According to this report Obama only took questions from women in his
end-of-year press conference. Anyone know what the story is behind this? I
find it notable that he omitted questions from major networks - are there
no women reporters for major networks? I spend a lot of time on the
gendergap in the arts but know little about journalism. Anyone know what
the male/female ratio is there?
http://jezebel.com/obama-only-took-women-reporters-questions-at-year-end-16…
Don't know if this has been floated before - apologies if so - but:
Part of the problem we have is the sheer depth of ignorance among otherwise
well-intentioned community members.
This depth of ignorance is naturally shared by the people who play
leadership roles in the community. So we end up with stewards, arbitrators
and bureaucrats who potentially end up reinforcing the gender gap problem
because they just have no clue how the structure they maintain can
sometimes be a tool to exclude people.
How about offering some form of diversity training to functionaries to help
broaden perspectives and raise understanding? Obviously, from the point of
view of supporting them to do their difficult and fairly thankless roles
better, rather than beating them with diversity sticks.
It could happen (indeed, WMF could make it happen with some volunteer
input); could it help?
Chris
A big thank you to Netha for conducting the interview, and thanks to this
list group for your support. I don't edit in a vacuum so knowing you are
in my wikilife is important to me. Again, thank you.
Will my interview inspire more women to edit? Don't know. But I do know
we need the press to spin out more positive stories about wikiwomen and why
we edit and how we work it into our lives. The HufPo interview and the
Slate GGTF piece were published on the same day. If a woman read both
articles, how would it affect her decision to click the edit button? ...
and if the reader were a man, how would it affect his decision? It would
be interesting if citizen-journalists posted some youtubes asking Joe
Public to read the 2 articles and then give an opinion on how likely they
would be to click Wikipedia's edit button. This may be a good idea for an
IEG... how press coverage of Wikipedia effects the decision to click the
edit button. It interests me; would it interest others? Has it been done?
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 4:00 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. Rosiestep in Huffington Post (yay good news) (Sarah Stierch)
> 2. Re: Rosiestep in Huffington Post (yay good news) (Jane Darnell)
> 3. Tim Berners-Lee says Net 'less free and more unequal'
> (marinka marinkavandam.com)
> 4. Re: Google Group invite (Russavia)
> 5. Fwd: FemTechNet NYC Wikipedia Workshop / Edit-a-thon at
> Barnard, Friday (12/12) 6-9pm (Sarah Stierch)
> 6. Re: Google Group invite (Kevin Gorman)
> 7. Re: Google Group invite (reguyla(a)gmail.com)
> 8. Re: Rosiestep in Huffington Post (yay good news) (LB)
> 9. ya'll are in slate (Sarah Stierch)
> 10. Re: Rosiestep in Huffington Post (yay good news) (Siko Bouterse)
> 11. Re: ya'll are in slate (LB)
> 12. Re: ya'll are in slate (Risker)
> 13. Tor on harassment (Samuel Klein)
> 14. Re: Rosiestep in Huffington Post (yay good news) (Christine Meyer)
> 15. Re: ya'll are in slate (Carol Moore dc)
> 16. Re: Tor on harassment (Carol Moore dc)
> 17. Re: ya'll are in slate (Carol Moore dc)
> 18. Re: ya'll are in slate (reguyla(a)gmail.com)
> 19. Re: ya'll are in slate (Risker)
> 20. Re: ya'll are in slate (reguyla(a)gmail.com)
> 21. Re: ya'll are in slate (marinka marinkavandam.com)
> 22. Re: ya'll are in slate (Carol Moore dc)
> 23. Carolmooredc's talk page now made uneditable (Fæ)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 10:01:23 -0800
> From: Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch(a)gmail.com>
> To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the
> participation of women within Wikimedia projects."
> <gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: [Gendergap] Rosiestep in Huffington Post (yay good news)
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAKiGLfpLSr_8OdehN65qpjkaTJdFj-0NEZ-SyjmtuaY8wN+bvA(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> yay rays of sunshine :)
>
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/netha-hussain/rosie-stephenson-the-woma_b_6…
>
> --
>
> Sarah Stierch
>
> -----
>
> Diverse and engaging consulting for your organization.
>
> www.sarahstierch.com
>
Greeting all, it looks like I'm late for the party, but since I am being
hung as Gender Gap, I may as well join the mailing list.
I may not know much about Gender, but I do know that using slurs based on
gender, race, or sexual orientation is not cute, or "just swearing". It is
bigotry, and it is deeply offensive. This is identity politics, pure and
simple, and it has no place on Wikipedia.
I am indebted to Kevin Gorman for his statement
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-November/004945.html>,
"Neotarf is being topic-banned from a project they were a productive
contributor to on a handful of flimsy
diffs." I have always been one of the Arbitration committee's biggest
fans, but this decision is disturbing on a number of levels.
A WikiProject operating under the professed aims of the Foundation has been
subjected to unprecedented harassment, again and again. So, did the Arbcom
tell the bullies that the Gender Gap project's talk page was not the right
venue to discuss* ad nauseum* whether the project should exist or not, as
they would have with any other project or article page? No. The bullies
are told to please be nice very nicely and this time we really mean it. The
targets of the bullying have had their fragile and emerging leadership
destroyed and discredited, and their workspace salted with discretionary
sanctions. The harshest treatment of all was reserved for someone who was
passing by and tried to help. It is yet to be seen what effect this will
have on any potential "allies" programs that may be in the works.
Its not surprising that the arbcom would not like comments and be critical of a venue they do not control and cannot themselves silence critical comments about their decisions. I finf it unfortunate that an arb doesnt want to join the mailing list merely because some people here do not share the view that the arbcoms decisions are not all gold.
I do agree that there were some comments that are off topic but thats true of all the lists, not just this one.
In the end, to me, if the arbs decide not to join this list because they fear discussion, then we probably dont need them anyway and if they are unwilling to listen or discuss issues pertaining to the project, including poor decisions made by them, then that makes my thought process all the more true.
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device
------ Original message------
From: Carol Moore dc
Date: Fri, Dec 12, 2014 11:20 AM
To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects;
Subject:[Gendergap] Gender gap emails Arbitrator doesn't like
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Commi…
Is a comment by an Arbitrator about things written last month or so here, none by me, they don't like.
Thinks it's necessary "the moderators get a grip on some of the things being said there." (Moderator comments welcome here for guidance.)
*https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-November/004930.html
"a posting about legal repercussions"
*https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-December/005008.html
"suggesting doxxing/opposition research"
*https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-December/005068.html "plans" to https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-December/005079.html "block vote at ArbCom elections with new editors recruited at editathons." (actually just a suggestion by an annoyed editor)
Hopefully they aren't proposing a standard tougher than than on all the other mailing lists, none of which I personally belong to.
CM