Hi, Fred,

I'm not seeking any redress from the members of this list for what I experienced , much less through the Wikipedia dispute resolution process, because I've already decided to stop editing and spend that time elsewhere, so I'd attempted to explain how and why I'd reached that conclusion without giving away identifiable detail, in keeping with my understanding of the anti-canvassing policy. Consequently, there are no votes to canvass for here.

I appreciate the suggestion that I might be the "ideal editor," but I very much doubt that's the case if only because I'd never edited more than casually, while I've seen many other members of this list express a degree of passion and commitment to Wikipedia that I -- admittedly -- had not yet developed.

As for whether my legal training reduces my ability to grok the flexibility with which Wikipedia applies its policies and guidelines, I suppose each of us brings our background and experiences into any such evaluation. For the most part my practice wasn't usually adversarial, and at various times it encompassed the development of similar policies and guidelines for boards and commissions as well as helping them figure out how to apply them (or not) justly and fairly.

Best,

Charlotte

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud@fairpoint.net> wrote:
Wikipedia is equipped to deal with particular editing issues. Every edit
is logged and can be viewed and discussed. Without specifics we assume
everyone, you and those you had trouble with, was editing in good faith
and had some more or less good reason for their edits or comments.

You do seem like the ideal editor, although as a legally trained person
you may not fully grok the flexible nature of how policies and guidelines
are applied. For example, the canvassing guideline which has been
discussed by others. We do want to grapple with whatever problems arise
but don't want use the list to gang up on anyone who happens to get
crossways with one of our participants.

Fred

> Hello, everyone,
>
> I joined this list a couple days ago after reading through its archives,
> which I embarked on after having come across the June 13th article in
> *The
> Signpost* discussing the tiny percentage of self-identified female
> Wikipedia
> editors. I'd missed the January *New York Times* article and all that
> flowed
> from it (including this list) until I started systematically looking
> through
> the "community" section of Wikipedia for the first time about 10 days
> ago,
> to see what my options might be to address my own recent negative
> encounters
> with other Wikipedia editors, although I hadn't yet stumbled upon the
> Wikipedia policies on "canvassing," etc., that apparently preclude any
> disclosure on this list of such experiences in a potentially identifiable
> manner.
>
> Having learned of that policy from reading this list's archives, I'm
> accordingly using an email account not associated with my Wikipedia user
> account, and I'm not disclosing my Wikipedia user name, so as not to
> arouse
> any concerns that I might be canvassing for support concerning that
> situation, which I'm not. In fact, I've even concluded that it's not
> worth
> the aggravation of pursuing Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, which
> from reading through **those** archives has impressed me as likely to be
> little more than an exercise in futility (if not also masochism!). I'm
> certainly neither fragile nor easily intimidated, but I prefer not to
> waste
> my valuable free time on such exercises, so I've now stopped editing
> Wikipedia and -- with one foot out the door, the other soon to follow --
> am
> posting to this list now only because I hadn't seen anything its archives
> that expressed anything close to some of my own thoughts about a few of
> the
> topics discussed, which might perhaps be of some value to at least some
> of
> you who plan to continue in this effort.
>
> By way of background, I'm one of those older staying-at-home professional
> mothers Sarah Stierch had suggested in February might constitute a
> potentially fruitful demographic for female recruitment. I'm certainly no
> "geek," although I've picked up just enough basic HTML code along the way
> so
> as not to find Wikipedia's coding basics unduly daunting -- as long as I
> had
> the MoS "Cheat Sheet" handy. Well, aside from formatting references...
>
> I made my first few edits not quite 18 months ago, I believe, to an
> article
> about a park system I'd just been reading about, to which I made a few
> gnome-like corrections without blowing the place up accidentally or
> attracting notice. With that success in hand, I started drafting an
> article
> about a superb all-female dance company that a niece had recently
> introduced
> me to. After seeing them perform and coming to share her enthusiasm, I
> tried
> to learn a little more about their history, discovered there was no
> comprehensive article about them I could find anywhere online (although
> they
> would clearly and objectively satisfy WP's notability criteria), and
> decided
> that drafting one myself could be a useful exercise in teaching myself
> Wikipedia's coding and style conventions, while eventually benefiting
> others
> with the fruits of my research. I got about half-way finished with it in
> my
> userspace (utilizing the Article Wizard), then had to abandon the draft
> (and
> Wikipedia) a few days later due to some serious health problems one of my
> children developed unexpectedly.
>
> I didn't return again until two months ago, when a discussion elsewhere
> pointed me to another Wikipedia article (about whose subject I knew quite
> a
> bit) that was seriously deficient, so I signed in again for the first
> time
> in 16 months or so, added a number of references to that article,
> expanded
> it a bit and began "wikifying" it without generating any controversy or
> blowing the place up accidentally. I then encountered an egregious usage
> error a few weeks later in another Wikipedia article that had badly
> muddled
> a sentence's meaning, and corrected it, again without generating any
> controversy. I then checked for similar misuses of that and another
> commonly
> misused word on Wikipedia, discovered hundreds of examples, and so began
> correcting them in gnome-like fashion over the next month or so while
> watching films with my daughter after school and/or evenings and tracking
> down some uncommon but needed public domain images for a few other
> articles,
> until I unluckily attracted the attention of a chauvinist (in the
> original
> sense of the word) member of the "recent pages patrol" whose truculence
> and
> devotion to Huggle greatly exceeded his grasp of correct [international]
> English usage. What ensued persuaded me that my free time from now on
> would
> be *so* much better spent on volunteer projects other than Wikipedia (and
> *
> so* much better for my blood pressure!) that I'm not even going to bother
> finishing the draft article about the dance company or upload the public
> domain images I'd located. C'est la vie!
>
> Also by way of background, I'm a late-70s graduate of Harvard Law School,
> now retired from a successful legal career, and studying legal history (a
> long-deferred goal). The percentage of women in the two classes ahead of
> mine at HLS was approximately 8%, but it doubled to 16% in my class,
> which
> quite a lot of the male students and professors (all but one of whom were
> male back then) found extremely threatening. I mention this because that
> "abrupt increase" in female students at HLS had generated a very nasty
> backlash from many of the men, and at each stage of our early careers
> many
> members of my female cohort experienced that backlash repeatedly. I hope
> that a similarly "abrupt increase" in the percentage of female Wikipedia
> editors doesn't generate a similar backlash toward them, but given my own
> experiences, I recommend that those here working to increase female
> participation brace themselves (and the new recruits), just in case.
>
> This has probably been far too long already for a number of folks on the
> list, so I'll conclude for now and share my thoughts on hosting
> pornography
> on Wikipedia; recruiting Girl Scouts as editors; another potential
> consideration not yet raised as to why the WMF should be concerned, I
> suspect, about the relative dearth of female editors; bare-breastedness
> in
> depictions of "Liberty"; etc., in another email or two, after I've had a
> chance to look over again a few archived emails that it may help to quote
> or
> refer to specifically.
>
> I'm using a middle name to post here given that the list is open-archived
> on
> the internet, that my recent unpleasant experiences on Wikipedia included
> what I've concluded was harassment, and that I see no good reason to risk
> subjecting my family to any such potential consequences due to my
> participation on this list, however brief, so I will sign off for now
> just
> as,
>
> Charlotte
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>



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