Hi, Marc,
Back in February, you'd responded to
Brandon<http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-February/000…ml>:
"You are absolutely right, Brandon. This is a systemic problem that has been
in existence nearly as long as the Project has. And it has been documented
countless times. If this were a technical problem it would have been solved
long ago. *If it were a problem that the Foundation felt was affecting**
financial contributions to the Project, it would have been a problem given a
**high priority to solve.* Instead, the problem involves people. And the
powers
that be don't seem to know, and are not willing to learn, how to solve it.
The attitude seems to be, "If a person leaves, there are plenty to replace
them." There seems to be a high regard for content in the encyclopedia, but
a very low one for those who create it. This is a recipe for disaster."
(emphasis supplied)
I agree with you for more reasons than I'll get into right now, but when I
first read this -- right after returning from a lunch meeting with my
estates attorney to discuss updating my will, as luck would have it -- I
couldn't help laughing (ironically), given the context in which Wikipedia
had come up during that lunch.
My estates attorney is a dear old friend, so one goal for our lunch was to
catch up with each other, quite apart from and in addition to the business
purpose for our meeting. Consequently, as we ate, I regaled her with the
full story of what I'd recently experienced on Wikipedia. My estate is
structured to divide the bulk of my funds (such as they are) among
non-profits I've given time to over the years (assuming my children are
fully educated and launched into adult life by the time I collect my eternal
reward).
"So," she asked mischievously, after I'd concluded my sorry tale, "just
how
much are you going to specify as a bequest to the Wikimedia Foundation in
the new will?"
"Not. *One*. Red. *Cent.*" I replied.
I'm only a single former female editor, of course, and a bequest from my
estate (such as it will likely be) would only be a tiny drop toward the
Wikimedia Foundation's funding goals, but as recent research on gender and
philanthropy has revealed,* "Most Women Give More Than
Men,"*<http://philanthropy.com/article/Most-Women-Give-More-Than-Me…
the Wikimedia Foundation may well be shooting itself in its
metaphorical
financial foot it it fails to correct the gender imbalance and reduce its
offensiveness to women. Ideals have their place, of course, but money
purchases new hardware and keeps the servers running.
Just something the Foundation folks on the list might want to consider in
this context, since I doubt I'm the only woman to have had this reaction,
nor that I'll be the last.
Best,
Charlotte