I'm not sure I see the pressing reason why this thread needs to go on-wiki. Commons doesn't have a venue for discussing problems this fundamental with it as far as I know, and people have spoken in this thread who either do not or will not participate on-wiki on Commons. Moving the thread on-wiki would mean scattering it to some random page, losing the voices of the people who aren't on Commons for whatever reasons, and subjecting everyone else to the defensiveness that's the reason this thread grew traction here instead of the dozens of times it's been brought up on various wikis. 

This mailing list was never intended to be a "ooh happy!"-only venue where we only post announcements about courses and case studies - one-liners about positive steps are good, but so are tough discussions like this one,  and given that this is one of the very, very few "safe" venues for that type of discussion, I'm saddened to see people trying to shove this off the list.

-Fluff

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:

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@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com> 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@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap