This is a pretty impressive showing for someone just 4 weeks into the job:
being named to the Forbes list of the 100 most powerful women:
Note that increasing diversity is, according to the brief article, a top
I just conducted some new research I though you might be intrigued by.
- It compares the "sex or gender" labels in use by Wikidata today - 13
- The percentage of articles about "female"s by language.
- The best are Serbian Wikipedia, or Urdu Wikipedia, depending on the
size you count.
- The Wiki's that have become most sexist in 2014 - English Wikpedia.
- And the Data Richness per sex value. - 6.2 Wikidata Statement per
male, 6.0 per female.
See the full blog here, and please ask me questions and suggestions -
Wikimedia UK has offered to print up WikiProject leaflets for distribution
at Wikimania in August. Any WikiProject that is interested just has to
supply a logo graphic and fill out a template at
Wikipedia Art and Feminism and Wikiwomen's Collaborative have already
applied. Other projects that may be interested include:
WikiProject Women's History
WikiProject Women's sport
WikiProject Women scientists
WikiProject Countering systemic bias
If you are involved in any of these projects and will be attending
Wikimania, I would encourage you to take advantage of this offer to promote
your project. Also if anyone can create a logo for WikiProject Feminism,
please let me know!
Feel free to participate in the review of the article. It's highly likely
that the main contributors have been male and it might be nice to have
women's input on the article.
It's a highly viewed article - the first hit when you Google "bikini" - so
it would be great to have everyone's input.
Diverse and engaging consulting for your organization.
I wanted to tell everyone about a new game that Magnus Manske has
created, called 'Wikidata - The game!'
As games go, it's not tremendously exciting - it's not going to be
peeling too many people away from their Xboxes or Nintendos.
There's three sub-games: Person, Merge and Gender. You pick one and then
the system asks you questions... forever. These answers end up getting
pushed back into Wikidata.
I've just been playing the 'gender' game. It shows you a Wikidata
object, with a description in a language, as well as possibly a picture.
Based on the description, you pick which gender best matches out of male
or female (for non-binary genders, you can open up the Wikidata object
by clicking on it and editing it directly). If you can't work it out,
you can skip it by pressing 'Not sure'.
I've now done over 400 of these. The interface is designed to work with
touch devices so you should be able to do it with smartphones and iPads
and so on.
But why bother? Why should we care about making sure Wikidata accurately
reflects the gender of its subjects?
1. It builds the future capacity of a replacement to the category
system. Currently, we have a category system that turns identity into
politics. We saw this on English Wikipedia with the "American women
novelists" debacle: articles about female writers being moved from being
in the main "American novelists" category into a gender-specific
category. Some of the women who were thus moved objected on the basis
that this was a form of ghettoisation of women's voices, and also
pointed out that men weren't being equally moved to "American men
The categories for discussion debates on English Wikipedia have become a
place where identity politics plays out: should we have an "LGBT
scientists" category? In come the people to argue that someone being
LGBT is somehow a non-essential or non-central part of that person's
identity. As it is for gender, so it is for religion and nationality.
The flipside to this argument is that having categories based on gender,
sexual orientation, nationality, ethnicity and religion enables readers
to find people. The gay kid who thinks all gay men are stereotypically
effeminate men working as beauticians can be disabused of that notion by
looking through the 'LGBT sportspersons' category; the girl who has been
told that women don't go into science or engineering can do similarly by
looking in the 'Women scientists' category. Wikidata may give us a way
out of these kinds of conundrums by letting us slice up the world on a
great number of different axes. Want to see all the gay Buddhist
scientists from Morocco? Fire up some future Wikidata powered faceted
semantic search system that one day we'll maybe integrate into Wikipedia
and you can do just that.
2. It'll enable us to monitor how well we're doing on systemic bias and
the gender gap. Wikidata operates across different versions of Wikipedia
and other Wikimedia projects. On 'American women novelists', how well is
each language doing in covering them? Is English Wikipedia better or
worse at covering women novelists writing in English than French
Wikipedia is covering women novelists writing in French? If we can make
the machine readable data in Wikidata good and comprehensive, we can use
it to flag up shortcomings and systemic bias in how Wikipedias in
different languages handle these kinds of sensitive identity topics like
gender and ethnicity and nationality. Countering systemic bias and the
gender gap among article subjects isn't only an English language
problem: Wikimedia is a global movement, and finding weak spots and
opportunities to improve in all languages is something we should try and do.
If you haven't played around with Wikidata, give it a go. Get yourself
logged in with an account and go through the OAuth process, then you can
start playing the games that Magnus has created and help build a system
that can be used to monitor and improve coverage across Wikipedias.
Wikidata is still at very early stages and you sort of have to have
faith in what it could end up being in a few years time rather than
being able to see immediate results now. But getting there might be
quite good fun.
Dear Diversity Enthusiasts,
The Diversity Dialogue, which took place the first time in April, is going
to the next round.
And we would like you to participate to find a suitable date and want to
encourage you to take part in the next dialogues.
In this first Meeting we discussed that it would be nice to continue the
Dialogue with a recurring, permanent date, but also offer two Hangouts at
two different days and times. This should make it easier for people to
attend from different time zones and the permanent date should make
scheduling for everybody easier.
Therefore, you find here a Doodle link
<http://doodle.com/w22qgyz45umiywvb>with possible dates for the
Hangout in June. You can choose dates in the
first week of June and in the third week of June. Our proposal would be
that we all together decide on a day and time in the first week and in the
third week of June and that those days/times are used again in July and
August. Every dialogue would be hosted by a different person who feels
responsible to moderate the calls if necessary.
Please also take a look at the Meta
Page.<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Diversity/Dialogue>You are very
welcome to leave suggestions and ideas on the page.
Merle von Wittich
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49 30 219158 26-0
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Thread: "Translating effective methods of dealing with a culture of
bullying from other organisations"
Just been too busy with own Wikipedia contretemps to comment on this
being a big reason women lose interest in editing. This might be a good
en. wikipedia wikiproject for women looking to help more women stay; or
for other language wikipedias to start.
For some of you who do not know me, my name is Sanja Pavlovic, I have been
a member of the Wikimedia Serbia for the last two years.
I am writing to this list to share some good news with all of you :)
Recently, I have started a project FemWiki in Serbia with the goal to increase
both the number of women editors on Serbian Wikipedia and the quality and
quantity of articles focused on gender issues, feminist terminology and
The idea is to cooperate with feminist organisations and to have workshops
and edit-a-thons with activists from the capital, as well as from smaller
towns across Serbia.
I am doing this with two young women who are editing Wikipedia for more
than a year, Nikoleta and Ana-Marija (in the CC), so I also wanted to
introduce them to you :)
Yesterday, we set up a MediaWiki on http://fem.wikimedia.rs, so you will be
able to inform yourself about our project there (site is under construction
at the moment :) ).
If you have any advice or a question for us, we would be more than happy to
Stay in touch,
I'm also not entirely sure how this relates to LGBT issues, let alone
health ones, I may be missing the point (can you clarify further?)
She is, also, not quite a swimsuit girl. For one, not many swimmers swim
without a top. For another, I have never seen anyone stands in such a pose
naturally for long without having severe back pains.
This is a sexualized objectified picture and it was taken for this exact
We may argue whether such photos should be included, but let's not pretend
this is a professional woman representing her sport... ;)
(and yes, I know 'swimsuit model' is a term, I am just rejecting the
general term to make the point I think is more important)
In any case, out of sheer curiosity I went out and did some research on the
Picture of The Day list.
As a representing example I went over the entire 2013 year and tagged each
picture with a general category (Animals, Locations, Events, etc) and if I
found pictures, I tagged them with either "male" or "female" unless the
photo was a general one.
The data (and graph) is available here:
There's also a pivot table and a graph in the second sheet.
I think the conclusion should be obvious: Commons pictures are mostly about
animals and vistas. There aren't many pictures of people, and when there
are, they're in a professional setting -- either pictures of people in the
middle of some sport activity (mostly men, but not a lot anyways) or people
doing something professional. All are fully dressed, none are objectified,
including the men. All poses are natural or picture-natural (staring at the
camera, etc) and none are overly objectified, especially not in a sexual
We could, of course, say that the model is doing something professional --
but the picture is not of her being a model, it is of her posing in an
unnatural pose that is *purposefully* sexualized and objectified. It's the
sort of picture we see all around us trying to sell us something.
Now I, too, don't have a problem with reducing shame, and I (very much)
appreciate the image of beautiful women and men. I think having honest and
non-shaming discussions about sexual behavior is important for both men and
women, same with healthy sexual behavior.
But I also think that the context and audience *matters*. Picture of the
Day isn't it -- clearly, according to what Picture of the Day usually
To be perfectly honest, considering this picture is of a woman that is
posing in an unnatural position (anyone ever found herself posing this way
casually?) that's aim is strictly for sexualizing and objectifying her, and
considering that PoTD didn't put any *type* of similar pictures like these
*and* that PoTD picture choices are supposed to represent the Commons
community because of their public nature, I am really quite disappointed
that this is even a discussion on Commons.
Not only that, but the discussion seemed to have moved towards the "if we
put this up it will be a shitstorm" rather than thinking *why* it might be
a shitstorm, what it represents, what goals the community states it has,
what other pictures it posts, and whether the potential "shitstorm" is just
panicky women crying foul over nothing, or something a little bit more
substantial going on.
The whole point of voting about something like this is also problematic, by
the way, but that discussion is a whole new nest of snakes that should be
This whole thing is very disappointing.
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Laura Hale <laura(a)fanhistory.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Lane Rasberry <lane(a)bluerasberry.com>wrote:
>> @Moriel - I do not feel strongly about this particular image of a
>> swimsuit girl. I just do not want to propagate a culture of sexual shame,
>> because that kind of culture causes a lot of health problems in the gay
>> male community. There is completely a double standard about the effects of
>> objectifying women versus sexually objectifying males; males simply are not
>> as harmed as women are from this. I regret having to disagree with you in
>> saying that it is always time to talk about sexual health issues because a
>> range of problems including HIV still exist.
> Hi Lane,
> I'm a bit confused about this, because I never saw this issue as an LGBT
> one, but an issue about the sexualization of a female. The image quality is
> poor. It wasn't the best in the set. No comparable pictures of men have
> been posted. The image is not included on any articles.
> The above quote from you really stands out for me though. Can you tell me
> how this image helps combat sexual shame that gay men have? Can you
> explain to me in the context of female sexual health why this image is
> important, and how pictures of beautiful heterosexually-coded women
> involved in the modelling industry can assist in improving sexual health in
> the gay and lesbian community? I'm failing to see the connection here, or
> why bringing up male sexual health and HIV is at all relevant in the
> context of the discussion of this picture. What am I missing?
> twitter: purplepopple
> LGBT mailing list
> Please treat emails sent to this list as confidential.
> Ask senders for permission before forwarding emails off-list.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this post.
But billions of electrons, photons, and electromagnetic waves were terribly
inconvenienced during its transmission!