Press coverage is widening:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/23/wikipedia-bans-editors-from-gender-related-articles-amid-gamergate-controversy

http://internet.gawker.com/wikipedia-purged-a-group-of-feminist-editors-because-of-1681463331

http://pando.com/2015/01/23/wikipedia-tacitly-endorses-gamergate-by-blocking-its-opponents-from-editing-gender-related-articles/

http://www.themarysue.com/wikipedia-gamergate/

http://www.volkskrant.nl/tech/hoe-gamergate-wikipedia-blijft-vervuilen~a3835403/

http://derstandard.at/2000010843264/Eintrag-zu-GamerGate-Wikipedia-sperrt-feministische-Nutzer

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:

http://anitaborg.org/news/blog/how-to-edit-wikipedia-lessons-from-a-female-contributor/

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@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@gmail.com
To: gendergap@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@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@gmail.com> wrote:

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap


_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap