Hey all. FWIW, I definitely appreciate where this is coming from — much of the article is very well written and contained sage advice. I'll admit that I had mixed feelings about some of the guidance for new editors, though... Among other things, this basically negates all outreach efforts to bring people into the fold at edit-a-thons or other issue-based newbie workshops. We all know that such events don't necessarily result in long-term editors, but some of the warnings in here make Wikipedia seem like the absolute worst place for a woman to spend one's time, and that she'd better be prepared for a full-on barrage of harassment if she starts any editing at all. Looking at other reactions to the article, the one tweeter clearly wasn't alone when she declared that it all "sounds awful."

Of course, it's probably obvious to everyone on this list that many Wikipedians do experience significant issues with trolls and bullies. And I don't write here to suggest we sweep them under the rug. I *am* concerned this article suggests people's experiences with gender-based harassment are universal. And while I definitely agree with certain basic warnings about not using your real name, etc., I'm not sure I agree with, for example, telling ppl to make 100 edits on topics they don't care about before getting to stuff they do care about. A better suggestion, in my view, would be making 100 noncontroversial edits, regardless of the topic, to establish credibility as an editor. I think knowing the difference between potentially controversial edits and non-controversial edits would be more important for new editors than shying away from topics one might care more about. Many new editors may not have the patience for the latter, and I find it fruitful to get people going with the stuff they do care about, since this energizes them and makes them want to do more. (Or at least gives them a positive feeling about their first contributions, which they may draw upon at a later date when considering whether to contribute again.)

I'm also uneasy about the suggestion to not make a profile page. Sure, if you want to avoid gender-based trolling it is good advice to scale back — or indeed eliminate — how much you talk about those topics on your profile page, but not having a profile page at all makes me as a fellow editor somewhat suspicious. I am much more likely to trust someone at face value who is forthcoming about their Wikipedia experiences and interests than one who does not engage with the community by introducing him or herself, even if it's just a one-liner with a bunch of userboxes. Perhaps this is naive, but I feel that being cautious about what one puts on a user page is preferable to not having one. (Also, later in the article it talks about things like liking WikiWomen on FB and Twitter or joining the GGTF. I of course agree with doing these things to help decrease the gender gap, but if the point of not making a profile page is to not let anyone figure out that you as an editor care about these issues, then doing something like joining GGTF is going to disclose this information anyway...)

I also found the following somewhat confusing: At once it is stated "Do not let anyone bully you into leaving a subject simply because you are passionate and persistent about it." while at the same time there is this advice regarding challenging reversions: "if the edit summary uses “you” or “your” aggressively; Wikipedia jargon (that an experienced editor knows a new user would not understand); or obvious insults (often in the form of questions such as, “Are you kidding me?”), it is time to disengage and decide what to do next." I don't disagree with either point, but the strategies are pretty much opposites... Perhaps more than anything, what I stress to new editors (especially if they are female/non-male), is that beyond learning how to physically edit articles, contributing to Wikipedia is an exercise in contradictions — and that learning how to navigate these contradictions does take time and patience. As such, I'd argue that knowing where to get help, and figuring out on which fellow editors you can rely if you run into problems — especially if it's harassment — is one of the most important lessons for people just dipping their toes into the "colossal, electronic Cyclops."

Maia/Girona7