Is it simply impossible to start a Wikipedia project that's open to women,
or people who identify as women? (I'm sorry if I don't use the correct
terms, but I haven't kept up with them in recent years.)
I mean if we did it... what would the consequences be?
Lightbreather
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Sarah <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 7:43 PM, LB
<lightbreather2(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Why abandon it? Let's reclaim it. Just ignore
those who try to distract
and derail. There are sanctions so no nastiness, but nastiness is not my
usual style anyway.
I don't know whether it's better to abandon, reclaim or move it. But it
has been a lesson in how deep Wikipedia's sexism runs. Any journalists in
future wanting examples of it need only read those archives and the
dispute-resolution threads that failed to deal with it (which one of us
ought to compile at some point).
Marie, I saw the suggestion on GGTF that women might prefer to edit
"[f]ashion, cookery, domestic affairs, childrearing". Is it worth
continuing with it when that's what we have to deal with?
Sarah
On Dec 30, 2014 10:25 AM, "Marie
Earley" <eiryel(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
We're abandoning the GGTF on Wikipedia? Fair
enough.
It was just that I had an editor accused me of radical feminism POV
pushing on GGTF via my talk page (I dared to say that it was "interesting"
that the example topics that he thought women would be interested in
editing, other than feminism, might be "*fashion, cookery, domestic
affairs and childrearing*" rather than "*science, business, filmmaking
or politics*"). There was then this follow-on swipe on GGTF.
"...one of the reasonable first steps toward
seeing what women in
wikipedia thinks needs to be done most would be to actively
ask women who
have self-identified as women what content of particular interest to women
might be underrepresented or undercovered here. Those women would
presumably be in a better position to clearly state their concerns than
would be individuals who can only speculate on them or draw potentially
flawed assumptions based on limited previous personal experience."
So, my potentially flawed assumptions and limited previous personal
experience are surplus to requirements at the GGTF. The plan now seems to
go out and find answers that fit a pre-existing narrative about what is
causing the Gender Gap.
So... "I believe the Gender Gap is caused by women who want to write
about knitting thinking that Wikipedia does not welcome articles about
knitting." I will create a skewed survey to fit this narrative and get the
"right kind of women" to fill it in and prove my pre-conceived notions
correct.
I really don't see the point of it. If you ask 1,000 female editors,
"What kind of articles do you like to edit?", then you'll get 1,000
answers
with a wide variety of topics. What would that prove? Suppose you find 90%
of them edit traditionally feminine topics, what conclusion would you draw
from it? Would it prove that they clearly prefer to edit those topics, or
those are the topics that they feel less likely to encounter intimidation,
or a combination of the two? I just think the GGTF board is currently being
used to promote a truly pointless exercise.
Marie
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap