well said, Sarah! Thanks for reading through all that stuff - I tried and failed

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch@gmail.com> wrote:
I am now on digest mode with this mailing list. The traffic is often too much for me and the voice of this list is frustrating for me sometimes..so... remember that please :)

I have been asked to share my thoughts by many people this morning on the internet, here they are:

I have been editing Wikipedia for ten years and i have no clue what has been going on with the feminist/gamergate thing. As one of the more well known female editors i have cut back heavily on my involvement after last year. I don't know any of the editors, personally, who "went to court" but I have seen this stuff happen to both sides in men's rights articles in the past.

After reviewing the Arbcom case, I don't even know who got the idea that any of the contributing editors are feminist, per se. No one even mentions the word, except once, when describing a subject that was "slandered" in the gamer gate article(s).

I also don't think that the edits made to the article are overwhelmingly feminist in nature. It appears to be just a bunch of people editing the Wikipedia article to protect it from being a hot mess of 4chan junk.

Note: most of the "in trouble" editor's aren't that productive at contributing feminist content to Wikipedia. I have interacted with only four of them - Black Kite, Future Perfect at Sunrise, TarainDC and Bilby - only one is a female in real life and I know her from GLAM editing projects. She is the only one that I know who has actively edited feminist topics prior to this. I actually consider Bilby an ally, but, I have never heard him or any of the other editors blatantly identify themselves as feminists.

From what I know, only one of the editors on the entire "trial list" identifies out as a female.

So, it appears a bunch of editors trying to keep the article clean had to run through the gauntlet. I don't think the end of the world has come to any of their lives - they have plenty of other subjects of interest to keep them busy on Wikipedia.

I also think people invest *too much* into Wikipedia to where it's what they live for..per se. I see a lot of that in this case, and many others that "go to court" on Wikipedia. I stopped participating on Wikipedia when it screwed up my personal life so much, and I lost sleep over it. So... that's my advice to anyone involved in that Arbcom case :) Go on vacation and get another hobby and edit Wikipedia when you feel like it. It isn't life. It's just an encyclopedia.


Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: