On 8/4/2013 8:55 AM, Carol Moore dc wrote:
I happened to notice last night that the Bill Clinton
article had
"Allegation for sexual assault" as a subsection of "Public image".
Thinking it's a bit more than thanthat, I justmoved it up to a full
section.
Within a few hours an editor completely removed any sectioning,
leaving it under public image.
...Better late than never I stuck a short note on Wikiproject feminism
for anyone who wants to deal with the issue.
Another reason I've been disturbed about it is because I have seen so
many biased section headers against individuals who have uttered even
the slightest "politically incorrect" statement on certain groups which
obviously have very active and organized supporters on wikipedia.
("Allegations of this/that/and the other" sections abound.) I've wasted
so much time dealing with their outrage over minor mis-speaks or
academic opinions they don't like.
Yet when women alleged assault and it has thousands of WP:RS, it's
thrown in the bottom of a "public image" section on a BLP.
It's taken me a few days to get over my disgust and address the real
issue: will wikipedia women organize merely to keep from being dissed
like this, even while others violate policy left and right pushing their
own agendas. (And I'm not even talking about doing things like putting
sections on "allegations of sexism" in the hundreds of male BLPs that
need such a section.)
I think we've seen enough surveys that show a large proportion of - or
most? - women who try Wikipedia choose to boycott Wikipedia once they
run into behaviors that bother them. Maybe they are taking the truly
wise (and feminist) approach... Lysistrata and all that.
(Who said I'm organizing a woman's boycott of wikipedia... let's squash
those rumors now!!)
CM