risker: i'm kinda with you about defining deviancy down
it's just that things are so bad can't go lower article subjects are already dismayed by the opaque unfriendly culture they periodically ask for article deletion librarians are advised about the "cultural buzzsaw" having a safe environment on line is a lost cause but we can have a grim determination with much cursing
cheers
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I think I've made myself clear, Pete. I don't think that anything I say will make a difference, any more than anything I have ever said has changed the sub-optimal behaviour of any editor who thinks it's acceptable professional behaviour to cuss all over the place. I'm just really disappointed that people who used to be in the "let's make this a more pleasant and positive place to do our work" have gone over to the other side.
Risker
On 21 February 2016 at 19:38, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Risker, I want to be clear:
It's not that I don't see a problem. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to your view; but I think your point has been made very strongly already, and the important audience is the Signpost editorial staff. I am confident they have heard the message, and I don't see how further discussion moves us in a better direction. The past can't be changed. I suppose the Signpost could retract the op-ed, but I rather doubt you're seeking something so extreme...or am I wrong?
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I feel very sad that you fellows don't see the problem in using this kind of language to describe women. "Badass" isn't a compliment. After the first two descriptions, I was fully expecting to see "brilliant motherf***er" to describe the third one. I'm surprised it wasn't used, in fact.
The subjects of our articles deserve to be treated much better than this.
Further, I'm incredibly disappointed that this got published in The Signpost. On Emily's own page...well, okay. But instead of drawing attention to the women who are the subjects of the articles, almost all of the discussion is about the language used to describe them....and pointing out that several of them already had articles about them that were improved, rather than that they'd not been written about at all.
All in all, it impressed me as an island of lovely flowers in a garden with a winter's worth of St. Bernard droppings.
Risker
On 21 February 2016 at 17:13, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
+1 Ryan.
This was one article, and no Wikipedians, readers, or article subjects were injured as a result of its publication. I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other about whether using language in this way is OK. But the main lesson to me is how much the English Wikipedia community has come to value the Signpost as an institution. It's hard to imagine such any Signpost column inspiring so much passion, say, five years ago. Above all, I think this constitutes a strong endorsement of the general value of the Signpost.
-Pete
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community takes all of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of profanity in a positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia calls a female editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by Keilana, would it have been published as is?
Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite the one some think it would be.
Risker/Anne
On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
> Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting double > standard about profanity in the comment section. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed > > _______________________________________________ > 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
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