Dear Oliver,
I believe it is constructive to reply you, for improving the quality of dialogue.
When I use
the world `female-friendly space what I is inclusive, constructive, a dialogue
(following the rules of argumentation) that allows scientific articles, ea.
Take a look
at these examples:
If we talk
about a child-friendly hotel we refer to a family hotel where the space is
adequate for every member of the family (we don’t talk about a kindergarten or
about a niche). It is talked about a place that meets the challenge of a
deficit or historical gap.
Other
interesting examples are:
Women-friendly
companies (for ex. Dell, HP, Abbot, ea. taking needs of working mothers)
Child-friendly
justice (initiative by the European Council for giving better access to justice)
When I talked about historical gaps (I talked from an historical point of view and not about Wikipedia)...
I have the
impression that my words in your reply were unintentionally modified and lost
the original sense of the proposal.
If you read
with more time and without adding meanings or changing words my suggestions, it
would be better for improving them. It is about maximise efforts and get better
results.
I believe Wikipedia can create a rich dialogue for overcoming gendergap and become a pioneer for promoting women´s rights.
--- On Wed, 2/9/11, Oliver Keyes <scire.facias@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Oliver Keyes <scire.facias@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] [Gendergap : A suggestion: Towards 100.000 F. articles in Wikipedia
To: "Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects" <gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Wednesday, February 9, 2011, 2:02 PM
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 9:57 PM, patricia morales <mariadelcarmenpatricia@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Everyone is very welcome! I would like to explain what I trying to say. The idea was only to emphasise the participatory role of women in this process.
There are several historical gaps (black people, women, young people, "underdeveloped" countries, ea.) and suddenly people want to solve them, and at the same time exclude the group to be benefited in the process.
Patricia
|
I don't think anyone was suggesting excluding the benefited group (nor, really, is there any evidence young people is an area we lack contribution from :P). At no point was saying "women can't get involved in this process" discussed - that'd be counterproductive. Your idea of having dedicated female-friendly areas seems contradictory. 1) it segregates the community, 2) if the main community isn't female-friendly, we should be tackling that, not trying to shield people from the issues and 3) if the main community isn't female friendly, bringing potential female editors into a "female-friendly" niche environment and then dropping them in the main community seems rather akin to the story of itsy-bitsy spider and his waterspout.
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
|