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(a)hase.net>
> To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
><gendergap(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
--
Saludos,
Miguelinito mailto:miguelinito@gmail.com