???? 

Regardless...I'm beginning to feel like I'm the only person on earth who feels having a category for "Women foo" is a good idea for the sake of women's studies and feminist studies. I find immense value in categories based around gender and ethnicity - it makes my writing and work a lot easier (as a researcher who writes about women and minorities) when working in Wikipedia and wanting to expand content about those subjects. As long as they get listed in other appropriate non-gender/non-ethnicity/non-foo categories, I think it's okay. We're not a library, we're an online collaborative encyclopedia. 

Even on Wiki, I feel like one of the few people voicing my opinion about it only to get told I'm in the wrong. It's really depressing. 

I almost feel like a jerk for feeling that way. Go figure. 

-Sarah




On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Akhil Mulgaonker <liberalufp@gmail.com> wrote:
Women are inferior to men and exterminated like ants.


On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 7:17 AM, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk> wrote:
The recent discussion on this (which never really came to a clear consensus):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_101#Actresses_categorization

- Andrew

On 27 April 2013 01:49, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> If people are concerned about sexism in Wikipedia categories they should be
> drawing attention to edits like this:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Gillies&curid=19682193&diff=536982107&oldid=536980531
>
> While the rest of the world is moving away from gender-specific job names
> (like policeman and actress), Wikipedia is moving in the opposite direction.
> That seems like a much worse problem than categorizing women as women.
>
> Ryan Kaldari
>
>
> On 4/25/13 11:34 PM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:56:39 -0400
>> Sumana Harihareswara <sumanah@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Wikimedia community member Liz Henry blogs here:
>>> http://bookmaniac.org/journalists-dont-understand-wikipedia-sometimes/
>>> and does a little bit of digging into edit histories.
>>>
>>> "Just from these three samples, it does not seem that there is any
>>> particular movement among a group of Wikipedia editors to remove women
>>> from the “novelists” category and put them in a special women category
>>> instead. I would say that the general leaning, rather, is to stop people
>>> who would like to label women writers as women writers *in addition* to
>>> labeling them as writers, claiming there is no need for Category:
>>> American women writers at all and that it is evidence of bias to
>>> identify them by gender. ... The sexist thing we
>>> should be up in arms about isn’t labelling women as women! It’s the
>>> efforts to delete entire categories (like Haitian women writers, for
>>> example) because someone has decided that that meta-information is
>>> unnecessary “ghettoization”..."
>>
>> Seems like good write-up and I tend to agree. It's too bad there was so
>> much
>> misunderstanding in the media about it.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>         Shlomi Fish
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap



--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap



--
AKHIL MULGAONKER 

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap




--
--
Sarah Stierch
Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian
www.sarahstierch.com