All the articles created at Regina ArtAndFeminism event have been tagged. Ten of them have been submitted for deletion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Regina/ArtAndFeminism_2016/Un...
For example, see comments here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Risa_Horowitz
Someone should write a letter to the editor of the those 5 or 6 publications that came in my google alerts on the topic of the edit a thon. (Search news google to find them.) And of course deal with the few legtimate complaints and the trolls with nonsense complaints.
On 3/12/2016 10:17 AM, Neotarf wrote:
All the articles created at Regina ArtAndFeminism event have been tagged. Ten of them have been submitted for deletion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Regina/ArtAndFeminism_2016/Un...
For example, see comments here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Risa_Horowitz
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
I find it disappointing that so many of the Art and Feminism editathons end up focusing almost exclusively on creating new articles for artists at the hosting institution. Not only does this lead to a high percentage of the articles being deleted, but it's a waste of a huge opportunity to create and expand articles about artists and artworks with unquestionable notability and high encyclopedic value.
I have no doubt that many of the Art and Feminism articles that are nominated for deletion are nominated due to gender bias (as some of them seem rather trivial to find sources for and improve), but many of them are also legitimately on the notability borderline. At all of the Art and Feminism editathons that I've volunteered at, I've discouraged people from creating articles about people they knew personally, and encouraged them to use the lists at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks instead. If you are helping to run an Art and Feminism editathon, I would also suggest doing this, as it provides more value for Wikipedia and leads to fewer deletions. I would also like to encourage everyone to edit the lists at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks and help keep them full of good suggestions. Editathons are a great tool for addressing the gendergap, and I would hate for them to get a reputation for just being self-promotional events.
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
Someone should write a letter to the editor of the those 5 or 6 publications that came in my google alerts on the topic of the edit a thon. (Search news google to find them.) And of course deal with the few legtimate complaints and the trolls with nonsense complaints.
On 3/12/2016 10:17 AM, Neotarf wrote:
All the articles created at Regina ArtAndFeminism event have been tagged. Ten of them have been submitted for deletion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Regina/ArtAndFeminism_2016/Un...
For example, see comments here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Risa_Horowitz
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
In general, creating articles are very difficult. The learning curve is steep, and it may be best to have people expand/improve articles instead of creating them.
From, Emily On Mar 12, 2016 11:48 AM, "Ryan Kaldari" rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
I find it disappointing that so many of the Art and Feminism editathons end up focusing almost exclusively on creating new articles for artists at the hosting institution. Not only does this lead to a high percentage of the articles being deleted, but it's a waste of a huge opportunity to create and expand articles about artists and artworks with unquestionable notability and high encyclopedic value.
I have no doubt that many of the Art and Feminism articles that are nominated for deletion are nominated due to gender bias (as some of them seem rather trivial to find sources for and improve), but many of them are also legitimately on the notability borderline. At all of the Art and Feminism editathons that I've volunteered at, I've discouraged people from creating articles about people they knew personally, and encouraged them to use the lists at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks instead. If you are helping to run an Art and Feminism editathon, I would also suggest doing this, as it provides more value for Wikipedia and leads to fewer deletions. I would also like to encourage everyone to edit the lists at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks and help keep them full of good suggestions. Editathons are a great tool for addressing the gendergap, and I would hate for them to get a reputation for just being self-promotional events.
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Carol Moore dc <carolmooredc@verizon.net
wrote:
Someone should write a letter to the editor of the those 5 or 6 publications that came in my google alerts on the topic of the edit a thon. (Search news google to find them.) And of course deal with the few legtimate complaints and the trolls with nonsense complaints.
On 3/12/2016 10:17 AM, Neotarf wrote:
All the articles created at Regina ArtAndFeminism event have been tagged. Ten of them have been submitted for deletion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Regina/ArtAndFeminism_2016/Un...
For example, see comments here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Risa_Horowitz
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I very much agree, Emily. I wonder if this time, perhaps all the (wonderful and timely) media coverage of Emily Temple Wood's efforts to create new articles may have influenced organizers and/or participants? Perhaps it created a bit of a consensus, conscious or unconscious, that *creating new articles* was the main desired result.
If so, this might be a bit of a one-time anomaly, may not indicate a need for major changes.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
In general, creating articles are very difficult. The learning curve is steep, and it may be best to have people expand/improve articles instead of creating them.
From, Emily On Mar 12, 2016 11:48 AM, "Ryan Kaldari" rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
I find it disappointing that so many of the Art and Feminism editathons end up focusing almost exclusively on creating new articles for artists at the hosting institution. Not only does this lead to a high percentage of the articles being deleted, but it's a waste of a huge opportunity to create and expand articles about artists and artworks with unquestionable notability and high encyclopedic value.
I have no doubt that many of the Art and Feminism articles that are nominated for deletion are nominated due to gender bias (as some of them seem rather trivial to find sources for and improve), but many of them are also legitimately on the notability borderline. At all of the Art and Feminism editathons that I've volunteered at, I've discouraged people from creating articles about people they knew personally, and encouraged them to use the lists at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks instead. If you are helping to run an Art and Feminism editathon, I would also suggest doing this, as it provides more value for Wikipedia and leads to fewer deletions. I would also like to encourage everyone to edit the lists at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks and help keep them full of good suggestions. Editathons are a great tool for addressing the gendergap, and I would hate for them to get a reputation for just being self-promotional events.
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Carol Moore dc < carolmooredc@verizon.net> wrote:
Someone should write a letter to the editor of the those 5 or 6 publications that came in my google alerts on the topic of the edit a thon. (Search news google to find them.) And of course deal with the few legtimate complaints and the trolls with nonsense complaints.
On 3/12/2016 10:17 AM, Neotarf wrote:
All the articles created at Regina ArtAndFeminism event have been tagged. Ten of them have been submitted for deletion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Regina/ArtAndFeminism_2016/Un...
For example, see comments here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Risa_Horowitz
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
While the coverage wouldn't have hurt, the bottom line is that people would rather create something of their own than work on something started by someone else. This is a reality, and it's one of the main reasons that people perceive Wikipedia as being "hard". Emily is right, creating new articles *is* hard; I'm pretty sure over the last 10 years I've created fewer than 15 articles. But "improving" an article is also hard, if the one you choose is "monitored" by a die-hard fan or someone who doesn't get the meaning of WP:OWN. I think that experienced editors (with emphasis on the word "editor" here) sometimes don't understand that many people get little pleasure out of improving what they see as someone else's creation; they want to have their own creation, that they can point to and say "I did that". It's exactly why we get people constantly pushing the boundaries of notability - not necessarily because they see a gap, but because they figure it's a way to gain recognition for creating a big pile of articles.
We have to bear in mind that we're dealing with multiple agendas in these specific edit-a-thons. There's the "all art is tremendously important" agenda, there's the "women are not given their due" agenda, there's the commercial or self-interest agenda (one that is often ignored in some of these specialized group activities). Plus of course there is the "let's make Wikipedia better" agenda that's common to all edit-a-thons.
Risker/Anne
On 12 March 2016 at 19:14, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
I very much agree, Emily. I wonder if this time, perhaps all the (wonderful and timely) media coverage of Emily Temple Wood's efforts to create new articles may have influenced organizers and/or participants? Perhaps it created a bit of a consensus, conscious or unconscious, that *creating new articles* was the main desired result.
If so, this might be a bit of a one-time anomaly, may not indicate a need for major changes.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
In general, creating articles are very difficult. The learning curve is steep, and it may be best to have people expand/improve articles instead of creating them.
From, Emily On Mar 12, 2016 11:48 AM, "Ryan Kaldari" rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
I find it disappointing that so many of the Art and Feminism editathons end up focusing almost exclusively on creating new articles for artists at the hosting institution. Not only does this lead to a high percentage of the articles being deleted, but it's a waste of a huge opportunity to create and expand articles about artists and artworks with unquestionable notability and high encyclopedic value.
I have no doubt that many of the Art and Feminism articles that are nominated for deletion are nominated due to gender bias (as some of them seem rather trivial to find sources for and improve), but many of them are also legitimately on the notability borderline. At all of the Art and Feminism editathons that I've volunteered at, I've discouraged people from creating articles about people they knew personally, and encouraged them to use the lists at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks instead. If you are helping to run an Art and Feminism editathon, I would also suggest doing this, as it provides more value for Wikipedia and leads to fewer deletions. I would also like to encourage everyone to edit the lists at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks and help keep them full of good suggestions. Editathons are a great tool for addressing the gendergap, and I would hate for them to get a reputation for just being self-promotional events.
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Carol Moore dc < carolmooredc@verizon.net> wrote:
Someone should write a letter to the editor of the those 5 or 6 publications that came in my google alerts on the topic of the edit a thon. (Search news google to find them.) And of course deal with the few legtimate complaints and the trolls with nonsense complaints.
On 3/12/2016 10:17 AM, Neotarf wrote:
All the articles created at Regina ArtAndFeminism event have been tagged. Ten of them have been submitted for deletion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Regina/ArtAndFeminism_2016/Un...
For example, see comments here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Risa_Horowitz
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I wonder why, if pointing to an article and saying "I did that" is so valued among newer members of the Wikipedian community, that WP:OWN isn't more of an issue. Is it because most new articles "fall through the cracks", so to speak, not to be edited again until weeks, if not months or in a few cases years until after the initial editing spree?
From, Emily
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
While the coverage wouldn't have hurt, the bottom line is that people would rather create something of their own than work on something started by someone else. This is a reality, and it's one of the main reasons that people perceive Wikipedia as being "hard". Emily is right, creating new articles *is* hard; I'm pretty sure over the last 10 years I've created fewer than 15 articles. But "improving" an article is also hard, if the one you choose is "monitored" by a die-hard fan or someone who doesn't get the meaning of WP:OWN. I think that experienced editors (with emphasis on the word "editor" here) sometimes don't understand that many people get little pleasure out of improving what they see as someone else's creation; they want to have their own creation, that they can point to and say "I did that". It's exactly why we get people constantly pushing the boundaries of notability - not necessarily because they see a gap, but because they figure it's a way to gain recognition for creating a big pile of articles.
We have to bear in mind that we're dealing with multiple agendas in these specific edit-a-thons. There's the "all art is tremendously important" agenda, there's the "women are not given their due" agenda, there's the commercial or self-interest agenda (one that is often ignored in some of these specialized group activities). Plus of course there is the "let's make Wikipedia better" agenda that's common to all edit-a-thons.
Risker/Anne
On 12 March 2016 at 19:14, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
I very much agree, Emily. I wonder if this time, perhaps all the (wonderful and timely) media coverage of Emily Temple Wood's efforts to create new articles may have influenced organizers and/or participants? Perhaps it created a bit of a consensus, conscious or unconscious, that *creating new articles* was the main desired result.
If so, this might be a bit of a one-time anomaly, may not indicate a need for major changes.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
In general, creating articles are very difficult. The learning curve is steep, and it may be best to have people expand/improve articles instead of creating them.
From, Emily On Mar 12, 2016 11:48 AM, "Ryan Kaldari" rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
I find it disappointing that so many of the Art and Feminism editathons end up focusing almost exclusively on creating new articles for artists at the hosting institution. Not only does this lead to a high percentage of the articles being deleted, but it's a waste of a huge opportunity to create and expand articles about artists and artworks with unquestionable notability and high encyclopedic value.
I have no doubt that many of the Art and Feminism articles that are nominated for deletion are nominated due to gender bias (as some of them seem rather trivial to find sources for and improve), but many of them are also legitimately on the notability borderline. At all of the Art and Feminism editathons that I've volunteered at, I've discouraged people from creating articles about people they knew personally, and encouraged them to use the lists at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks instead. If you are helping to run an Art and Feminism editathon, I would also suggest doing this, as it provides more value for Wikipedia and leads to fewer deletions. I would also like to encourage everyone to edit the lists at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks and help keep them full of good suggestions. Editathons are a great tool for addressing the gendergap, and I would hate for them to get a reputation for just being self-promotional events.
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Carol Moore dc < carolmooredc@verizon.net> wrote:
Someone should write a letter to the editor of the those 5 or 6 publications that came in my google alerts on the topic of the edit a thon. (Search news google to find them.) And of course deal with the few legtimate complaints and the trolls with nonsense complaints.
On 3/12/2016 10:17 AM, Neotarf wrote:
All the articles created at Regina ArtAndFeminism event have been tagged. Ten of them have been submitted for deletion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Regina/ArtAndFeminism_2016/Un...
For example, see comments here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Risa_Horowitz
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
This is actually the 3rd year of Art+Feminism, and the organizers' focus has consistently been on improving existing articles (particularly stubs!), as most appropriate to new Wikipedians, particularly at this scale of effort.
Of course some new Wikipedians are eager to start new articles, and we accommodate that as best we can, both with personal assistance from long-term Wikipedians where possible, and also technical innovations like the draft template system we premiered this year.
Thanks, Pharos
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
I very much agree, Emily. I wonder if this time, perhaps all the (wonderful and timely) media coverage of Emily Temple Wood's efforts to create new articles may have influenced organizers and/or participants? Perhaps it created a bit of a consensus, conscious or unconscious, that *creating new articles* was the main desired result.
If so, this might be a bit of a one-time anomaly, may not indicate a need for major changes.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
In general, creating articles are very difficult. The learning curve is steep, and it may be best to have people expand/improve articles instead of creating them.
From, Emily On Mar 12, 2016 11:48 AM, "Ryan Kaldari" rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
I find it disappointing that so many of the Art and Feminism editathons end up focusing almost exclusively on creating new articles for artists at the hosting institution. Not only does this lead to a high percentage of the articles being deleted, but it's a waste of a huge opportunity to create and expand articles about artists and artworks with unquestionable notability and high encyclopedic value.
I have no doubt that many of the Art and Feminism articles that are nominated for deletion are nominated due to gender bias (as some of them seem rather trivial to find sources for and improve), but many of them are also legitimately on the notability borderline. At all of the Art and Feminism editathons that I've volunteered at, I've discouraged people from creating articles about people they knew personally, and encouraged them to use the lists at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks instead. If you are helping to run an Art and Feminism editathon, I would also suggest doing this, as it provides more value for Wikipedia and leads to fewer deletions. I would also like to encourage everyone to edit the lists at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks and help keep them full of good suggestions. Editathons are a great tool for addressing the gendergap, and I would hate for them to get a reputation for just being self-promotional events.
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Carol Moore dc < carolmooredc@verizon.net> wrote:
Someone should write a letter to the editor of the those 5 or 6 publications that came in my google alerts on the topic of the edit a thon. (Search news google to find them.) And of course deal with the few legtimate complaints and the trolls with nonsense complaints.
On 3/12/2016 10:17 AM, Neotarf wrote:
All the articles created at Regina ArtAndFeminism event have been tagged. Ten of them have been submitted for deletion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Regina/ArtAndFeminism_2016/Un...
For example, see comments here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Risa_Horowitz
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Do you think the draft templates were the issue? Maybe I'm overly cynical, perhaps they advertised the fact that they were created by arts and feminism to sexist wikipedians.
From, Emily
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
This is actually the 3rd year of Art+Feminism, and the organizers' focus has consistently been on improving existing articles (particularly stubs!), as most appropriate to new Wikipedians, particularly at this scale of effort.
Of course some new Wikipedians are eager to start new articles, and we accommodate that as best we can, both with personal assistance from long-term Wikipedians where possible, and also technical innovations like the draft template system we premiered this year.
Thanks, Pharos
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
I very much agree, Emily. I wonder if this time, perhaps all the (wonderful and timely) media coverage of Emily Temple Wood's efforts to create new articles may have influenced organizers and/or participants? Perhaps it created a bit of a consensus, conscious or unconscious, that *creating new articles* was the main desired result.
If so, this might be a bit of a one-time anomaly, may not indicate a need for major changes.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
In general, creating articles are very difficult. The learning curve is steep, and it may be best to have people expand/improve articles instead of creating them.
From, Emily On Mar 12, 2016 11:48 AM, "Ryan Kaldari" rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
I find it disappointing that so many of the Art and Feminism editathons end up focusing almost exclusively on creating new articles for artists at the hosting institution. Not only does this lead to a high percentage of the articles being deleted, but it's a waste of a huge opportunity to create and expand articles about artists and artworks with unquestionable notability and high encyclopedic value.
I have no doubt that many of the Art and Feminism articles that are nominated for deletion are nominated due to gender bias (as some of them seem rather trivial to find sources for and improve), but many of them are also legitimately on the notability borderline. At all of the Art and Feminism editathons that I've volunteered at, I've discouraged people from creating articles about people they knew personally, and encouraged them to use the lists at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks instead. If you are helping to run an Art and Feminism editathon, I would also suggest doing this, as it provides more value for Wikipedia and leads to fewer deletions. I would also like to encourage everyone to edit the lists at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks and help keep them full of good suggestions. Editathons are a great tool for addressing the gendergap, and I would hate for them to get a reputation for just being self-promotional events.
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Carol Moore dc < carolmooredc@verizon.net> wrote:
Someone should write a letter to the editor of the those 5 or 6 publications that came in my google alerts on the topic of the edit a thon. (Search news google to find them.) And of course deal with the few legtimate complaints and the trolls with nonsense complaints.
On 3/12/2016 10:17 AM, Neotarf wrote:
All the articles created at Regina ArtAndFeminism event have been tagged. Ten of them have been submitted for deletion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Regina/ArtAndFeminism_2016/Un...
