December 2014 - Gendergap - lists.wikimedia.org

We Are Wikipedia
by Sarah Stierch 08 Dec '14

08 Dec '14

I'm tweeting about wiki and open access stuff via the We Are Wikipedia Twitter account this upcoming week (starting later tonight/tomorrow morning). You can follow it here: https://twitter.com/WeAreWikipedia -- Sarah Stierch www.sarahstierch.com

1 0

Re: [Gendergap] How to vote today?
by reguyla＠gmail.com 08 Dec '14

08 Dec '14

Nope thats about it. The only other possibi k ity would be to ask in irc but thats a lingshort. Reguyla Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device ------ Original message------ From: LB Date: Sun, Dec 7, 2014 2:22 PM To: Gender gap mailing list; Subject:[Gendergap] How to vote today? I have been trying to get a block lifted for a week now, but my request is at a critical point today - as I'd like to vote at WP:ACE. I have tried the unblock and Admin help templates on my talk page, the UTRS ticket system, and direct appeals to involved admins. Any suggestions? For details, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lightbreather#Request_to_remove_1-w… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lightbreather#Question_for_administ… Lightbreather

1 0

How to vote today?
by LB 08 Dec '14

08 Dec '14

I have been trying to get a block lifted for a week now, but my request is at a critical point today - as I'd like to vote at WP:ACE. I have tried the unblock and Admin help templates on my talk page, the UTRS ticket system, and direct appeals to involved admins. Any suggestions? For details, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lightbreather#Request_to_remove_1-w… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lightbreather#Question_for_administ… Lightbreather

1 0

Re: [Gendergap] Relevant election questions for Arbcom
by reguyla＠gmail.com 07 Dec '14

07 Dec '14

Unfortunately some made sure that i couldnt vote this year, partly because i was an outspoken critic of the incompetence of arbcom. There are several i would have supported and opposed. Its also worth noting that the only openly gay candidate has been the subject of some pretty viscious attacks by Fram at ani. Reguyla Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device ------ Original message------ From: Fæ Date: Sun, Dec 7, 2014 9:04 AM To: GenderGap; Subject:Re: [Gendergap] Relevant election questions for Arbcom Following up on this, after my question a week ago to Arbcom candidates, it is now clear that there are *no* women standing for election to Arbcom this year who are prepared to say they are a woman. There is one openly non-heterosexual candidate standing, though the candidate guides make it look unlikely he will get elected. The feedback to my question seems to be that the majority do not understand why a lack of open candidates might be perceived as an issue, in fact in several places this has been interpreted as a threat against anonymity and even been dismissed as trolling. I corrected my comments at . Don't forget, today is the last day you can vote and make a difference to who will be on English Wikipedia's Arbcom next year. :-) Fae On 1 December 2014 at 19:24, Fæ wrote: > > On 1 Dec 2014 19:15, "Nathan" wrote: >> I'm not sure I love the idea of asking people to identify with a gender or >> sexuality when they haven't done so already. If they have already done so, >> then the question is superfluous. Better to ask them their position on the >> actual issue, and if they think there is anything arbcom or the project as a >> whole can do better. > > I understand that POV, however with only one woman candidate my question was > deliberate. The de facto 'don't ask don't tell' policy is a poor excuse for > failing properly to address the hostility that some of our contributors who > are open about their gender or orientation have experienced. > > We should not have to be forced into the closet to edit Wikipedia, and if > Arbcom members fear to be open, what hope is there for everyone else? > > Fae > >> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Fæ wrote: >>> >>> In the light of the contentious Gender Gap Task Force case, I have >>> raised the following question for candidates in the current election: >>> "I'm having difficulty visualizing how Arbcom today represents the >>> diversity of our community. Would you like to identify yourself as a >>> woman or LGBT, and explain what life experience and values you would >>> bring to the committee when these become topics or a locus of >>> dispute?" >>> >>> I will be voting for women and open LGBT candidates that bring some >>> relevant and diverse life experience to committee, and against >>> everyone else. I am sure they will get enough votes from the majority -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote. _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

1 0

Relevant election questions for Arbcom
by Fæ 07 Dec '14

07 Dec '14

In the light of the contentious Gender Gap Task Force case, I have raised the following question for candidates in the current election: "I'm having difficulty visualizing how Arbcom today represents the diversity of our community. Would you like to identify yourself as a woman or LGBT, and explain what life experience and values you would bring to the committee when these become topics or a locus of dispute?" I will be voting for women and open LGBT candidates that bring some relevant and diverse life experience to committee, and against everyone else. I am sure they will get enough votes from the majority viewpoint anyway. You can find all candidate questions and their answers at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_Dec…>. Don't forget to vote - there are 6 days left! Fae -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

2 3

Re: [Gendergap] [Gendergap-I] GGTF interactions arbcom case has now closed
by Ryan Kaldari 05 Dec '14

05 Dec '14

Rationalobserver has posted a survey related to the Gender Gap Task Force Arbitration decision on the Civility talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility#Survey Seems pretty relevant to the recent discussions here. Kaldari On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Russia Aviation <russiaviation(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The answer to a hypothetical query by TDA > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=367632.10;wap2 > "Simon Tushingham [Sitush]" > > "I was an active user in Wikipedia for the past many many years. I had > more than 30,000 edits to my name. From 2011, most of the sections in > Wikipedia were under the control of organized cabals. I wrote to Jimmy > Wales many times warning against this. But many of the users who > voiced against this were later banned. In the section I was following, > the leader of the Cabal was from Manchester, known by his alibi "Simon > Tushingham". Despite this guy committing all sorts of one-sided edits, > Wales supported him. Tushingham frequently bragged in Wikipedia that > he regularly talked to Wales in his cell phone and were good friends > in real life. I had enough and quit Wikipedia in 2011. I know many > more who did the same. > Wikipedia is similar to a ponzi scheme. They publicized themselves as > a "free" and "unbiased" online encyclopedia. Once they had enough > following, they kicked out the old users and showed their true > colors." > > In reply to : > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=6362… > > "So you won't comment on the case, but how about a hypothetical? Let's > say there is a male editor who, after the conclusion of an arbitration > case, begins following a female editor from the same case all over the > site for months. When that editor is reported for this behavior and > there is a proposal to bar the male editor from interacting with the > female editor, another male editor comes to his defense and suggests > if the male editor is barred from interacting with the female editor > that maybe he will start "following her around" instead. After the > proposal is passed the other male editor announces he is going to be > doing work on Wikipedia regarding a link, which just happens to be the > personal website of the female editor. The female editor objects and > questions his intentions. This male editor then begins taunting her > with personal details researched online and plainly expresses his > intentions to write a bio about her here. Despite several other > objections and the female editor's own protests, this male editor > creates a draft that he explains is fully intended to be made into a > live article all about the female editor. It is apparent that certain > details have been cherry-picked from primary sources and articles > about the female editor and presented in a way that is clearly aimed > at being unflattering towards her. Despite numerous editors suggesting > his actions are woefully inappropriate he insists that he is a > perfectly good editor who is being neutral towards this person he > detests. Would you consider it acceptable for the Arbitration > Committee to ban the female editor for commenting about this male > editor's behavior, while giving the male editor essentially nothing > more than a warning after praising his efforts on this site?--The > Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)" > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Gender Gap" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to gender-gap+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >

4 4

Wikipedia's gender gap gets a closer look
by Sarah Stierch 03 Dec '14

03 Dec '14

http://www.livescience.com/48985-wikipedia-editing-gender-gap.html -- Sarah Stierch ----- www.sarahstierch.com

1 0

Moving Forward
by Tim Davenport 03 Dec '14

03 Dec '14

Is that addressed to me? Not sure. In any event, the first link doesn't seem to me either a "lack of civility" or a "gender gap issue," but rather another one of the tens of thousands of more or less unimportant conversations that happen backstage at Wikipedia by people killing time in between contributing to the encyclopedia. That said... (1) Political organizing should happen off wiki, not on wiki. This is just as true for WikiProject Conservatism as it is for WikiProject Gender Gap Task Force. Wikipedia is not the place. Go for it, just not there. (2) GGTF misfired by obsessively identifying with civility patrolling as its primary function. At a minimum, that is putting the cart before the horse. Going further: I would argue that it is an an absolutely misplaced predilection, that a very low-importance contributing factor to WP editor gender disparity has been elevated into The Main Reason without statistical evidence. It's a hot-button topic at WP and it was a fight poorly chosen. (3) Here's what needs to happen: *A. Quantify and track the actual gender gap at WP over time.* Anecdotally, female participation at events like Wikimania is significantly greater than the 1F:7M ratio that would be anticipated from the estimated ratio of registered editors. Does this mean that the differential is exaggerated due to an undercount or under-self-reporting of female editors? Why are there not annual estimates made and tracked by WMF or by GGTF itself? *B. Survey to determine the actual reasons for participation or non-participation.* This is something GGTF can do. Analyze the editing patterns of randomly selected female and male Wikipedians, as well as those who decline gender identification. Then get in touch with each of these three sets to identify what they feel are the strengths and fundamental problems of the Wikipedia experience. Similarly, poll the M/F/Decline To Answer pools who fall inactive for six months as to the cause of their non-participation. *C. Coordinate pro-active recruitment.* Edit-a-thons, university outreach, etc. targeting new female participants. This is the main way that gender disparity will be overcome — one new editor at a time. *D. Targeted, organized mentoring.* Watch the new editor pool and target female newcomers. Help them through the learning curve. Too often newcomers of both genders are left isolated; bring them into the community. Count — Survey — Recruit — Teach. Tim Davenport "Carrite" on WP Corvallis, OR ===== >>>Not sure if this will produce a new thread or attach to the existing one (I've checked my spam folder, there's nothing there) but anyway.... >>>Tim: I just wondered whether you regard this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemi… >>>...as a lack of civility or a gender gap issue? >>>In particular this comment: "...As has been indicated on the talk page of the proposed decision, repeatedly, there is some question as to exactly which women this group seems to be reaching out toward, specifically, whether it is more or less of a more or less radical feminist perspective...." >>>I thought it summed up in a nutshell what the GGTF was really up against. It's a kind of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism * Are you now or have you ever been a feminist who believes that sex work is the opposite of feminism? Anyone who answers yes that question is judged to be a "radical", a subversive who wants to push POV and therefore they are fair game. >>> On WP's list of feminists there were a very odd mish-mash of categories of feminist https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=544136790 and lots of names missing e.g. Gail Dines. I did a major rewrite to organize it chronologically and it meant that "anti-pornography feminists", "anti-prostitution feminists" and "socialist feminists" could go onto the list https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=545667727 >>> The list has recently been changed to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feminists and I'm working with a couple of editors to see how we can improve it further. >>> I've largely avoided trouble by sticking to admin based work such as this, and similar work: Cleaning up bibliographies, e.g. Joseph Schumpeter, from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=63356603… to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=63434390… Creating an article for the International Association for Feminist Economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_for_Feminist_Econom… and improving the article for the Human Development and Capability Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_and_Capability_Association then creating biographies for past presidents of IAFFE and fellows of the HDCA. Adding DOBs to notable scholars and then adding them to Wiki's calendar (births). >>>These organisations / individuals argues against sex work on the grounds of the perception of women that is generated (i.e. as a thing / object). The problem with the MRA, pro-porn, pro-sex work POV is they have no problem with anti-porn etc. POV provided it is in a box labelled "mad" or "religious" with a sub-text that the only people that could possibly support that POV are from the moral right and are probably racist and homophobic as well. The other problem that the MRA have is that, human development and capability, which includes feminist economics / inequality / care work etc. collectively constitutes a 'single broad topic' (WP:SPATG), so they are unable to stop editors, who wish to edit in this area, from doing so. The natural place for this work is within the Gender Studies project. Which is why they write nonsense like this: http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorsh… (if there were really the kind of censorship that they are talking about on WP then there would be no Pornography Project). >>> Any attempt to show 3 distinct POVs (a) Pro-sex work (b) Right-wing anti-sex work (on moral / judgemental grounds), and (c) Left-wing anti-sex work (on negative perception grounds) - the POV that dare not speak its name ... is met with a steel fist hammered onto the table. >>> I made a video for use in the article "sex wars", an article which is all about the separation between (b) and (c) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminist_sex_wars&oldid=546995190 It was deleted instantly on the grounds that the "Video makes little sense and does not add to informational value of article." I dispute that it "makes little sense" and why does it even need to add informational value? Why can't it just be to add aesthetics to the article as pictures and videos often are? >>> As soon as I step off the path of admin related tasks that the MRA-mob can't get me for, and stray into article content I am jumped on, obstensibly for technical reasons but they are almost exclusively by editors whose other edits are connected to porn and sex-positive feminism, who have pretty much hijacked the Feminism project and they are trying to do as much damage as possible to the Gender Studies project as they can as well. >>> It may be time for an article on "fourth-wave feminism" which is separate to the "history of feminism", but the article would have to say that the term is used by both (a) and (c), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism#Fourth_Wave . You're not supposed to mention (c), you're only supposed to mention (a) and (b) - and then arch your eyebrows at the moral and out-of-touch group that is (b). Anyone trying to create it would run into the MRA trying to lump (b) and (c) together. The talk page would be full of stuff like, "well the article should say that, 'group (b) have been called fourth-wave, but it is just a very, few number of places and the term is far more attributed to group (a) than any other group of feminists'. >>> This message is longer than I originally intended it to be but I do think that there are a lot of well meaning editors on WP who are either unaware or a bit naïve when it comes the antics of the people that we are talking about. It is also naïve to think that they are not co-ordinating their handiwork off-wiki. >>> Marie

4 4

Planning an event
by Sarah Stierch 03 Dec '14

03 Dec '14

Here's a new blog about getting funded to do an international event http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/11/14/get-the-wikimedia-foundation-fund-inte… Keep in mind that Emily said that WM DC is planning a diversity conference. That's not the same as a "gender gap meetup" type of thing... but perhaps there is an opportunity to connect to that. For example: we hosted AdaCamp DC in the days prior to Wikimania (during the hack-a-thon, and some participants at AdaCamp went back and forth...) and it was fabulous. So perhaps there is an opportunity to do a gender gap activism/wiki hack type of event prior to that. -Sarah -- Sarah Stierch ----- Diverse and engaging consulting for your organization. www.sarahstierch.com

2 1

Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap achievement award (Second try)
by Carol Moore dc 03 Dec '14

03 Dec '14

Sorry about screwy formatting... Let's try that again... On 12/2/2014 11:22 AM, Carol Moore dc wrote: > *Nathan* nawrich at gmail.com > <mailto:gendergap%40lists.wikimedia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BGendergap%5D%20Gendergap%20achievement%20award&In-Reply-To=%3CCALKX9dSohgumfQBmSBW7bfC23uJ%3DgiD5i9E6X%2BE6Wi7oecZpQQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E> > /Mon Dec 1 20:24:58 UTC 2014 > Wrote: > / > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > So as I was replying to Tim, it occurred to me that there wasn't much > pleasure or recognition to be gained from working in the trenches on the > culture of Wikipedia or the gender gap problem as a whole. Individuals are > most likely to have bans, blocks and battle scars to show for their effort. > > So perhaps the task force, the list, or a willing chapter could establish > an award or two to be given to those who invest their volunteer time on > this issue? > > CM Reply: First, there is an award at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bia… However, the fight can be a reward in itself, once you develop a thick enough skin. I wrote the song "Fighting for my freedom" in 1987 that includes the verse: "Look at me these last few years, cursed, reviled and broken, By left and right and other males for being too outspoken," http://youtu.be/YVsZedlwfcc I've had so many incidents of males outraged by my telling it like I see before and since, I barely notice any more. Fighting for freedom in any way is a long term effort and you have to develop a thick skin. Otherwise it's hide in the corner of your cubicle and your bedroom and try to forget that we're on a patriarchal path to nuclear destruction if things don't change fast... Enough rant for today. Also, perspective wise, someone turned me on to this article which describes something that has happened to a number of editors, sometimes by the same group of "characters". check it out. http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/07/08/how-to-ban-a-pov-you-dislike-in-9-easy… I'll have to investigate what other goodies are listed at that site for certain projects I've barely begun to work on... CM

3 2

a gender gap meet-up?
by Ryan Kaldari 03 Dec '14

03 Dec '14

Does anyone else feel like it might be time for a gender gap meet-up? I love the mailing list, but it's such a limited (and formal) means of communication. I'm curious what kind of ideas and discussion would come from an in-person get together. I know several of the people on this list are in the Bay Area, so maybe we could put something together in San Francisco or Oakland. Does this sound like an interesting idea to anyone? Kaldari

12 12

ThinkTank Science Museum in Birmingham, England is seeking a Wikipedian in Residence
by Sarah Stierch 02 Dec '14

02 Dec '14

.....and it's always great to have more women in that position :) They pay £3000 and it's a contract.. http://www.thinktank.ac/page.asp?section=189&sectionTitle=Current+Vacancies -- Sarah Stierch ----- Diverse and engaging consulting for your organization. www.sarahstierch.com

1 0

Gendergap achievement award
by Nathan 02 Dec '14

02 Dec '14

So as I was replying to Tim, it occurred to me that there wasn't much pleasure or recognition to be gained from working in the trenches on the culture of Wikipedia or the gender gap problem as a whole. Individuals are most likely to have bans, blocks and battle scars to show for their effort. So perhaps the task force, the list, or a willing chapter could establish an award or two to be given to those who invest their volunteer time on this issue? It would be nice if folks like Sarah or Carol or others could point to real life recognition to say "this is a real problem, I'm doing real work, and real people and organizations recognize and respect what I'm doing." Perhaps such awards already exist?

1 0

coordination work off-wiki
by Kathleen McCook 02 Dec '14

02 Dec '14

The only solution would be lack of anonymity. That won't fly, but it would cause the creepiness to go away. On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:42 AM, JJ Marr <jjmarr(a)gmail.com> wrote: > What do you propose a "take back the night" would be like? > On Nov 30, 2014 8:12 AM, "Kathleen McCook" <klmccook(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Yes, one can see easily how they move from topic to topic. Connected and >> ensuring their POV dominates. >> >> The issue of feminism should not be defined by men whose motivation seems >> to be to create an environment where women are "free" to be what they (the >> men discussed here ) imagine to us to be. >> >> I believe that Marie's statements about keeping these issues off one's >> main course are the result of continuous attacks. >> >> Wikipedia needs a TAKE BACK THE NIGHT movement. In my days on campus >> women attacked were told they shouldn't be out at night.So marches began >> to TAKE BACK THE NIGHT. >> >> On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 2:16 AM, JJ Marr <jjmarr(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> To quote you in the context of your dispute over a video, you say "I >>> dispute that it "makes little sense" and why does it even need to add >>> informational value? Why can't it just be to add aesthetics to the article >>> as pictures and videos often are?” I ask why don't you take that dispute up >>> with the editor in question? >>> >>> Also, you need to be more clear in what you are saying. I have no >>> context to this message, and I think it is a complaint about a content >>> dispute. >>> >>> Please explain why this is relevant to the gender gap, since you are >>> sending it out to everyone on the gender gap mailing list, and secondly, >>> why a minor content dispute on enwiki is relevant to the Wikimedia gender >>> gap community as a whole. >>> On Nov 30, 2014 1:47 AM, "Marie Earley" <eiryel(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Not sure if this will produce a new thread or attach to the existing >>>> one (I've checked my spam folder, there's nothing there) but anyway.... >>>> >>>> Tim: I just wondered whether you regard this: >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemi… >>>> >>>> ...as a lack of civility or a gender gap issue? >>>> >>>> In particular this comment: >>>> "...As has been indicated on the talk page of the proposed decision, >>>> *repeatedly,* there is some question as to exactly *which* women this >>>> group seems to be reaching out toward, specifically, whether it is more or >>>> less of a more or less radical feminist perspective...." >>>> >>>> I thought it summed up in a nutshell what the GGTF was really up >>>> against. It's a kind of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism >>>> * Are you now or have you ever been a feminist who believes that sex >>>> work is the opposite of feminism? >>>> Anyone who answers yes that question is judged to be a "radical", a >>>> subversive who wants to push POV and therefore they are fair game. >>>> >>>> On WP's list of feminists there were a very odd mish-mash of categories >>>> of feminist >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=544136790 >>>> and lots of names missing e.g. Gail Dines. I did a major rewrite to >>>> organize it chronologically and it meant that "anti-pornography feminists", >>>> "anti-prostitution feminists" and "socialist feminists" could go onto the >>>> list >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=545667727 >>>> >>>> The list has recently been changed to this: >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feminists and I'm working with a >>>> couple of editors to see how we can improve it further. >>>> >>>> I've largely avoided trouble by sticking to admin based work such as >>>> this, and similar work: >>>> Cleaning up bibliographies, e.g. Joseph Schumpeter, from this: >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=63356603… >>>> to this: >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=63434390… >>>> >>>> Creating an article for the International Association for Feminist >>>> Economics >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_for_Feminist_Econom… >>>> and improving the article for the Human Development and Capability >>>> Association >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_and_Capability_Association >>>> then creating biographies for past presidents of IAFFE and fellows of >>>> the HDCA. >>>> Adding DOBs to notable scholars and then adding them to Wiki's calendar >>>> (births). >>>> >>>> These organisations / individuals argues against sex work on the >>>> grounds of the perception of women that is generated (i.e. as a thing / >>>> object). The problem with the MRA, pro-porn, pro-sex work POV is they have >>>> no problem with anti-porn etc. POV provided it is in a box labelled "mad" >>>> or "religious" with a sub-text that the only people that could possibly >>>> support that POV are from the moral right and are probably racist and >>>> homophobic as well. The other problem that the MRA have is that, human >>>> development and capability, which includes feminist economics / inequality >>>> / care work etc. collectively constitutes a 'single broad topic' >>>> (WP:SPATG), so they are unable to stop editors, who wish to edit in this >>>> area, from doing so. The natural place for this work is within the Gender >>>> Studies project. Which is why they write nonsense like this: >>>> http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorsh… >>>> (if there were really the kind of censorship that they are talking about on >>>> WP then there would be no Pornography Project). >>>> >>>> Any attempt to show 3 distinct POVs >>>> (a) Pro-sex work >>>> (b) Right-wing anti-sex work (on moral / judgemental grounds), and >>>> (c) Left-wing anti-sex work (on negative perception grounds) - the POV >>>> that dare not speak its name >>>> ... is met with a steel fist hammered onto the table. >>>> >>>> I made a video for use in the article "sex wars", an article which is >>>> all about the separation between (b) and (c) >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminist_sex_wars&oldid=546995190 >>>> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Feminist_sex_wars.ogv> >>>> It was deleted instantly on the grounds that the "Video makes little >>>> sense and does not add to informational value of article." I dispute that >>>> it "makes little sense" and why does it even need to add informational >>>> value? Why can't it just be to add aesthetics to the article as pictures >>>> and videos often are? >>>> >>>> As soon as I step off the path of admin related tasks that the MRA-mob >>>> can't get me for, and stray into article content I am jumped on, >>>> obstensibly for technical reasons but they are almost exclusively by >>>> editors whose other edits are connected to porn and sex-positive feminism, >>>> who have pretty much hijacked the Feminism project and they are trying to >>>> do as much damage as possible to the Gender Studies project as they can as >>>> well. >>>> >>>> It may be time for an article on "fourth-wave feminism" which is >>>> separate to the "history of feminism", but the article would have to say >>>> that the term is used by both (a) and (c), >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism#Fourth_Wave . You're >>>> not supposed to mention (c), you're only supposed to mention (a) and (b) - >>>> and then arch your eyebrows at the moral and out-of-touch group that is >>>> (b). Anyone trying to create it would run into the MRA trying to lump (b) >>>> and (c) together. The talk page would be full of stuff like, "well the >>>> article should say that, 'group (b) have been called fourth-wave, but it is >>>> just a very, few number of places and the term is far more attributed to >>>> group (a) than any other group of feminists'. >>>> >>>> This message is longer than I originally intended it to be but I do >>>> think that there are a lot of well meaning editors on WP who are either >>>> unaware or a bit *naïve* when it comes the antics of the people that >>>> we are talking about. It is also *naïve* to think that they are not >>>> co-ordinating their handiwork off-wiki. >>>> >>>> Marie >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > >

6 6

Re: [Gendergap] Relevant election questions for Arbcom
by reguyla＠gmail.com 02 Dec '14

02 Dec '14

I wish i could vote, but i was banned for critcizing abuse by admins who are dragging the project down. The voting process does not allow banned or blocked users to vote, so i hope those that got blocked in this arbcom case voted already. Because if not, they missed their opportunity to have their vote count. In fact, i would be willing to bet that even if they did, they will not be counted as "banned" editors. Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device ------ Original message------ From: Fæ Date: Mon, Dec 1, 2014 1:27 PM To: GenderGap;Increasing involvement of LGBT communities and organizing the Wikimedia LGBT Outreach Project; Subject:[Gendergap] Relevant election questions for Arbcom In the light of the contentious Gender Gap Task Force case, I have raised the following question for candidates in the current election: "I'm having difficulty visualizing how Arbcom today represents the diversity of our community. Would you like to identify yourself as a woman or LGBT, and explain what life experience and values you would bring to the committee when these become topics or a locus of dispute?" I will be voting for women and open LGBT candidates that bring some relevant and diverse life experience to committee, and against everyone else. I am sure they will get enough votes from the majority viewpoint anyway. You can find all candidate questions and their answers at . Don't forget to vote - there are 6 days left! Fae -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

1 0

What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF
by Marie Earley 01 Dec '14

01 Dec '14

Not sure if this will produce a new thread or attach to the existing one (I've checked my spam folder, there's nothing there) but anyway.... Tim: I just wondered whether you regard this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemi… ...as a lack of civility or a gender gap issue? In particular this comment: "...As has been indicated on the talk page of the proposed decision, repeatedly, there is some question as to exactly which women this group seems to be reaching out toward, specifically, whether it is more or less of a more or less radical feminist perspective...." I thought it summed up in a nutshell what the GGTF was really up against. It's a kind of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism * Are you now or have you ever been a feminist who believes that sex work is the opposite of feminism? Anyone who answers yes that question is judged to be a "radical", a subversive who wants to push POV and therefore they are fair game. On WP's list of feminists there were a very odd mish-mash of categories of feminist https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=544136790 and lots of names missing e.g. Gail Dines. I did a major rewrite to organize it chronologically and it meant that "anti-pornography feminists", "anti-prostitution feminists" and "socialist feminists" could go onto the list https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=545667727 The list has recently been changed to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feminists and I'm working with a couple of editors to see how we can improve it further. I've largely avoided trouble by sticking to admin based work such as this, and similar work: Cleaning up bibliographies, e.g. Joseph Schumpeter, from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=63356603… to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=63434390… Creating an article for the International Association for Feminist Economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_for_Feminist_Econom… and improving the article for the Human Development and Capability Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_and_Capability_Association then creating biographies for past presidents of IAFFE and fellows of the HDCA. Adding DOBs to notable scholars and then adding them to Wiki's calendar (births). These organisations / individuals argues against sex work on the grounds of the perception of women that is generated (i.e. as a thing / object). The problem with the MRA, pro-porn, pro-sex work POV is they have no problem with anti-porn etc. POV provided it is in a box labelled "mad" or "religious" with a sub-text that the only people that could possibly support that POV are from the moral right and are probably racist and homophobic as well. The other problem that the MRA have is that, human development and capability, which includes feminist economics / inequality / care work etc. collectively constitutes a 'single broad topic' (WP:SPATG), so they are unable to stop editors, who wish to edit in this area, from doing so. The natural place for this work is within the Gender Studies project. Which is why they write nonsense like this: http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorsh… (if there were really the kind of censorship that they are talking about on WP then there would be no Pornography Project). Any attempt to show 3 distinct POVs (a) Pro-sex work (b) Right-wing anti-sex work (on moral / judgemental grounds), and (c) Left-wing anti-sex work (on negative perception grounds) - the POV that dare not speak its name ... is met with a steel fist hammered onto the table. I made a video for use in the article "sex wars", an article which is all about the separation between (b) and (c) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminist_sex_wars&oldid=546995190 It was deleted instantly on the grounds that the "Video makes little sense and does not add to informational value of article." I dispute that it "makes little sense" and why does it even need to add informational value? Why can't it just be to add aesthetics to the article as pictures and videos often are? As soon as I step off the path of admin related tasks that the MRA-mob can't get me for, and stray into article content I am jumped on, obstensibly for technical reasons but they are almost exclusively by editors whose other edits are connected to porn and sex-positive feminism, who have pretty much hijacked the Feminism project and they are trying to do as much damage as possible to the Gender Studies project as they can as well. It may be time for an article on "fourth-wave feminism" which is separate to the "history of feminism", but the article would have to say that the term is used by both (a) and (c), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism#Fourth_Wave . You're not supposed to mention (c), you're only supposed to mention (a) and (b) - and then arch your eyebrows at the moral and out-of-touch group that is (b). Anyone trying to create it would run into the MRA trying to lump (b) and (c) together. The talk page would be full of stuff like, "well the article should say that, 'group (b) have been called fourth-wave, but it is just a very, few number of places and the term is far more attributed to group (a) than any other group of feminists'. This message is longer than I originally intended it to be but I do think that there are a lot of well meaning editors on WP who are either unaware or a bit naïve when it comes the antics of the people that we are talking about. It is also naïve to think that they are not co-ordinating their handiwork off-wiki. Marie

7 9

Google group invite?
by Russavia 01 Dec '14

01 Dec '14

I have just been alerted to the thread by Leigh about someone sending invites to a google group in my name. Just to let you all know that this is not me. If someone would be kind enough to send me the google group address/link and I will ask google to look at it if there's problems of impersonation, etc. Thanks Russavia P.S. Ally if I was ever to start up such a list you would be the first I would invite :)

1 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

Gendergap December 2014