I agree with Sarah: the thread should stay, tagged
with [Commons] as Erik
has suggested.
We are actually making progress – painful progress at times, but
significant progress nevertheless.
Andreas
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Sarah <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Pete Forsyth
<peteforsyth(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Sumana,
Yes, gladly. I feel that thread has served a good purpose, but it's
true, it's been at the expense of flooding the list with a lot of noise,
and I've contributed some of it. I do think that after a prolonged long dip
into less productive discussion, in the last exchange we have arrived at a
point where there is some consensus about what the problems are and how to
attack them, and hopefully we can leverage that into some policy reform
that moves the project forward. But you're right, it would be better at
this point to move that activity onto a wiki.
Hi Sumana and Pete, I would object to closing any thread down. If people
don't want to read the thread, that's fine, but if others are discussing
it, please allow that.
The presence of this kind of material on Commons is directly related to
the whole issue of sexism on Wikipedia and the lack of women editors, and
that makes it a very valid topic for the gender-gap list. I can't imagine a
more valid topic than women being represented sexually without their
consent on Wikimedia projects. If discussing it on this list brings people
together and edges us closer to a solution that would surely be a really
good outcome for the list.
Sarah
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org