On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote:Sumana,Yes, gladly. I feel that thread has served a good purpose, but it's true, it's been at the expense of flooding the list with a lot of noise, and I've contributed some of it. I do think that after a prolonged long dip into less productive discussion, in the last exchange we have arrived at a point where there is some consensus about what the problems are and how to attack them, and hopefully we can leverage that into some policy reform that moves the project forward. But you're right, it would be better at this point to move that activity onto a wiki.
Hi Sumana and Pete, I would object to closing any thread down. If people don't want to read the thread, that's fine, but if others are discussing it, please allow that.
The presence of this kind of material on Commons is directly related to the whole issue of sexism on Wikipedia and the lack of women editors, and that makes it a very valid topic for the gender-gap list. I can't imagine a more valid topic than women being represented sexually without their consent on Wikimedia projects. If discussing it on this list brings people together and edges us closer to a solution that would surely be a really good outcome for the list.
Sarah
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap