Quick email - traveling -

Pete makes a good point and in the end that's what I'm failing (but trying) to suggest: we have the same conversation every 6 months.

We need to do something more substantial. When drama hits on wikimedia-l the Foundation (I'm a volunteer on this list, as my department doesn't do anything with TOS, etc) comments, the community drafts things on meta, and sometimes change happens - here, we just get irritated and talk in circles and the Foundation seems to not even notice our concerns. And when I do rage about it at the office, it falls on the ears of people who have nothing to do with policy/TOS change and/or I just look like the "bitchy gender gapper" and everyone states at me with blank eyes.

What can WE do to get the Foundation to take MORE notice? Or the Board? We need to do something. Something bigger than 6 same people talking on this list. The last "impact" we made regarding some form of policy was the personality rights template almost 1-2 years ago.

And I agree with Sarah - if this was about racism or "extreme situations" I think the Foundation would be stepping up. The only people in the press writing about Wikipedia's "porn problem" is Greg Kohs. And that isn't even "real" press, it's the freaking Examiner.

Perhaps someone should write an oped about it. I have media connections - and if it could be a woman, preferably, all the better. I cannot do it.

I bet if people knew more about the "real" hardcore (no pun intended) situations going on regarding sexism on Wikipedia (ie categories are silly compared to what is happening here) perhaps people would finally click and want to change things

We have grassroots efforts to get more women and academics to write Wikipedia now around the world.

We need a grassroots effort for more than just that, and the same people can't keep doing it all without risking their sanity and burn out.

What the hell is it going to take to get people here raged enough that they want to do MORE then talk on this list?

On May 8, 2013, at 11:51 PM, Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:58 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Sarah, the terms of use come from the Foundation.

Sarah,

I know this is a tangent to what you're talking about, but I think it's an important point. Last year's rewrite of the terms of use was guided by Foundation staff, but in my view and that of many others was a model project for how to follow the knowledge and wisdom that exists within our community. There was draft text from WMF counsel, but in a two month+ period it was radically altered and expanded by a process led by numerous volunteers and community members. WMF staff provided legal expertise, but went out of itse way to express that the knowledge of how to align the TOU with the movement's goals resided primarily within the community, and created a space in which that could be explored and articulated.

While it does not do much to address concerns about gender, I believe that the TOU rewrite was a big success, both in terms of modeling how the volunteer community can lead and WMF can facilitate and play a support role; and also in terms of the quality of the final document.

Of course, these documents can be rewritten, and I'm sure this one will be rewritten in a few years. Before that, though, will be a rewrite of the Privacy Policy, which actually may be a more suitable document for some of these concerns. I encourage everyone on this list to participate when the time comes for that, which I think will be a matter of weeks or months.

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

Thanks, Pete, that's helpful. Would you mind pinging us when the privacy policy discussions begin? I'm sure there will be lots of notifications, but it's really easy to miss the significance of these things.

Sarah

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