to write
articles about their friend/colleague/boss. The organizing team now all
understand how much COI
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COI> editing
is discouraged, but I'm afraid academics are harder to herd than cats. We
are at least trying to ensure that everyone declares their employer on
their userpage, and declares any COI they have on the article talk.
4. Assess articles' *readiness to move into mainspace* (also post a note
on the talk page). Experienced Wikipedians will do these moves, but for COI
and general stress relief, it would be good to have third party eyes over
it.
5. *Categorize, prettify, wikidatify, wikiprojectify* ({{WP Australia
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:WP_Australia>}}{{WP Biography
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:WP_Biography>}} etc) any
articles that do make it into mainspace. We will not have time to
concentrate on any of these things.
6. *Ping me (99of9 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:99of9>)* or
another involved Wikipedian if you spot any problems.
7. Publicise on *Twitter (#Wikibomb)* with a link to the project page
Thanks for helping!
Toby/99of9
The final momument was unveiled and it looks like, and I was told, it
has two, women in it. Yeah!
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomnik_Wikipedii_w_S%C5%82ubicach
Article on Polish Wikipedia with photo
Images.google search of "Polish monument Wikipedia" gets a couple more
good photo returns.
Hello,
I am preparing some slides for the Dutch Wikiconference this Saturday and
wanted to share some interesting data on female artists. This year I have
been working on various museum collections of paintings, while continuing
to work on painter biographies. I am a big user of the Dutch RKD database
of artists, which Magnus has kindly placed in Mix-n-Match. Just using the
matches I made and the automatic matches, it is now possible to see some
interesting data on how artists are represented across wikis.
The RKDartists database metadata was downloaded this year and contains
94,944 males and 60,282 females, or roughly 24% females, of which most were
born after 1850. I have said before that part of the gendergap in the arts
is caused by copyright issues (copyright-gap), and since most notable women
artists were born after 1850, it would always appear that women are
significantly less represented than men. The good news is that Wikimedia
projects are much more welcoming to female artists than museum collections,
where the percentage of women tends to be less than 3%. The data I have now
shows that most Wikimedia projects have a percentage of women artist
biographies that are well above 5%, or more than double what museums have
on show.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Females_in_matched_RKDartists.jpg
I gathered the data using autolist and various combinations of the queries
below
1) claim[21:6581072] and claim[650]
2) claim[650] and link[enwiki]
I assume similar results could be seen for the Joconde database, which I
may do later.
Best,
Jane
I'm 100% with you both on this matter of having tried the obvious easy
solutions. If I hear one more person to propose outreach as the solution to
the gender gap or new editor retention, I think I will <insert threat of
choice here>. I do a lot of outreach here in Australia and, yes,
hand-holding works as long as you in the room with them but stops working
once they are at the mercy of the community (who will "attack" even during
the outreach). And also that kind of handholding is not scalable. We don't
just need 10 new active editors; we need 10K or even 100K new active
editors. It is indeed time to tackle the hard problem and that is changing
the "crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere". The solution
does not lie in training people to conform to that regime. Even if people
are taught how to engage with it, if people don't enjoy the experience, of
course they will walk away. Those of us still here are all probably as
stubborn as mules and with the hides of rhinoceroses (or just enjoy being a
bully safely hidden behind a pseudonym).
Although "academic standards of publication" appears to held up as the ideal
behind some of the Wikipedia quality guidelines, I must say they are higher
standards than I've seen enforced at most journals or in most conferences.
And certainly I've never seen the rigid enforcement of the nit-picking rules
in the Manual of Style. I do think we are operating our own version of the
Stanford Prison Experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
only the difference is that they cancelled their experiment in about a week.
Ours has been running for years ..
The Wikipedia article above says .
The results of the experiment have been argued to demonstrate the
impressionability and obedience of people when provided with a legitimizing
ideology and social and institutional support.
"Quality control" is Wikipedia's legitimising ideology and our processes
provide it with the social and institutional support. When did you ever see
someone in an Article for Deletion discussion or similar say "let's look at
the big picture here, the WMF have a strategic priority to reverse editor
attrition or close the gender gap, let's consider our decision here with
that in mind". No, it's always "we must decide this according to our rules",
raising any other point is discouraged (you get slapped down for it). Of
course, I question why WMF allows the community to make and enforce rules
when the outcome appears to be working against their stated priorities.
That's not strong governance, that's weakness. I don't think WMF needs to
control everything top-down (and indeed it would not be scalable if they
did) but they do need to set boundaries in some places in relation to the
community's control over policy and process to ensure the success of the WMF
strategic plan. For example, I would say that if a new editor creates a new
article which isn't obviously spam/vandalism, does it really matter to let
that article survive because it isn't notable enough according to the
guidelines for that category of article. At the very least could we defer
the discussion of deletion for a few months in the hope it is further
developed to a better standard by then? Perhaps a two stage process, first
communicate with the contributor(s) with *precise* concerns about how it
needs to be improved and they have a month to do it, and that help is
available (at the TeaHouse or wherever). (Feedback is often too vague,
saying "not notable" is not helpful and saying WP:ANYTHING is not helpful
either as it looks like a string of gibberish written like that and even if
the link is clicked, the resulting page is full of jargon and often
meaningless to the newbie).
Maybe we should introduce a karma system (like Slashdot). You can only do
certain actions if you have high karma. So "positive emotional" actions like
thanking, wikilove, writing nice sentiment messages, making uncontested
contributions to articles, etc earn you karma and only high karma people can
take "negative emotional" actions (undoing - other than vandalism),
proposing for deletion, voting to delete, because they reduce your karma
etc. This might at least slow down the out-and-out bullies who engage in
lots of "emotionally negative" behaviours .
