At the risk of being labelled biased, I do not see that that was a legitimate fix to address systemic bias. It looked rather pointy to me. Perhaps you could explain just how it addressed systemic bias in a useful way.
Cheers, Peter
From: Gendergap [mailto:gendergap-bounces@
lists.wikimedia.org ] On Behalf Of Jessy D. King
Sent: Wednesday, 26 April 2017 7:27 PM
To: Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Gendergap] Wiktionary *desperately* needs more gender-aware editors
Hi,
I'm new to this list, this is my first post.
If Wikipedia is a boy's club, Wiktionary is an uber boy's club. It *so* desperately needs people interested in addressing systemic bias.
Every time I try to make completely legitimate fixes to address systemic bias of the male privilege variety (for example,
it is reverted very quickly (in the just-referenced case, within 10 minutes). Then a fight must ensue in which I'm accused of being things like "dishonest", "disrespectful" and 'railing'. The person in this case has demonstrated his double standards in his edit summary and in his comments to me on his talk page, and that is absolutely (unfortunately) the norm amongst long-term Wiktionary editors.
It is incredibly demoralising. My contributions to Wiktionary include adding etymologies, adding quotations, all with absolutely no gender issues involved, yet none of that work is ever recognised in any way, and I'm treated like a resented interloper. The majority of long-term Wiktionary editors seem to bitterly resent the very suggestion of addressing systemic bias. It is a really, really nasty little uber boy's club in there. Which I realise may not encourage anyone to join, I'm just being honest.
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap