+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