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
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?
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
>
>
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
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
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 :)