Kerry
_____
From: wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Aaron
Halfaker
Sent: Tuesday, 21 October 2014 12:08 AM
To: Pine W
Cc: WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org; Editor Engagement; Rachel diCerbo;
Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase theparticipation of
women within Wikimedia projects.; Wiki Research-l; A mailing list for the
Analytics Team at WMF and everybody who has aninterest in Wikipedia and
analytics.
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Research discussion: Visions for Wikipedia
Hey Pine,
Thanks for prod'ing the conversation. See also the discussion about
Wikipedia's decreasing adaptability on the Wikimedia analytics mailing list
here:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/analytics/2014-October/002651.html
IMO, the critical piece of evidence that English Wikipedia is suffering from
a lack of adaptive flexibility is the lack of any substantial change to the
treatment of newcomers since the massive decline in retention of good-faith
newcomers started in 2007[2]. A secondary piece of evidence is the
increasing resistance to policy/guideline (formalized norm) changes for all
editors, but especially newcomers[3].
We've seen some follow-up work that suggests that Wikipedia's complexity
itself is a barrier for new editors[7] and that these issues extend to
spaces specifically designed to support newcomers' work[6]. There have been
some interesting efforts to address the symptoms of the problem. For
example, see WP:Teahouse[4], WP:Snuggle[5] and Onboarding Research[8].
Personally, I think that the way forward is to recognize that hard problems
are hard because others have tried the easy/intuitive solutions already. I
think it is time to dig in and understand the fundamental, socio-technical
nature of Wikipedia. To that end, I'm working on building data resources of
strategic importance (see [9, 10, 11, 12]). I'm also working towards
experimenting with the effects of increased reflexive power by surfacing a
value-added measurement service[13]. And of course, I'm advertising our
socio-technical problems at research showcase like the one Pine linked and
when giving talks (e.g. [14]) so that we can grow our army of wiki
researchers.
OMG WALL OF REFERENCES:
1. Halfaker, A., Geiger, R. S., Morgan, J. T., & Riedl, J. (2012). The rise
and decline of an open collaboration system: How Wikipedia's reaction to
popularity is causing its decline. American Behavioral Scientist,
0002764212469365.
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/halfak
er13rise-preprint.pdf
2.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Desirable_newcomer_survival_over_time.p
ng from [1] Figure 4, pg. 12
3. Page 17, table 2 and the two pgs preceeding it.
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/The_Rise_and_Decline/halfak
er13rise-preprint.pdf
4. Morgan, J. T., Bouterse, S., Walls, H., & Stierch, S. (2013, February).
Tea and sympathy: crafting positive new user experiences on wikipedia. In
Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work
(pp. 839-848). ACM.
http://jtmorgan.net/jtmorgan/files/morgan_cscw2013_final.pdf
5. Halfaker, A., Geiger, R. S., & Terveen, L. G. (2014, April). Snuggle:
designing for efficient socialization and ideological critique. In
Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing
systems (pp. 311-320). ACM.
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/Snuggle/halfaker14snuggle-p
reprint.pdf
6. Schneider, J., Gelley, B. S., & Halfaker, A. (2014, August). Accept,
decline, postpone: How newcomer productivity is reduced in English Wikipedia
by pre-publication review. In Proceedings of The International Symposium on
Open Collaboration (p. 26). ACM.
http://cse.poly.edu/~gelley/acceptdecline.pdf
7. Ford, H., & Geiger, R. S. (2012, August). Writing up rather than writing
down: Becoming wikipedia literate. In Proceedings of the Eighth Annual
International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (p. 16). ACM.
http://www.opensym.org/ws2012/p21wikisym2012.pdf
8. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Onboarding_new_Wikipedians
9.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Ideas/MediaWiki_events:_a_generaliz
ed_public_event_datasource
10.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Editor_Interaction_Data_Extractio
n_and_Visualization
11.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Automated_Notability_Detection
12. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Revision_scoring_as_a_service
13. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:WikiCredit
14. https://www.si.umich.edu/events/201409/icos-lecture-aaron-halfaker
-Aaron
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Both of the presentations at the October Wikimedia Research Showcase were
fascinating and I encourage everyone to watch them [1]. I would like to
continue to discuss the themes from the showcase about Wikipedia's
adaptability, viability, and diversity.
Aaron's discussion about Wikipedia's ongoing internal adaptations, and the
slowing of those adaptations, reminded me of this statement from MIT
Technology Review in 2013 (and I recommend reading the whole article [2]):
"The main source of those problems (with Wikipedia) is not mysterious. The
loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male,
operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that
deters newcomers who might increase partipcipation in Wikipedia and broaden
its coverage."
I would like to contrast that vision of Wikipedia with the vision presented
by User:CatherineMunro (formatting tweaks by me), which I re-read when I
need encouragement:
"THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA
One gateway
to the wide garden of knowledge,
where lies
The deep rock of our past,
in which we must delve
The well of our future,
The clear water
we must leave untainted
for those who come after us,
The fertile earth,
in which truth may grow
in bright places,
tended by many hands,
And the broad fall of sunshine,
warming our first steps
toward knowing
how much we do not know."
How can we align ouselves less with the former vision and more with the
latter? [3]
I hope that we can continue to discuss these themes on the Research mailing
list. Please contribute your thoughts and questions there.
Regards,
Pine
[1] youtube.com/watch?v=-We4GZbH3Iw
[2]
http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedi
a/
[3] Lest this at first seem to be impossible, I will borrow and tweak a
quote from from George Bernard Shaw and later used by John F. Kennedy: "Some
people see things as they are and say, 'Why?' Let us dream things that never
were and say, 'Why not?'"