I happened to notice last night that the Bill Clinton article had "Allegation for sexual assault" as a subsection of "Public image".
Thinking it's a bit more than thanthat, I justmoved it up to a full section.
Within a few hours an editor completely removed any sectioning, leaving it under public image.
Andanother editor with a male user name started complaining about how some ref was evidence of a big smear against Bill Clinton.
I'm not going to fight about it, but it's a reminder of the true status of womenand their concerns on Wikipedia... sigh...
CM
Did you investigate the ref? Is it unbiased?
Did you revert the change to remove sectioning? That seems obviously improper to me, assuming the length of the section is what it should be for the import of the topic.
Powers &8^]
-----Original Message----- From: Carol Moore dc [mailto:carolmooredc@verizon.net] Sent: Sunday 4 August 2013 08:55 To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects Subject: [Gendergap] Multiple sexual assault allegations a "public imageproblem"
I happened to notice last night that the Bill Clinton article had "Allegation for sexual assault" as a subsection of "Public image".
Thinking it's a bit more than than that, I just moved it up to a full section.
Within a few hours an editor completely removed any sectioning, leaving it under public image.
And another editor with a male user name started complaining about how some ref was evidence of a big smear against Bill Clinton.
I'm not going to fight about it, but it's a reminder of the true status of women and their concerns on Wikipedia... sigh...
CM
On 05.08.2013, at 14:48, "Powers" LtPowers_Wiki@rochester.rr.com wrote:
Did you investigate the ref? Is it unbiased?
Did you before jumping in on the topic? (I did, it was The New York Times. Even the guy on the discussion page took it back.)
Also: he said that multiple allegations by different women would not equal a public opinion problem (where was he living in 1998, under a rock??) and a whole section but all this was merely “personal opinion” and adding “undue weight”. Basically “silly women's stuff, keep that outta my Wikipedia."
Carol,
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
I'm not going to fight about it, but it's a reminder of the true status of women and their concerns on Wikipedia... sigh...
Can you please explain how this trivial content dispute (if you can even go so far as to call it a dispute) is a reminder of the "true status" of women and their concerns on Wikipedia?
If you could keep feminist rhetoric out of your answer, it would be great. Sorry to call it that, but your initial post was nothing but rhetoric and isn't helpful at all in helping us males to understand exactly what the issue is. I don't see anyone making a point of you being female in the short discussion on the talk page; merely disagreeing with a female on Wikipedia does not mean that the editors are sexist, anti-feminist, whatever -- sometimes a dispute is just a dispute. Unfortunately, you have now brought the editors into question on a public forum, and insinuated that they are sexist, anti-feminist, so I think it is your responsibility to explain your position succinctly.
Cheers,
Russavia
On 8/6/2013 1:25 PM, Russavia wrote:...
Howabout we do a thought experiment. Imagine I had written the following and see if you get it:
*I happened to notice last night that a Famous Person article had "Allegations of beating up homosexuals/African Americans/Straight White Males/Wikipedia Editors/Whatever." as a subsection of "Public image".
Thinking it's a bit more than thanthat, I justmoved it up to a full section.
Within a few hours an editor completely removed any sectioning, leaving it under public image.
++++ Thoughts??
CM
My thought, first on reading only your email and confirmed by reading the talk page, would be that your edit probably brought the other editor's attention to something he thought was undue/poorly sourced/whatever, and that he removed it because he noticed it then, not because you'd touched it before that. Maybe the other editor was right, maybe they were wrong, but I'm going to have to agree with the other commenters so far that your emails aren't really making clear how this has anything to do with either Clinton being male or you being female.
Absent any apparent evidence that it has to do with those things, I think you're taking rather a leap of bad-faith logic to ascribe this to sexism or patriarchy, rather than to a run-of-the-mill content/BLP dispute just like any other.
-Fluff
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.netwrote:
On 8/6/2013 1:25 PM, Russavia wrote:...
How about we do a thought experiment. Imagine I had written the following and see if you get it:
*I happened to notice last night that a Famous Person article had "Allegations of beating up homosexuals/African Americans/Straight White Males/Wikipedia Editors/Whatever." as a subsection of "Public image".
Thinking it's a bit more than than that, I just moved it up to a full section.
Within a few hours an editor completely removed any sectioning, leaving it under public image.
++++ Thoughts??
CM
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I get Carol's point - that allegations of sexual assault are more than an image problem. They are allegations of assault, and also an image problem. So there is probably a better header than "public image" that might describe both the allegations and whatever else should go in a section with them.
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I get Carol's point - that allegations of sexual assault are more than an image problem. They are allegations of assault, and also an image problem. So there is probably a better header than "public image" that might describe both the allegations and whatever else should go in a section with them.
Yes, there's probably a point to be made there. But it has yet to be made on the article's talk page, even though the editor Carol's complaining about has been transparent in his reasoning and appears to be open to discussion.
Are we going to use this list as a substitute for talk page discussion? That doesn't seem like the best approach to me.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On 8/6/2013 3:03 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
Are we going to use this list as a substitute for talk page discussion? That doesn't seem like the best approach to me.
Silly me I meant to post this on the all female facebook page... my sincere and abject apologies for forgiveness...
On 8/6/2013 5:03 PM, Carol Moore dc wrote:
On 8/6/2013 3:03 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
Are we going to use this list as a substitute for talk page discussion? That doesn't seem like the best approach to me.
Silly me I meant to post this on the all female facebook page... my sincere and abject apologies for forgiveness...
But seriously, I get beat up on BLPs defending males whose mere speech and ideasare controversial and/or less than perfect; why would I want to get beat up for seeming to want to stress allegations against a powerful male??
Women's reluctance to edit articles because of the hostility generated is one of the problems this list is supposed to deal with.
On 8/4/2013 8:55 AM, Carol Moore dc wrote:
I happened to notice last night that the Bill Clinton article had "Allegation for sexual assault" as a subsection of "Public image".
Thinking it's a bit more than thanthat, I justmoved it up to a full section.
Within a few hours an editor completely removed any sectioning, leaving it under public image.
...Better late than never I stuck a short note on Wikiproject feminism for anyone who wants to deal with the issue.
Another reason I've been disturbed about it is because I have seen so many biased section headers against individuals who have uttered even the slightest "politically incorrect" statement on certain groups which obviously have very active and organized supporters on wikipedia. ("Allegations of this/that/and the other" sections abound.) I've wasted so much time dealing with their outrage over minor mis-speaks or academic opinions they don't like.
Yet when women alleged assault and it has thousands of WP:RS, it's thrown in the bottom of a "public image" section on a BLP.
It's taken me a few days to get over my disgust and address the real issue: will wikipedia women organize merely to keep from being dissed like this, even while others violate policy left and right pushing their own agendas. (And I'm not even talking about doing things like putting sections on "allegations of sexism" in the hundreds of male BLPs that need such a section.)
I think we've seen enough surveys that show a large proportion of - or most? - women who try Wikipedia choose to boycott Wikipedia once they run into behaviors that bother them. Maybe they are taking the truly wise (and feminist) approach... Lysistrata and all that.
(Who said I'm organizing a woman's boycott of wikipedia... let's squash those rumors now!!)
CM