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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing,
>>> please visit:
>>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing,
>> please visit:
>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing,
> please visit:
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing,
please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
visit: