I'm not quite sure how to answer JJ Marr and Nathan, but if you watched the Berkman panel I posted about earlier [1], the conclusion of the WMF harassment survey is that the effect of harassment on women in Wikipedia, is that they leave.

And not to beat around the bush, for those who are not going to read the piece, the "certain topic" is sex, sex, and sex:

"...behaviors that were seen as being sexual or having a sexual edge to them were far more likely to be creepy than more innocuous ones. Women, especially, noted that behaviors like unwanted sexual advances, constantly turning the conversation towards sex, requests for photos, dates and invading their personal space were signs that a person was creepy."

So this goes back to defining harassment. How do you tell the difference between someone who genuinely does not want to appear creepy, as in the hotel example, and someone who is deliberately skirting the boundaries, in order to harass people while flying under the radar.

There is a long history of defining harassment and "hostile work environment" in employment situations. For in-person interactions, there is a whole set of non-verbal signals that tell you when to back slowly away, the "odd smile" for example. But obviously in online communications, you are not going to be able to see how someone smiles. Harassment on the internet is something new, the old HR harassment definitions can't just be copy-pasted.

And how far can you go in telling someone they have to adjust to something that creeps them out? On enwiki, we have seen women advised to "keep a low profile" if they don't want to be photoshopped onto porn. So the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is now "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit as long as they don't mind potential employers finding non-consensual pornographic images of them on the internet". Paradoxically, the WMF has gone the opposite direction from arbcom, particularly in their recent safe space event policy, although the means of enforcement are not very evident.

[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2016-April/006300.html

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Isarra Yos <zhorishna@gmail.com> wrote:

Knowing what these traits are, even if they are uncontrollable, may also be useful for educating others about them. If someone is creeped out by something and actually knows why it's creeping them out, it may be possible for them to realise that, oh, it's just blah, and not actually a threat. And if on-wiki we notice someone who might be put off by another user's behaviour, reaching out to them and explaining why that behaviour is happening (especially if it's fairly normal, which a lot of the things that may seem weird to outsiders often are) could do a lot to put them at ease.

Possibly.

-I

On 10/05/16 17:02, JJ Marr wrote:
Other highlights:

From the list of "creepy" behavior

>Laughing at inappropriate times

>Talking too much about a topic

>Displaying too much or too little emotion

>Smiling peculiarly

>Having excessively pale skin

>Having bags under their eyes

and then

>Here’s the thing: not being creepy isn’t that hard.

>Many of the examples of creepy behavior listed in the Knox University study could be avoided throughbasic social calibration and being aware of the other person’s signals.

Setting aside that a lot of Wikipedians don't have "basic social calibration", a lot of these behaviors are uncontrollable in general. If you're "suggesting that Wikipedia editors display aberrant behavior which prospective female editors find creepy, making it less likely that they will contribute?", as another has proposed, a lot (but not all) of these "creepy traits" that allegedly make women less likely to contribute are uncontrollable by those who have them. I need to stop smiling peculiarly? What does that mean? And if we want to attract women to Wikipedia by removing creepy people, does that mean I might get banned due to me talking "too much" about a certain topic?

On May 10, 2016 12:25 PM, "Nathan" <nawrich@gmail.com> wrote:

It boils down to "people with aberrant behavior or bearing produce anxiety in women." This is drawn from a Facebook survey. It's interesting, even if the "study" doesn't really produce any more knowledge than most other Facebook surveys.

The link to the problem of addressing Wikipedia's gendergap seems tenuous; are you suggesting that Wikipedia editors display aberrant behavior which prospective female editors find creepy, making it less likely that they will contribute?

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Neotarf <neotarf@gmail.com> wrote:

A study published in the journal New Ideas in Psychology, unfortunately behind a paywall, reviewed by Dr. NerdLove. [1]

Some highlights:

*"So we’re not allowed to give women compliments? – No, telling a woman how sexy she is isn’t a compliment, especially when you don’t have that level of intimacy with her."

*"One of the keys to what made someone creepy was the potential for ambiguity. The study’s authors suggest that because one’s creep-radar is keyed towards finding potential threats, the ambiguousness of somebody’s behavior could make people uncomfortable. After all, if you’re continually wondering if this person actually poses a threat to you, you’re left in a state of anxious paralysis; you’re continually on edge trying to determine just what the appropriate reaction to the situation is. Guessing wrong can have consequences, after all; misjudge a potential threat and now you’ve made yourself vulnerable to someone who means you harm."

*"One of the most common ways guys are creepy is by ignoring issues of boundaries and demonstrating that they have more information about somebody than they should." Example from Instagram: He: "So I take it you're staying at the Excalibur?" She: "Excuse me, do you not seriously realize how f*cking creepy it is for a stranger to message a woman out of the blue insinuating he knows where she is?"

*From the comments: "Someone who comes close to that line and manages not to cross it obviously knows where it is."

[1] http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2016/05/the-science-of-being-creepy/

_______________________________________________
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