Give me a break, Neotarf. I am critiquing the article and the decisions by its author and its publisher. It doesn't surprise me that having someone of Keilana's stature drop more f-bombs in a couple of paragraphs than I heard on a bus full of high school students this morning will change the climate to suggest that it is now perfectly acceptable to curse out people everywhere under every circumstance.For some strange reason, it appears the people on this list are celebrating that fact. And it has nothing to do with gender, really, and everything to do with making Wikipedia a pleasant place to work. Keilana's actions have encouraged people to make it less so.Risker/AnneOn 22 February 2016 at 12:46, Neotarf <neotarf@gmail.com> wrote:@Risker, the double standard is that several individuals dropped f-bombs on the page, but only the woman got tsked. Talk pages of various users, not to mention the arbitration committee's pages, routinely contain f-bombs, which I have never seen anyone remark on. JimboTalk has occasionally seen some respectful and considerate pushback, but nothing like the strident comments on the Signpost piece. True, there was a former arbitrator who had an essay about the word deleted, but that was before my time. In the current climate, an individual can drop the c-bomb on a women's task force page with impunity, while someone who marks such a thread with a NSFW tag can be permabanned for doing so. Wikipedia has become f-Wikipedia; Keilana has claimed her place at the table.On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 11:33 PM, J Hayes <slowking4@gmail.com> wrote:risker:i'm kinda with you about defining deviancy downit's just that things are so bad can't go lowerarticle subjects are already dismayed by the opaque unfriendly culturethey periodically ask for article deletionlibrarians are advised about the "cultural buzzsaw"having a safe environment on line is a lost causebut we can have a grim determination with much cursingcheersOn Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> wrote:I think I've made myself clear, Pete. I don't think that anything I say will make a difference, any more than anything I have ever said has changed the sub-optimal behaviour of any editor who thinks it's acceptable professional behaviour to cuss all over the place. I'm just really disappointed that people who used to be in the "let's make this a more pleasant and positive place to do our work" have gone over to the other side.RiskerOn 21 February 2016 at 19:38, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote:Risker, I want to be clear:It's not that I don't see a problem. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to your view; but I think your point has been made very strongly already, and the important audience is the Signpost editorial staff. I am confident they have heard the message, and I don't see how further discussion moves us in a better direction. The past can't be changed. I suppose the Signpost could retract the op-ed, but I rather doubt you're seeking something so extreme...or am I wrong?-Pete[[User:Peteforsyth]]On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> wrote:RiskerAll in all, it impressed me as an island of lovely flowers in a garden with a winter's worth of St. Bernard droppings.Further, I'm incredibly disappointed that this got published in The Signpost. On Emily's own page...well, okay. But instead of drawing attention to the women who are the subjects of the articles, almost all of the discussion is about the language used to describe them....and pointing out that several of them already had articles about them that were improved, rather than that they'd not been written about at all.I feel very sad that you fellows don't see the problem in using this kind of language to describe women. "Badass" isn't a compliment. After the first two descriptions, I was fully expecting to see "brilliant motherf***er" to describe the third one. I'm surprised it wasn't used, in fact.The subjects of our articles deserve to be treated much better than this.On 21 February 2016 at 17:13, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote:+1 Ryan.This was one article, and no Wikipedians, readers, or article subjects were injured as a result of its publication. I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other about whether using language in this way is OK. But the main lesson to me is how much the English Wikipedia community has come to value the Signpost as an institution. It's hard to imagine such any Signpost column inspiring so much passion, say, five years ago. Above all, I think this constitutes a strong endorsement of the general value of the Signpost.-PeteOn Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari@wikimedia.org> wrote:The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community takes all of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of profanity in a positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia calls a female editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye.On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> wrote:Risker/AnneIs it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by Keilana, would it have been published as is?Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite the one some think it would be.On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf <neotarf@gmail.com> wrote:Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting double standard about profanity in the comment section.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap