Replying to this bit as an agender
editor:
Furthermore, How do we build a place where a-gender non
binary persons feel accepted and welcome?
I partially addressed this issue in my presentation at
WikiConference North America last fall:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Transgender_Gap_-_October_2016.pdf
After seeing much deliberate misgendering of nonbinary subjects, I
also just created (after posting a draft for feedback) a MOS-NB
talk page template, to complement the MOS-TW and MOS-TM templates
for trans women and men:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:MOS-NB
I also encourage editors to submit new or improved biographies of
nonbinary (and other trans) people to Wiki Loves Pride 2017, which
started today:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Pride_2017
- Pax aka Funcrunch (hoping this post gets approved by the list
moderators before Wiki Love Pride is over!)
On 5/26/17 11:55 PM, Natacha Rault wrote:
Hi Pine,
Thank you for your detailed answer. In fact what you
mentionned in the second part of your mail, the fact that such
events might exclude certain class of people and suggest gender
favoritism is what fuelled remarks in the first place. This is
what surprized me most, because this is what women experience
when contributing: being faced with an environment that is
essentially male represented. But that does not prompt
aggressivity from the underepresented part does it?
Research has shown that things become easier for an
underrepresented community when it achieves a representation of
30% within a group. Then things change "naturally". However
there is not only the question of women : how do we become more
inclusive with communities that would never make it to a 30%
reprensentation level?
There is also an ambiguity here: to adress gender gap,
identified along gender based criteria, we apply gender bases
approaches : more articles on women, designing more women
friendly events, designing gender targeted projects... There is
the risk to be assigning women further to a specific gender
segregation, and to exclude non binary persons.
But how do we increase the participation of women without
implicitely applying gender criteria? It is not possible, we
need to start somewhere.
Furthermore, How do we build a place where a-gender non
binary persons feel accepted and welcome?
To me it would seem natural to start with an editathon with
non binary- only persons, to make sure my biaised approach does
not impact the result... But I am not going from the outside to
impose a way of doing things. If an agenda is set, it needs to
be done by themselves, trying to be inclusive means listening
to what people are asking for, not trying to impose a way of
doing things from another perspective which would not be
representative.
In this the word "start with" is important, we are speaking
of building confidence in a secure space where one can build a
contributing capacity before being thrown in the vast melting
pot of contributors.
To me, trying to deal with women representation, it felt like
difficult to try to understand the whole thing from the trans
perspective which was brought to me. But I must admit that I
learnt so much, that the experience was worth it. I still
consider myself as biased, but willing to try hard to be more
inclusive. This also goes with starting things by bringing an
agenda in my practice that is not mine.
So this is why the project "les sans pagEs" (without a page)
does not include the word woman. We can then focus on people and
subjects which are not represented. A contributor proposes
articles on female horses, and there was one on the irish X case
(on the subject of abortion). People then can move away from
biographies and start thematic articles (harder to write but
helping to link orphan articles, another aspect of the gender
gap). We even have a section for articles translated in other
languages, because we area global movement. A young italian
contributor participating to our group discovered he could not
translate "LGBT swiss history" in italian because of the use of
"explicit language" (probably the word "sodomy" used in the
article, which is based on historical facts).
I have more questions than answers to these issues. One thing
I am sure of, is that we need to do things with a learn-and-try
agile method with an open mind. I hear too often "we need more
research" and I dont think so: I think we need more action and
feedback from active contributor groups. We need to share
experiences, we need to travel and see how things are done
elsewhere. I was happy to meet the mexican women group in Geneva
and hear from their experience: we changed our workshops after
that. I was happy meeting Rosie in Esino Lario and copying her
concept of Women in red in the francophone wikipedia. This
brought more than the hundred of research papers I read because
it dealt with "how to" instead of "why is it". Reading about the
constant underrepresention of women can be very depressing,
starting to get things moving is more motivating (poke to the
Kaylana effec).
And what I feel we need most of all is a certain lattitude to
explore different ways of doing things without being constantly
criticized and harrassed. Harrassment is time consuming and
destroys all positive energy.
Have a nice week-end!
Natacha
Hi Natacha,
I just now got this email (perhaps it was held for
list moderation) but thought I would note that there
have been gender-specific events before. I'm aware of
the WikiWomen's lunch which seems to be held yearly at
Wikimania, and I believe that Wikimedia Mexico has
women-only editathons.
As a male I have no objections to gender-specific events
happening on occasion. I think that it's fine to have
those kinds of sessions so long as they are designed and
resourced in ways that are arguably fair and don't
suggest favoritism. I would be concerned if such events
happened in a way that excluded certain classes of
people on a regular basis in a way that seemed designed
to deny them access to resources or personal connections
which might be of interest to them, if resources were
assigned to one group and not another in a way that
suggested gender-based favoritism, etc.
In the situation that you described, setting up one
event out of four to be gender-specific sounds reasonable
to me.
You might consider talking to organizers of previous
WikiWomen's lunches and/or the Wikimedia Mexico women's
editathons to see if they have comments.
Writing as a male member of this list,