For example, see comments here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Risa_Horowitz
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
No, from what I've seen there were more difficulties in locations that didn't use the draft template (we implemented the draft template pretty last-minute, so it wasn't everywhere).
But I'm biased, because I helped to design the template :)
Thanks, Pharos
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
Do you think the draft templates were the issue? Maybe I'm overly cynical, perhaps they advertised the fact that they were created by arts and feminism to sexist wikipedians.
From, Emily
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
This is actually the 3rd year of Art+Feminism, and the organizers' focus has consistently been on improving existing articles (particularly stubs!), as most appropriate to new Wikipedians, particularly at this scale of effort.
Of course some new Wikipedians are eager to start new articles, and we accommodate that as best we can, both with personal assistance from long-term Wikipedians where possible, and also technical innovations like the draft template system we premiered this year.
Thanks, Pharos
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
I very much agree, Emily. I wonder if this time, perhaps all the (wonderful and timely) media coverage of Emily Temple Wood's efforts to create new articles may have influenced organizers and/or participants? Perhaps it created a bit of a consensus, conscious or unconscious, that *creating new articles* was the main desired result.
If so, this might be a bit of a one-time anomaly, may not indicate a need for major changes.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
In general, creating articles are very difficult. The learning curve is steep, and it may be best to have people expand/improve articles instead of creating them.
From, Emily On Mar 12, 2016 11:48 AM, "Ryan Kaldari" rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
I find it disappointing that so many of the Art and Feminism editathons end up focusing almost exclusively on creating new articles for artists at the hosting institution. Not only does this lead to a high percentage of the articles being deleted, but it's a waste of a huge opportunity to create and expand articles about artists and artworks with unquestionable notability and high encyclopedic value.
I have no doubt that many of the Art and Feminism articles that are nominated for deletion are nominated due to gender bias (as some of them seem rather trivial to find sources for and improve), but many of them are also legitimately on the notability borderline. At all of the Art and Feminism editathons that I've volunteered at, I've discouraged people from creating articles about people they knew personally, and encouraged them to use the lists at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks instead. If you are helping to run an Art and Feminism editathon, I would also suggest doing this, as it provides more value for Wikipedia and leads to fewer deletions. I would also like to encourage everyone to edit the lists at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks and help keep them full of good suggestions. Editathons are a great tool for addressing the gendergap, and I would hate for them to get a reputation for just being self-promotional events.
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Carol Moore dc < carolmooredc@verizon.net> wrote:
Someone should write a letter to the editor of the those 5 or 6 publications that came in my google alerts on the topic of the edit a thon. (Search news google to find them.) And of course deal with the few legtimate complaints and the trolls with nonsense complaints.
On 3/12/2016 10:17 AM, Neotarf wrote:
> All the articles created at Regina ArtAndFeminism event have been > tagged. Ten of them have been submitted for deletion. > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Regina/ArtAndFeminism_2016/Un... > > For example, see comments here: > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Risa_Horowitz > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, > please visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >
>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Emily, could you elaborate on your reason for thinking sexist Wikipedians were a significant factor here? Having reviewed and engaged with several of the articles and AfDs under discussion, I don't see any reason for that. In my view, there were some unnecessarily unpleasant comments, but nothing that struck me as sexist. But if I've missed something, I'd like to know. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
Do you think the draft templates were the issue? Maybe I'm overly cynical, perhaps they advertised the fact that they were created by arts and feminism to sexist wikipedians.
From, Emily
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
This is actually the 3rd year of Art+Feminism, and the organizers' focus has consistently been on improving existing articles (particularly stubs!), as most appropriate to new Wikipedians, particularly at this scale of effort.
Of course some new Wikipedians are eager to start new articles, and we accommodate that as best we can, both with personal assistance from long-term Wikipedians where possible, and also technical innovations like the draft template system we premiered this year.
Thanks, Pharos
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
I very much agree, Emily. I wonder if this time, perhaps all the (wonderful and timely) media coverage of Emily Temple Wood's efforts to create new articles may have influenced organizers and/or participants? Perhaps it created a bit of a consensus, conscious or unconscious, that *creating new articles* was the main desired result.
If so, this might be a bit of a one-time anomaly, may not indicate a need for major changes.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
In general, creating articles are very difficult. The learning curve is steep, and it may be best to have people expand/improve articles instead of creating them.
From, Emily On Mar 12, 2016 11:48 AM, "Ryan Kaldari" rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
I find it disappointing that so many of the Art and Feminism editathons end up focusing almost exclusively on creating new articles for artists at the hosting institution. Not only does this lead to a high percentage of the articles being deleted, but it's a waste of a huge opportunity to create and expand articles about artists and artworks with unquestionable notability and high encyclopedic value.
I have no doubt that many of the Art and Feminism articles that are nominated for deletion are nominated due to gender bias (as some of them seem rather trivial to find sources for and improve), but many of them are also legitimately on the notability borderline. At all of the Art and Feminism editathons that I've volunteered at, I've discouraged people from creating articles about people they knew personally, and encouraged them to use the lists at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks instead. If you are helping to run an Art and Feminism editathon, I would also suggest doing this, as it provides more value for Wikipedia and leads to fewer deletions. I would also like to encourage everyone to edit the lists at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks and help keep them full of good suggestions. Editathons are a great tool for addressing the gendergap, and I would hate for them to get a reputation for just being self-promotional events.
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Carol Moore dc < carolmooredc@verizon.net> wrote:
Someone should write a letter to the editor of the those 5 or 6 publications that came in my google alerts on the topic of the edit a thon. (Search news google to find them.) And of course deal with the few legtimate complaints and the trolls with nonsense complaints.
On 3/12/2016 10:17 AM, Neotarf wrote:
> All the articles created at Regina ArtAndFeminism event have been > tagged. Ten of them have been submitted for deletion. > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Regina/ArtAndFeminism_2016/Un... > > For example, see comments here: > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Risa_Horowitz > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, > please visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >
>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
It was mostly a passing impulse that I was worried about, and decided to express, just in case.
But since I'm currently semi-wikibonked, and you're actually participating in the discussions (thanks!), you probably know more than I do.
From, Emily
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Emily, could you elaborate on your reason for thinking sexist Wikipedians were a significant factor here? Having reviewed and engaged with several of the articles and AfDs under discussion, I don't see any reason for that. In my view, there were some unnecessarily unpleasant comments, but nothing that struck me as sexist. But if I've missed something, I'd like to know. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
Do you think the draft templates were the issue? Maybe I'm overly cynical, perhaps they advertised the fact that they were created by arts and feminism to sexist wikipedians.
From, Emily
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
This is actually the 3rd year of Art+Feminism, and the organizers' focus has consistently been on improving existing articles (particularly stubs!), as most appropriate to new Wikipedians, particularly at this scale of effort.
Of course some new Wikipedians are eager to start new articles, and we accommodate that as best we can, both with personal assistance from long-term Wikipedians where possible, and also technical innovations like the draft template system we premiered this year.
Thanks, Pharos
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
I very much agree, Emily. I wonder if this time, perhaps all the (wonderful and timely) media coverage of Emily Temple Wood's efforts to create new articles may have influenced organizers and/or participants? Perhaps it created a bit of a consensus, conscious or unconscious, that *creating new articles* was the main desired result.
If so, this might be a bit of a one-time anomaly, may not indicate a need for major changes.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
In general, creating articles are very difficult. The learning curve is steep, and it may be best to have people expand/improve articles instead of creating them.
From, Emily On Mar 12, 2016 11:48 AM, "Ryan Kaldari" rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
I find it disappointing that so many of the Art and Feminism editathons end up focusing almost exclusively on creating new articles for artists at the hosting institution. Not only does this lead to a high percentage of the articles being deleted, but it's a waste of a huge opportunity to create and expand articles about artists and artworks with unquestionable notability and high encyclopedic value.
I have no doubt that many of the Art and Feminism articles that are nominated for deletion are nominated due to gender bias (as some of them seem rather trivial to find sources for and improve), but many of them are also legitimately on the notability borderline. At all of the Art and Feminism editathons that I've volunteered at, I've discouraged people from creating articles about people they knew personally, and encouraged them to use the lists at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks instead. If you are helping to run an Art and Feminism editathon, I would also suggest doing this, as it provides more value for Wikipedia and leads to fewer deletions. I would also like to encourage everyone to edit the lists at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks and help keep them full of good suggestions. Editathons are a great tool for addressing the gendergap, and I would hate for them to get a reputation for just being self-promotional events.
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Carol Moore dc < carolmooredc@verizon.net> wrote:
> Someone should write a letter to the editor of the those 5 or 6 > publications that came in my google alerts on the topic of the edit a thon. > (Search news google to find them.) And of course deal with the few > legtimate complaints and the trolls with nonsense complaints. > > > On 3/12/2016 10:17 AM, Neotarf wrote: > >> All the articles created at Regina ArtAndFeminism event have been >> tagged. Ten of them have been submitted for deletion. >> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Regina/ArtAndFeminism_2016/Un... >> >> For example, see comments here: >> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Risa_Horowitz >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, >> please visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> >> > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, > please visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
it's hard to tell the privileged ignorance from the actively sexist. ultimately motive does not matter. the biting culture rejects what does not fit the stereotype just as associate professor is a delete me sign, so is "feminist" an editathon for newbies are SPA, and where one of the article subjects are present is COI it's all about the NPOV ethics. lol
and after 12 nominations maybe 2 deletions. we should expect this kind of push back from the cultural buzzsaw. our scrunity of the newbie work will be part of the editathon process. so it goes.
cheers
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 6:37 PM, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
It was mostly a passing impulse that I was worried about, and decided to express, just in case.
But since I'm currently semi-wikibonked, and you're actually participating in the discussions (thanks!), you probably know more than I do.
From, Emily
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Emily, could you elaborate on your reason for thinking sexist Wikipedians were a significant factor here? Having reviewed and engaged with several of the articles and AfDs under discussion, I don't see any reason for that. In my view, there were some unnecessarily unpleasant comments, but nothing that struck me as sexist. But if I've missed something, I'd like to know. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
Do you think the draft templates were the issue? Maybe I'm overly cynical, perhaps they advertised the fact that they were created by arts and feminism to sexist wikipedians.
From, Emily
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
This is actually the 3rd year of Art+Feminism, and the organizers' focus has consistently been on improving existing articles (particularly stubs!), as most appropriate to new Wikipedians, particularly at this scale of effort.
Of course some new Wikipedians are eager to start new articles, and we accommodate that as best we can, both with personal assistance from long-term Wikipedians where possible, and also technical innovations like the draft template system we premiered this year.
Thanks, Pharos
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
I very much agree, Emily. I wonder if this time, perhaps all the (wonderful and timely) media coverage of Emily Temple Wood's efforts to create new articles may have influenced organizers and/or participants? Perhaps it created a bit of a consensus, conscious or unconscious, that *creating new articles* was the main desired result.
If so, this might be a bit of a one-time anomaly, may not indicate a need for major changes.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Emily Monroe <emilymonroe03@gmail.com
wrote:
In general, creating articles are very difficult. The learning curve is steep, and it may be best to have people expand/improve articles instead of creating them.
From, Emily On Mar 12, 2016 11:48 AM, "Ryan Kaldari" rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
> I find it disappointing that so many of the Art and Feminism > editathons end up focusing almost exclusively on creating new articles for > artists at the hosting institution. Not only does this lead to a high > percentage of the articles being deleted, but it's a waste of a huge > opportunity to create and expand articles about artists and artworks with > unquestionable notability and high encyclopedic value. > > I have no doubt that many of the Art and Feminism articles that are > nominated for deletion are nominated due to gender bias (as some of them > seem rather trivial to find sources for and improve), but many of them are > also legitimately on the notability borderline. At all of the Art and > Feminism editathons that I've volunteered at, I've discouraged people from > creating articles about people they knew personally, and encouraged them to > use the lists at > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks > instead. If you are helping to run an Art and Feminism editathon, I would > also suggest doing this, as it provides more value for Wikipedia and leads > to fewer deletions. I would also like to encourage everyone to edit the > lists at > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks > and help keep them full of good suggestions. Editathons are a great tool > for addressing the gendergap, and I would hate for them to get a reputation > for just being self-promotional events. > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Carol Moore dc < > carolmooredc@verizon.net> wrote: > >> Someone should write a letter to the editor of the those 5 or 6 >> publications that came in my google alerts on the topic of the edit a thon. >> (Search news google to find them.) And of course deal with the few >> legtimate complaints and the trolls with nonsense complaints. >> >> >> On 3/12/2016 10:17 AM, Neotarf wrote: >> >>> All the articles created at Regina ArtAndFeminism event have been >>> tagged. Ten of them have been submitted for deletion. >>> >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Regina/ArtAndFeminism_2016/Un... >>> >>> For example, see comments here: >>> >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Risa_Horowitz >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gendergap mailing list >>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, >>> please visit: >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >>> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, >> please visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, > please visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Out of 12 deletion nominations for that group, the final result was one delete, one merge, and one draft moved to article space, plus some others created, for a net total of 19 articles.
A few new editors submitted draft articles for review. None of the submissions that went that route ended up as articles, and those new editors didn't receive any help, other than a rejection notice on a template.
Wikimedia Blog has a post about the event. https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/03/24/art-feminism-editathon/
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 9:22 PM, J Hayes slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
it's hard to tell the privileged ignorance from the actively sexist. ultimately motive does not matter. the biting culture rejects what does not fit the stereotype just as associate professor is a delete me sign, so is "feminist" an editathon for newbies are SPA, and where one of the article subjects are present is COI it's all about the NPOV ethics. lol
and after 12 nominations maybe 2 deletions. we should expect this kind of push back from the cultural buzzsaw. our scrunity of the newbie work will be part of the editathon process. so it goes.
cheers
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 6:37 PM, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
It was mostly a passing impulse that I was worried about, and decided to express, just in case.
But since I'm currently semi-wikibonked, and you're actually participating in the discussions (thanks!), you probably know more than I do.
From, Emily
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Emily, could you elaborate on your reason for thinking sexist Wikipedians were a significant factor here? Having reviewed and engaged with several of the articles and AfDs under discussion, I don't see any reason for that. In my view, there were some unnecessarily unpleasant comments, but nothing that struck me as sexist. But if I've missed something, I'd like to know. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
Do you think the draft templates were the issue? Maybe I'm overly cynical, perhaps they advertised the fact that they were created by arts and feminism to sexist wikipedians.
From, Emily
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
This is actually the 3rd year of Art+Feminism, and the organizers' focus has consistently been on improving existing articles (particularly stubs!), as most appropriate to new Wikipedians, particularly at this scale of effort.
Of course some new Wikipedians are eager to start new articles, and we accommodate that as best we can, both with personal assistance from long-term Wikipedians where possible, and also technical innovations like the draft template system we premiered this year.
Thanks, Pharos
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
I very much agree, Emily. I wonder if this time, perhaps all the (wonderful and timely) media coverage of Emily Temple Wood's efforts to create new articles may have influenced organizers and/or participants? Perhaps it created a bit of a consensus, conscious or unconscious, that *creating new articles* was the main desired result.
If so, this might be a bit of a one-time anomaly, may not indicate a need for major changes.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Emily Monroe < emilymonroe03@gmail.com> wrote:
> In general, creating articles are very difficult. The learning curve > is steep, and it may be best to have people expand/improve articles instead > of creating them. > > From, > Emily > On Mar 12, 2016 11:48 AM, "Ryan Kaldari" rkaldari@wikimedia.org > wrote: > >> I find it disappointing that so many of the Art and Feminism >> editathons end up focusing almost exclusively on creating new articles for >> artists at the hosting institution. Not only does this lead to a high >> percentage of the articles being deleted, but it's a waste of a huge >> opportunity to create and expand articles about artists and artworks with >> unquestionable notability and high encyclopedic value. >> >> I have no doubt that many of the Art and Feminism articles that are >> nominated for deletion are nominated due to gender bias (as some of them >> seem rather trivial to find sources for and improve), but many of them are >> also legitimately on the notability borderline. At all of the Art and >> Feminism editathons that I've volunteered at, I've discouraged people from >> creating articles about people they knew personally, and encouraged them to >> use the lists at >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks >> instead. If you are helping to run an Art and Feminism editathon, I would >> also suggest doing this, as it provides more value for Wikipedia and leads >> to fewer deletions. I would also like to encourage everyone to edit the >> lists at >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks >> and help keep them full of good suggestions. Editathons are a great tool >> for addressing the gendergap, and I would hate for them to get a reputation >> for just being self-promotional events. >> >> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Carol Moore dc < >> carolmooredc@verizon.net> wrote: >> >>> Someone should write a letter to the editor of the those 5 or 6 >>> publications that came in my google alerts on the topic of the edit a thon. >>> (Search news google to find them.) And of course deal with the few >>> legtimate complaints and the trolls with nonsense complaints. >>> >>> >>> On 3/12/2016 10:17 AM, Neotarf wrote: >>> >>>> All the articles created at Regina ArtAndFeminism event have been >>>> tagged. Ten of them have been submitted for deletion. >>>> >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Regina/ArtAndFeminism_2016/Un... >>>> >>>> For example, see comments here: >>>> >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Risa_Horowitz >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gendergap mailing list >>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, >>>> please visit: >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>>> >>>> >>> --- >>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus >>> software. >>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gendergap mailing list >>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, >>> please visit: >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, >> please visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, > please visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap