I feel very sad that you fellows don't see the problem in using this kind of language to describe women. "Badass" isn't a compliment. After the first two descriptions, I was fully expecting to see "brilliant motherf***er" to describe the third one.  I'm surprised it wasn't used, in fact.

The subjects of our articles deserve to be treated much better than this. 

Further, I'm incredibly disappointed that this got published in The Signpost.  On Emily's own page...well, okay.  But instead of drawing attention to the women who are the subjects of the articles, almost all of the discussion is about the language used to describe them....and pointing out that several of them already had articles about them that were improved, rather than that they'd not been written about at all. 

All in all, it impressed me as an island of lovely flowers in a garden with a winter's worth of St. Bernard droppings.

Risker

On 21 February 2016 at 17:13, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com> wrote:

+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

_______________________________________________
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