Reading some of the links (I'd only seen the NYT article and a few other
pages - thanks for providing all of it) I do see your point, but it does
seem like trying to resolve it internally would have been a better first
step (unless there *was* some attempt to do so that went completely over my
head. I have a habit of missing things like that and then putting my foot in
it).
We've got a lot of suggestions here, some of them very good, but the problem
is that we don't have any hard data on what it is specifically that attracts
men rather than women. I did suggest something to get that data, but it
seems to have sunk into the archives like a stone. It seems like the
priority should be working out what the disease is rather than frantically
scrambling to treat the symptoms.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Sue Gardner <sgardner(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On 16 February 2011 17:27, Oliver Keyes
<scire.facias(a)gmail.com> wrote:
So the foundation actively sought out negative
publicity to spur us into
action, rather than attempting to deal with the problem internally first?
Why do you think the publicity was negative? I didn't find it negative, at
all.
I actually found it quite heartwarming. A common theme of the coverage
was "how can we help."
Thanks,
Sue
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap