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@wikimedia.org> wrote:
On 16 February 2011 17:27, Oliver Keyes <scire.facias@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@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap