Interesting point of view. In fact :-) I think that's one difference between men and women. Many women manage emotions better than many men. And many men just get rid of emotions to make things easier for them. That's the way the world goes round. And this makes me wonder the following:
Are we all aware that this mailing list should not be subject to any ideology? Maybe there are people here (and mostly out there) who think that altruism (sacrifice of some people for the benefit of others) is the best option to take actions in Wikipedia, and maybe there are also people who think that egoism is the best choice, that is, that every relevant opinion (mostly from renowned people, mostly from people who think like them) is important and has to be taken into account for every action taken, discarding the non relevant ones. This approach, if exists, would be wrong, since rational egoism seeks individual interest but never in the detriment of the interest of others (that's the great fault of capitalism, it doesn't take into account human nature with the complexity that it should be taken with; it's as naive as self-interest). In a nutshell, I'm talking about democracy versus consensus. For me and for many people like me it's obvious: democracy is the best choice, specially in this issue. But I'm not so sure if that's the opinion of most people here. For example, Jimmy Wales is, as I have read, a follower of objectivism and pure capitalism, that is, rational egoism. It's clear that this world (the planet Earth) has a wider range of points of view, and that there's also people who think that relevance is subjective, and that the most objective method to take actions involving Wikipedia (understood as the sum of all chapters) is democracy, since it's almost impossible to reach a real consensus with a global scope and with a so small group of people as a reference.
Depending on the point of view adopted, the actions would be different:
1) Followers of egoism would take all the opinions which seem relevant in this list (mostly from renowned people) and apply them.
2) Followers of pure altruism would take *all* the opinions and use them in a rigorous opinion poll, later adjusting the results to the gender gap to level the importance of men's and women's opinions, and apply the results.
3) Followers of an intermediate solution, would take all the opinions which seem relevant and also many opinions which don't seem relevant but could be decissive for the future of Wikipedia, and use them in a rigorous opinion poll, later adjusting the results to the gender gap to level the importance of men's and women's opinions, and apply the results.
Are we all aware that maybe people in charge (the Wikimedia staff) could take actions which are not the way that a significant part of the Wikipedia community is expecting?
I think it's fundamental to know this before anything, since Wikipedia, like it or not, is a *collaborative* project, not an *individualistic* project. This kind of considerations are not trivial, as we are constructing a type of decissions which are new in the history of mankind (and womenkind ;-)), since, as far as I know, there never was such a project as Wikipedia before.
My personal conclusion is that we shouldn't lose what made Wikipedia be what it is: a collaborative and decentralized project, and my personal choice is (3). Let's see what people think (spread the word outside this list).
Best,
Miguel Ángel
----- Original Message ----
From: "Hartmut "hase" Semken" hase@hase.net To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, February 18, 2011 1:08:50 PM Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Women4Wikipedia
Am 18.02.11 14:09, schrieb Sandra:
Well I find that statement a bit inappropriate for a gender gap list,
considering that i find the problem quite serious.
Indeed, it is. And still: men do have the feeling that feminists are out for revenge rather than equality. This is not a statement to discredit feminism as you want to make it, it is a descripion of a very common feeling.
The problem is very simple: feelings are not about facts - or rarely are. Whether a feminist actually /is/ seeking revenge was not part of the satement at all, btw.
I do not think it is so simple to separate feelings from facts as you suggest. Feelings, in the sense you invoke, are no more than reactions to our thoughts. From Descartes, you might realize that there is a valid viewpoint that our experiences are the *only* things that we can depend on being real. Facts may be important to physics, but physics can only important because of what humans think and feel about it.
(Unless of course you are trying to imagine the world from non-human-centric veiwpoint. Which is an interesting exercise, but I think not very relevant.)
I am not sure if this email will make much sense to anyone so let me try a different explanation. Validation is vastly important to inspiring humans to act. Facts are rather irrelevant, however dependable and universal they might be. It is a fact the you must consume less calories than you burn to lose weight. But humans, who are aware this fact, universally have difficulty acting in line with it whenever it more convenient for them to consume a larger number of calories than not. Humans are not fact machines, but rather feeling machines. Are you trying to move boulders or humans? Facts will be more relevant to the former task, feelings to the latter.
Birgitte SB
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap