These articles are getting thousands of tweets.
It's unfortunate that the original Guardian article, based on Mark
Bernstein's blog post, contains a few inaccuracies that are now being
repeated. The broad thrust of the article however remains correct, as Tarc
says.
What this illustrates is the potential power of a good blog post for
raising public awareness of gender gap issues in Wikipedia. The recent
Anitaborg piece did well in social media too:
Really, there is a desperate need for an off-wiki site documenting,
explaining and publicising these issues.
Andreas
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Tarc . <tarc(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
I just wanted to bring up a point wrt "but cannot
ban the Guardian for
"bad journalism"" below, there are already efforts underway on the
Gamergate talk page by a single-purpose account to do just that. The
argument is that since this Guardian article is so "wrong" (and it really
isn't, just in minor details), therefore the Guardian should be stripped as
a source in the Gamergate article.
These are the types of antics that the 2nd wave of 8chan/redditors are
going to be pulling, once some of us have been swept away.
-t
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 09:26:47 -0500
From: slowking4(a)gmail.com
To: gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] press coverage of Gamergate arbcom case
well, they did not revdel it.
arbcom can drive the discussion off wiki,
but cannot ban the Guardian for "bad journalism"
certain account behaviors are being favored
you should expect to see a lot more of those behaviors in the future
this will necessitate a lot of wiki-splaining
thank-you arbcom for firing up every up coming feminist editathon
you may not care how how you are perceived,
but the negative blowback will tarnish all of wikimedia
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 12:06 AM, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
The rediculous thing is that none of the people defending that article
were 'feminists'. They were just defending the mainstream point of view
from an endless onslaught of 8channers. The feminist point view isn't even
represented in the article.
On Jan 23, 2015, at 7:14 PM, J Hayes <slowking4(a)gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/23/wikipedia-bans-editors-fr…
http://internet.gawker.com/wikipedia-purged-a-group-of-feminist-editors-bec…
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences,
including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap