Dear readers of the gender gap mailing list,
My name is Lukas and I am a German Wikipedian (User:Gnom).
I recently wrote a blog post on Wikipedia and feminism https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Gnom/Blog#2_April_2015:_A_blog_post_on_Wikipedia_and_feminism. and was encouraged to share it with this list.
As I am very new to the gender gap debate, I would appreciate your comments. Regards,
Lukas Mezger
This part of the "we" of Wikipedians...me..wants feminist to edit Wikipedia, as well as people who want to solely add articles about women.
What I ask of you is to stand back so that those of us who are interested in creating an inclusive editing community can do so without being hindered. Because there is simply no way that Wikipedia's content can be neutral without a large and inclusive body of people creating it.
Warm regards, Sydney Poore User:FloNight On Apr 9, 2015 10:27 AM, "Lukas Mezger (Wikipedia)" < lukas.mezger@wikipedia.de> wrote:
Dear readers of the gender gap mailing list,
My name is Lukas and I am a German Wikipedian (User:Gnom).
I recently wrote a blog post on Wikipedia and feminism https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Gnom/Blog#2_April_2015:_A_blog_post_on_Wikipedia_and_feminism. and was encouraged to share it with this list.
As I am very new to the gender gap debate, I would appreciate your comments. Regards,
Lukas Mezger
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
nice wiki-splaining - the problem with your thesis: "
*What we don't need, however, is more feminists."* is labeling and the double standard of "civility enforcement"
as Djembayz said at Signpost: "the rules on Wikipedia are not clear, the enforcement on disruptive behavior is arbitrary or non-existent. Online game players, vulgarians, and sea-lioning http://simplikation.com/why-sealioning-is-bad/ randos who congregate here can be as disruptive and outrageous as they wish, with impunity. They don't care, because they don't have to."
until the systemic bias in "civility enforcement" is dealt with, your thesis will be a dead letter with me.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote:
This part of the "we" of Wikipedians...me..wants feminist to edit Wikipedia, as well as people who want to solely add articles about women.
What I ask of you is to stand back so that those of us who are interested in creating an inclusive editing community can do so without being hindered. Because there is simply no way that Wikipedia's content can be neutral without a large and inclusive body of people creating it.
Warm regards, Sydney Poore User:FloNight On Apr 9, 2015 10:27 AM, "Lukas Mezger (Wikipedia)" < lukas.mezger@wikipedia.de> wrote:
Dear readers of the gender gap mailing list,
My name is Lukas and I am a German Wikipedian (User:Gnom).
I recently wrote a blog post on Wikipedia and feminism https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Gnom/Blog#2_April_2015:_A_blog_post_on_Wikipedia_and_feminism. and was encouraged to share it with this list.
As I am very new to the gender gap debate, I would appreciate your comments. Regards,
Lukas Mezger
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 find the entire premise of this essay to be a bit misguided. Do we really need to worry about tamping down the trickle of feminists editing art articles on Wikipedia? There are easily ten times more men's rights activists editing Wikipedia than feminists, and they actively organize off-wiki to subvert NPOV. Why does no one care about that? Why not write a blog post about men's rights activists running meat-puppet campaigns and trying to white-wash articles about rape and domestic violence? If anything, having a handful of feminists on Wikipedia might serve to keep them in check.
"Also, don't revise existing articles because you feel there is a male bias in them." This is terrible advice. For example, I significantly revised the "dating" article a few years ago because it had an obvious male bias and seemed to be intended only for a male audience. Why should people leave articles with a male bias? NPOV doesn't mean leave articles with whatever bias they started with.
Also, I find it strange that your article implies that feminists can't write from a neutral point of view. Feminism is about equality of the sexes and opposing stereotypes and biases. It isn't about making women look better than men or excluding the male point of view. I think feminists make great Wikipedia editors. Look at Adrianne Wadewitz: 37 featured articles! I would gladly take 1000 more Adrianne Wadewitzs as Wikipedia editors!
Kaldari
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 8:23 AM, J Hayes slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
nice wiki-splaining - the problem with your thesis: "
*What we don't need, however, is more feminists."* is labeling and the double standard of "civility enforcement"
as Djembayz said at Signpost: "the rules on Wikipedia are not clear, the enforcement on disruptive behavior is arbitrary or non-existent. Online game players, vulgarians, and sea-lioning http://simplikation.com/why-sealioning-is-bad/ randos who congregate here can be as disruptive and outrageous as they wish, with impunity. They don't care, because they don't have to."
until the systemic bias in "civility enforcement" is dealt with, your thesis will be a dead letter with me.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote:
This part of the "we" of Wikipedians...me..wants feminist to edit Wikipedia, as well as people who want to solely add articles about women.
What I ask of you is to stand back so that those of us who are interested in creating an inclusive editing community can do so without being hindered. Because there is simply no way that Wikipedia's content can be neutral without a large and inclusive body of people creating it.
Warm regards, Sydney Poore User:FloNight On Apr 9, 2015 10:27 AM, "Lukas Mezger (Wikipedia)" < lukas.mezger@wikipedia.de> wrote:
Dear readers of the gender gap mailing list,
My name is Lukas and I am a German Wikipedian (User:Gnom).
I recently wrote a blog post on Wikipedia and feminism https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Gnom/Blog#2_April_2015:_A_blog_post_on_Wikipedia_and_feminism. and was encouraged to share it with this list.
As I am very new to the gender gap debate, I would appreciate your comments. Regards,
Lukas Mezger
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
"Well, if you want to write articles about French women painters, go ahead. But you shouldn't do it just because you want more articles about women on Wikipedia."
Why not? Nobody says this to the people who write articles about trains or video games.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
I find the entire premise of this essay to be a bit misguided. Do we really need to worry about tamping down the trickle of feminists editing art articles on Wikipedia? There are easily ten times more men's rights activists editing Wikipedia than feminists, and they actively organize off-wiki to subvert NPOV. Why does no one care about that? Why not write a blog post about men's rights activists running meat-puppet campaigns and trying to white-wash articles about rape and domestic violence? If anything, having a handful of feminists on Wikipedia might serve to keep them in check.
"Also, don't revise existing articles because you feel there is a male bias in them." This is terrible advice. For example, I significantly revised the "dating" article a few years ago because it had an obvious male bias and seemed to be intended only for a male audience. Why should people leave articles with a male bias? NPOV doesn't mean leave articles with whatever bias they started with.
Also, I find it strange that your article implies that feminists can't write from a neutral point of view. Feminism is about equality of the sexes and opposing stereotypes and biases. It isn't about making women look better than men or excluding the male point of view. I think feminists make great Wikipedia editors. Look at Adrianne Wadewitz: 37 featured articles! I would gladly take 1000 more Adrianne Wadewitzs as Wikipedia editors!
Kaldari
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 8:23 AM, J Hayes slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
nice wiki-splaining - the problem with your thesis: "What we don't need, however, is more feminists."
is labeling and the double standard of "civility enforcement"
as Djembayz said at Signpost: "the rules on Wikipedia are not clear, the enforcement on disruptive behavior is arbitrary or non-existent. Online game players, vulgarians, and sea-lioning randos who congregate here can be as disruptive and outrageous as they wish, with impunity. They don't care, because they don't have to."
until the systemic bias in "civility enforcement" is dealt with, your thesis will be a dead letter with me.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote:
This part of the "we" of Wikipedians...me..wants feminist to edit Wikipedia, as well as people who want to solely add articles about women.
What I ask of you is to stand back so that those of us who are interested in creating an inclusive editing community can do so without being hindered. Because there is simply no way that Wikipedia's content can be neutral without a large and inclusive body of people creating it.
Warm regards, Sydney Poore User:FloNight
On Apr 9, 2015 10:27 AM, "Lukas Mezger (Wikipedia)" lukas.mezger@wikipedia.de wrote:
Dear readers of the gender gap mailing list,
My name is Lukas and I am a German Wikipedian (User:Gnom).
I recently wrote a blog post on Wikipedia and feminism and was encouraged to share it with this list.
As I am very new to the gender gap debate, I would appreciate your comments. Regards,
Lukas Mezger
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
Well said, Kaldari.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
I find the entire premise of this essay to be a bit misguided. Do we really need to worry about tamping down the trickle of feminists editing art articles on Wikipedia? There are easily ten times more men's rights activists editing Wikipedia than feminists, and they actively organize off-wiki to subvert NPOV. Why does no one care about that? Why not write a blog post about men's rights activists running meat-puppet campaigns and trying to white-wash articles about rape and domestic violence? If anything, having a handful of feminists on Wikipedia might serve to keep them in check.
"Also, don't revise existing articles because you feel there is a male bias in them." This is terrible advice. For example, I significantly revised the "dating" article a few years ago because it had an obvious male bias and seemed to be intended only for a male audience. Why should people leave articles with a male bias? NPOV doesn't mean leave articles with whatever bias they started with.
Also, I find it strange that your article implies that feminists can't write from a neutral point of view. Feminism is about equality of the sexes and opposing stereotypes and biases. It isn't about making women look better than men or excluding the male point of view. I think feminists make great Wikipedia editors. Look at Adrianne Wadewitz: 37 featured articles! I would gladly take 1000 more Adrianne Wadewitzs as Wikipedia editors!
Kaldari
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 8:23 AM, J Hayes slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
nice wiki-splaining - the problem with your thesis: "
*What we don't need, however, is more feminists."* is labeling and the double standard of "civility enforcement"
as Djembayz said at Signpost: "the rules on Wikipedia are not clear, the enforcement on disruptive behavior is arbitrary or non-existent. Online game players, vulgarians, and sea-lioning http://simplikation.com/why-sealioning-is-bad/ randos who congregate here can be as disruptive and outrageous as they wish, with impunity. They don't care, because they don't have to."
until the systemic bias in "civility enforcement" is dealt with, your thesis will be a dead letter with me.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote:
This part of the "we" of Wikipedians...me..wants feminist to edit Wikipedia, as well as people who want to solely add articles about women.
What I ask of you is to stand back so that those of us who are interested in creating an inclusive editing community can do so without being hindered. Because there is simply no way that Wikipedia's content can be neutral without a large and inclusive body of people creating it.
Warm regards, Sydney Poore User:FloNight On Apr 9, 2015 10:27 AM, "Lukas Mezger (Wikipedia)" < lukas.mezger@wikipedia.de> wrote:
Dear readers of the gender gap mailing list,
My name is Lukas and I am a German Wikipedian (User:Gnom).
I recently wrote a blog post on Wikipedia and feminism https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Gnom/Blog#2_April_2015:_A_blog_post_on_Wikipedia_and_feminism. and was encouraged to share it with this list.
As I am very new to the gender gap debate, I would appreciate your comments. Regards,
Lukas Mezger
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
The essay is written with the right ideas in mind, which is good, but it contains what I believe is a false dichotomy between the "social agenda" of feminism and ensuring women are treated and represented fairly; you say that feminism does not belong on Wikipedia, yet also recommend that we pursue feminist goals. One example is "Also, don't revise existing articles because you feel there is a male bias in them. You can, however, do it to improve the article's neutrality." -- editing articles to remove male bias (assuming they really are biased) is the same thing as editing them to improve their neutrality, so you can't advise against one and recommend the other. One key to this lies in the statement that there is no reward for work on Wikipedia. In fact, editors are often praised for their work and/or given various technical privileges, and one can gain power and influence wiki-society even without those privileges; Wikipedia is also a very popular website that ranks highly in Google, so our article writing can influence society in general as well. The other key is that one can write neutrally about topics one is interested in, and topics one is interested in are easier -- and, well, more interesting -- to write about than others, so we shouldn't forbid such writing. We can't be the Thought Police.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Keilana keilanawiki@gmail.com wrote:
Well said, Kaldari.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
I find the entire premise of this essay to be a bit misguided. Do we really need to worry about tamping down the trickle of feminists editing art articles on Wikipedia? There are easily ten times more men's rights activists editing Wikipedia than feminists, and they actively organize off-wiki to subvert NPOV. Why does no one care about that? Why not write a blog post about men's rights activists running meat-puppet campaigns and trying to white-wash articles about rape and domestic violence? If anything, having a handful of feminists on Wikipedia might serve to keep them in check.
"Also, don't revise existing articles because you feel there is a male bias in them." This is terrible advice. For example, I significantly revised the "dating" article a few years ago because it had an obvious male bias and seemed to be intended only for a male audience. Why should people leave articles with a male bias? NPOV doesn't mean leave articles with whatever bias they started with.
Also, I find it strange that your article implies that feminists can't write from a neutral point of view. Feminism is about equality of the sexes and opposing stereotypes and biases. It isn't about making women look better than men or excluding the male point of view. I think feminists make great Wikipedia editors. Look at Adrianne Wadewitz: 37 featured articles! I would gladly take 1000 more Adrianne Wadewitzs as Wikipedia editors!
Kaldari
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 8:23 AM, J Hayes slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
nice wiki-splaining - the problem with your thesis: "
*What we don't need, however, is more feminists."* is labeling and the double standard of "civility enforcement"
as Djembayz said at Signpost: "the rules on Wikipedia are not clear, the enforcement on disruptive behavior is arbitrary or non-existent. Online game players, vulgarians, and sea-lioning http://simplikation.com/why-sealioning-is-bad/ randos who congregate here can be as disruptive and outrageous as they wish, with impunity. They don't care, because they don't have to."
until the systemic bias in "civility enforcement" is dealt with, your thesis will be a dead letter with me.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote:
This part of the "we" of Wikipedians...me..wants feminist to edit Wikipedia, as well as people who want to solely add articles about women.
What I ask of you is to stand back so that those of us who are interested in creating an inclusive editing community can do so without being hindered. Because there is simply no way that Wikipedia's content can be neutral without a large and inclusive body of people creating it.
Warm regards, Sydney Poore User:FloNight On Apr 9, 2015 10:27 AM, "Lukas Mezger (Wikipedia)" < lukas.mezger@wikipedia.de> wrote:
Dear readers of the gender gap mailing list,
My name is Lukas and I am a German Wikipedian (User:Gnom).
I recently wrote a blog post on Wikipedia and feminism https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Gnom/Blog#2_April_2015:_A_blog_post_on_Wikipedia_and_feminism. and was encouraged to share it with this list.
As I am very new to the gender gap debate, I would appreciate your comments. Regards,
Lukas Mezger
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
Yes, and its patronizing to write a blog post about NPOV policy directed at the community members who organize community outreach events for feminists.
Especially condescending towards art+feminism community organizers who brilliantly executed a well thought out plan that included pre-event training materials and sessions, as well as materials to be used the day of the event.
Maybe, we could assume that the people planning the events understand Wikipedia policy and don't need to be schooled about basic policy.
The blog portrays the attitude that feminists who plan events are not true members of the community and need special scrutiny to keep them from ruining content.
This is exactly the type of attitude that makes Wikipedia an unwelcoming place for people who are not part of the dominant demographic group or are newcomers with enthusiasm for improving Wikipedia.
Sydney User:FloNight On Apr 9, 2015 2:30 PM, "Ryan Kaldari" rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
I find the entire premise of this essay to be a bit misguided. Do we really need to worry about tamping down the trickle of feminists editing art articles on Wikipedia? There are easily ten times more men's rights activists editing Wikipedia than feminists, and they actively organize off-wiki to subvert NPOV. Why does no one care about that? Why not write a blog post about men's rights activists running meat-puppet campaigns and trying to white-wash articles about rape and domestic violence? If anything, having a handful of feminists on Wikipedia might serve to keep them in check.
"Also, don't revise existing articles because you feel there is a male bias in them." This is terrible advice. For example, I significantly revised the "dating" article a few years ago because it had an obvious male bias and seemed to be intended only for a male audience. Why should people leave articles with a male bias? NPOV doesn't mean leave articles with whatever bias they started with.
Also, I find it strange that your article implies that feminists can't write from a neutral point of view. Feminism is about equality of the sexes and opposing stereotypes and biases. It isn't about making women look better than men or excluding the male point of view. I think feminists make great Wikipedia editors. Look at Adrianne Wadewitz: 37 featured articles! I would gladly take 1000 more Adrianne Wadewitzs as Wikipedia editors!
Kaldari
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 8:23 AM, J Hayes slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
nice wiki-splaining - the problem with your thesis: "
*What we don't need, however, is more feminists."* is labeling and the double standard of "civility enforcement"
as Djembayz said at Signpost: "the rules on Wikipedia are not clear, the enforcement on disruptive behavior is arbitrary or non-existent. Online game players, vulgarians, and sea-lioning http://simplikation.com/why-sealioning-is-bad/ randos who congregate here can be as disruptive and outrageous as they wish, with impunity. They don't care, because they don't have to."
until the systemic bias in "civility enforcement" is dealt with, your thesis will be a dead letter with me.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote:
This part of the "we" of Wikipedians...me..wants feminist to edit Wikipedia, as well as people who want to solely add articles about women.
What I ask of you is to stand back so that those of us who are interested in creating an inclusive editing community can do so without being hindered. Because there is simply no way that Wikipedia's content can be neutral without a large and inclusive body of people creating it.
Warm regards, Sydney Poore User:FloNight On Apr 9, 2015 10:27 AM, "Lukas Mezger (Wikipedia)" < lukas.mezger@wikipedia.de> wrote:
Dear readers of the gender gap mailing list,
My name is Lukas and I am a German Wikipedian (User:Gnom).
I recently wrote a blog post on Wikipedia and feminism https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Gnom/Blog#2_April_2015:_A_blog_post_on_Wikipedia_and_feminism. and was encouraged to share it with this list.
As I am very new to the gender gap debate, I would appreciate your comments. Regards,
Lukas Mezger
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
Thanks for your very eloquent response, Sydney, I strongly second that thought.
Amy On Apr 9, 2015 3:29 PM, "Sydney Poore" sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, and its patronizing to write a blog post about NPOV policy directed at the community members who organize community outreach events for feminists.
Especially condescending towards art+feminism community organizers who brilliantly executed a well thought out plan that included pre-event training materials and sessions, as well as materials to be used the day of the event.
Maybe, we could assume that the people planning the events understand Wikipedia policy and don't need to be schooled about basic policy.
The blog portrays the attitude that feminists who plan events are not true members of the community and need special scrutiny to keep them from ruining content.
This is exactly the type of attitude that makes Wikipedia an unwelcoming place for people who are not part of the dominant demographic group or are newcomers with enthusiasm for improving Wikipedia.
Sydney User:FloNight On Apr 9, 2015 2:30 PM, "Ryan Kaldari" rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
I find the entire premise of this essay to be a bit misguided. Do we really need to worry about tamping down the trickle of feminists editing art articles on Wikipedia? There are easily ten times more men's rights activists editing Wikipedia than feminists, and they actively organize off-wiki to subvert NPOV. Why does no one care about that? Why not write a blog post about men's rights activists running meat-puppet campaigns and trying to white-wash articles about rape and domestic violence? If anything, having a handful of feminists on Wikipedia might serve to keep them in check.
"Also, don't revise existing articles because you feel there is a male bias in them." This is terrible advice. For example, I significantly revised the "dating" article a few years ago because it had an obvious male bias and seemed to be intended only for a male audience. Why should people leave articles with a male bias? NPOV doesn't mean leave articles with whatever bias they started with.
Also, I find it strange that your article implies that feminists can't write from a neutral point of view. Feminism is about equality of the sexes and opposing stereotypes and biases. It isn't about making women look better than men or excluding the male point of view. I think feminists make great Wikipedia editors. Look at Adrianne Wadewitz: 37 featured articles! I would gladly take 1000 more Adrianne Wadewitzs as Wikipedia editors!
Kaldari
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 8:23 AM, J Hayes slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
nice wiki-splaining - the problem with your thesis: "
*What we don't need, however, is more feminists."* is labeling and the double standard of "civility enforcement"
as Djembayz said at Signpost: "the rules on Wikipedia are not clear, the enforcement on disruptive behavior is arbitrary or non-existent. Online game players, vulgarians, and sea-lioning http://simplikation.com/why-sealioning-is-bad/ randos who congregate here can be as disruptive and outrageous as they wish, with impunity. They don't care, because they don't have to."
until the systemic bias in "civility enforcement" is dealt with, your thesis will be a dead letter with me.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote:
This part of the "we" of Wikipedians...me..wants feminist to edit Wikipedia, as well as people who want to solely add articles about women.
What I ask of you is to stand back so that those of us who are interested in creating an inclusive editing community can do so without being hindered. Because there is simply no way that Wikipedia's content can be neutral without a large and inclusive body of people creating it.
Warm regards, Sydney Poore User:FloNight On Apr 9, 2015 10:27 AM, "Lukas Mezger (Wikipedia)" < lukas.mezger@wikipedia.de> wrote:
Dear readers of the gender gap mailing list,
My name is Lukas and I am a German Wikipedian (User:Gnom).
I recently wrote a blog post on Wikipedia and feminism https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Gnom/Blog#2_April_2015:_A_blog_post_on_Wikipedia_and_feminism. and was encouraged to share it with this list.
As I am very new to the gender gap debate, I would appreciate your comments. Regards,
Lukas Mezger
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
What part of which definition of feminism does Lukas have a problem with?
* "Merriam Webster http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism": /the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities/ * "Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feminism": /the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men/ * "Oxford Dictionaries http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/feminism": /The advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men./ * "Cambridge Dictionary http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/feminism": /an organized effort to give women the same economic, social, and political rights as men/ * "En.Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism: /Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women/
By these dictionary definitions, there are very few women who are NOT feminists! (Except perhaps the girlfriends, wives and clueless supporters of certain wikipedia trolls.)
CM
On 4/9/2015 5:32 PM, Lika Tika wrote:
Thanks for your very eloquent response, Sydney, I strongly second that thought.
Amy
On Apr 9, 2015 3:29 PM, "Sydney Poore" <sydney.poore@gmail.com mailto:sydney.poore@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, and its patronizing to write a blog post about NPOV policy directed at the community members who organize community outreach events for feminists. Especially condescending towards art+feminism community organizers who brilliantly executed a well thought out plan that included pre-event training materials and sessions, as well as materials to be used the day of the event. Maybe, we could assume that the people planning the events understand Wikipedia policy and don't need to be schooled about basic policy. The blog portrays the attitude that feminists who plan events are not true members of the community and need special scrutiny to keep them from ruining content. This is exactly the type of attitude that makes Wikipedia an unwelcoming place for people who are not part of the dominant demographic group or are newcomers with enthusiasm for improving Wikipedia. Sydney User:FloNight On Apr 9, 2015 2:30 PM, "Ryan Kaldari" <rkaldari@wikimedia.org <mailto:rkaldari@wikimedia.org>> wrote: I find the entire premise of this essay to be a bit misguided. Do we really need to worry about tamping down the trickle of feminists editing art articles on Wikipedia? There are easily ten times more men's rights activists editing Wikipedia than feminists, and they actively organize off-wiki to subvert NPOV. Why does no one care about that? Why not write a blog post about men's rights activists running meat-puppet campaigns and trying to white-wash articles about rape and domestic violence? If anything, having a handful of feminists on Wikipedia might serve to keep them in check. "Also, don't revise existing articles because you feel there is a male bias in them." This is terrible advice. For example, I significantly revised the "dating" article a few years ago because it had an obvious male bias and seemed to be intended only for a male audience. Why should people leave articles with a male bias? NPOV doesn't mean leave articles with whatever bias they started with. Also, I find it strange that your article implies that feminists can't write from a neutral point of view. Feminism is about equality of the sexes and opposing stereotypes and biases. It isn't about making women look better than men or excluding the male point of view. I think feminists make great Wikipedia editors. Look at Adrianne Wadewitz: 37 featured articles! I would gladly take 1000 more Adrianne Wadewitzs as Wikipedia editors! Kaldari On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 8:23 AM, J Hayes <slowking4@gmail.com <mailto:slowking4@gmail.com>> wrote: nice wiki-splaining - the problem with your thesis: "*What we don't need, however, is more feminists." * is labeling and the double standard of "civility enforcement" as Djembayz said at Signpost: "the rules on Wikipedia are not clear, the enforcement on disruptive behavior is arbitrary or non-existent. Online game players, vulgarians, and sea-lioning <http://simplikation.com/why-sealioning-is-bad/> randos who congregate here can be as disruptive and outrageous as they wish, with impunity. They don't care, because they don't have to." until the systemic bias in "civility enforcement" is dealt with, your thesis will be a dead letter with me. On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Sydney Poore <sydney.poore@gmail.com <mailto:sydney.poore@gmail.com>> wrote: This part of the "we" of Wikipedians...me..wants feminist to edit Wikipedia, as well as people who want to solely add articles about women. What I ask of you is to stand back so that those of us who are interested in creating an inclusive editing community can do so without being hindered. Because there is simply no way that Wikipedia's content can be neutral without a large and inclusive body of people creating it. Warm regards, Sydney Poore User:FloNight On Apr 9, 2015 10:27 AM, "Lukas Mezger (Wikipedia)" <lukas.mezger@wikipedia.de <mailto:lukas.mezger@wikipedia.de>> wrote: Dear readers of the gender gap mailing list, My name is Lukas and I am a German Wikipedian (User:Gnom). I recently wrote a blog post on Wikipedia and feminism <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Gnom/Blog#2_April_2015:_A_blog_post_on_Wikipedia_and_feminism.> and was encouraged to share it with this list. As I am very new to the gender gap debate, I would appreciate your comments. Regards, Lukas Mezger _
Like others, I was somewhat uncomfortable with the thoughts expressed, especially about feminists not being welcome. However, I would make a couple of comments.
I believe that what I read is an English translation of the original which was presumably written in German. Therefore, it is likely that the chosen English words in the translation might not have the same nuance as the original German words. We should be very careful to not to focus on individual words and phrases but rather focus on the overall sentiment.
I agree that anyone who is passionate about a topic (whether it is trains, vaccination or feminism) can operate very close to the POV/NPOV boundary. And, at times, that passion (particularly if opposed or thwarted) can radicalise people into crusading, where they believe the "rightness" of their cause entitles them to disregard laws and other social norms in the pursuit of their cause.
Wikipedia is a worldwide community. There are some countries in which the equal rights of women are part of our laws, but this is not true in all countries. For those of us women fortunate to live in a country where our rights are enshrined in law, it is easy for us to believe that equality of women is a fundamental principle. But in other countries where the equal rights of women are not part of the laws of that country, feminism may well be regarded as a dangerous point of view threatening societal well-being. Given that, the boundary of POV/NOV in relation to feminist issues is probably pretty blurred when taking a world view of the matter (a comment that can be made about the POV/NPOV boundary in relation to many topics, of course).
So, all of that said, I agree that we should all be here first and foremost because we want to give free access to every single person on the plant to the sum of all human knowledge, and not as feminist crusaders just here "to make our point" or "bend others to our will".
Having said that, I think you can be a good Wikipedian and a feminist at the same time and I'd like to think I was one of them. As a feminist Wikipedian, I believe I am free to write (as I do) on a range of topics, some of them on topics that are "gendered" (some male, some female) and many "ungendered" topics. I don't believe being a feminist obligates me to write exclusively on "feminist" or even "female" topics. And, indeed, I think it might be good for all of us to spend time writing on a range of topics outside our particular passions, particularly if your favourite topics are becoming a battleground for whatever reason. If some topic area is making you angry, take some time out and compile a list of fish species for the article on your local river, take some photos of your town hall and public buildings for your hometown article, etc. The sum of all human knowledge is a pretty big topic; there's always plenty of ways we can add to it, if that is our genuine motivation for being here.
Kerry, about to upload a few hometown photos to Commons (I've been having a bit of a bad day :-))
I think it would be better to drop, or tone down the bit about: "But stay away if your actions are in any way motivated by a certain interest, or worse, a social agenda."
We want expert editors and that's not possible if they are being pushed away. Maybe consider re-writing it to promote the idea that editor training/on-line help should address the barrier of how to write from a neutral point of view, even if your motivation is as an activist.
P.S. I speak from the experience of getting banned when trying to do something about LGBT content and being naive about how best to handle on-line harassment (which you cannot call "sexist" or "homophobic" on Wikipedia, even when in any other forum it would be considered blatantly so, without that bouncing back on you as bad faith).
Fae
On 9 April 2015 at 00:08, Lukas Mezger (Wikipedia) lukas.mezger@wikipedia.de wrote:
Dear readers of the gender gap mailing list,
My name is Lukas and I am a German Wikipedian (User:Gnom).
I recently wrote a blog post on Wikipedia and feminism and was encouraged to share it with this list.
As I am very new to the gender gap debate, I would appreciate your comments. Regards,
Lukas Mezger
I suggest we part this thread. Lukas asked for feedback, which was a very sensible thing to do, so "A" for effort. :-)
I would hope that other Wikimedians writing diversity related posts think of testing them out on Gendergap and similar lists, before committing to publication.
From a brief correspondence on Twitter, it looks like Lukas realizes
the blog post was a mistake. I have suggested he takes a break from it, perhaps thinking about a different direction on the area next week.
Thanks, Fae
For the benefit of Lukas' possible rewrite:
You mention feminism as though there is only one kind of feminism. You might like to fick through the different forms of feminism which exist, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_theory#See_also some of which oppose one another (for instance liberal feminism v. difference feminism).
...also.
This is an exchange which I had with a male editor about the future scope of the gender gap project.
The male editor suggested: "To my eyes, the best way to determine what, if any, content this group should deal with is by maybe starting an RfC about it, and asking particularly women what kind of content they think is underrepresented, or tilted to one side, or whatever, and making some sort of effort to correct that imbanalance. Fashion, cookery, domestic affairs, childrearing, and any number of other topics beyond feminism may be just as, or maybe even more, important to more women editors than feminism."
I replied saying: "It is interesting that on the talk page of a task force whose scope is already clearly defined as: "...to address all the ways in which the gender gap affects the position of women on Wikipedia, and their absence from it, as article subjects, editors, and readers. ..." that the examples you gave did not include science, business, filmmaking, politics etc. but instead focused on an extremely narrow and old-fashioned, traditional view of women's roles."
The same male editor then pursued me to my talk page: "Let me be blunt here. Your regular, almost paranoic, aspersions on others who do not share your obvious bias regarding the GGTF being primarily a means to promote feminism comes across to me, and I imagine others, as being almost childish, rather immature, and frankly counterproductive. Please reas WP:AGF and realize that it is possible, however fervently you might apparently believe otherwise, that people can legitimately disagree with your opinions and not be anti-feminist. And, yes, as I said on the talk page in question, the purpose of the task force was to increase the participation of women of all sorts, not just radical feminists like you apparently are. And, also, at some point, you might want to look over the various pages of Bibliography of encyclopedias and see that I have added several entries there which apparently relate to women which do not necessarily show the radical anti-feminist bias you so strongly and obviously indicate is shared by anyone who doesn't want to see the GGTF become the "feminist WikiProject" in all but name. Frankly, I can honestly say that there are some other women who are active editors who do not share your personal biases and I have to think that if they see the comments and discussion at the GGTF talk page they may well become even perhaps a bit more disinterested or even opposed to the group than they might already be."
I replied on his talk page: "Science, business, filmmaking and politics are not 'feminist' interests. They are simply interests, and it is not 'paranoia' to suggest so."
He replied on my talk page (note - my user name includes the word "Feminist"): "Responding to your post on my user talk page, I think you will notice that I did not disagree with that statement, although your own comments seem to willfully denigate the possibility that women could be interested in topics of "traditional" interest to women. And it is not unreasonble to point out to you that your clear bias, as indicated by your user name, and your repeated unfounded insinuations regarding the motivations and thinking of others does clearly at least seem to border on the paranoic. While your comment on my user talk page makes it rather obvious that you either don't read what others say, or possibly, somewhat self-righteously(?) jump to conclusions and assume that your telepathy makes it possible for you to devise what they are "really" thinking, I have to say that much of your conduct and commentary of late seems to me anyway to be blindly biased in favor of a clearly feminist ideology. Maybe you could make more of an effort to actually read and address them, rather than try to spin everything, including the comments of others, to somehow perhaps reflect a feminist perspective in accord with your own."
My answer: "Two days ago, to a new editor I said, "I've no issue with you or any other editor wanting to concentrate on articles that may be considered feminine. For me this is about articles and edits that end up having to navigate a sniper's alley whilst other articles and edits get safe passage." I also said, two days ago, "All threads started by GGTF participants are relevant to GGTF by the virtue of having been started by one of the project's participants." If I were POV pushing I would have said "Anything outside of radical feminism is irrelevant to the project." I don't believe that and I have never, ever said it.
All I said to you was that it was "interesting that your list of what you consider "topics of female interest" was entirely made of domesticity. FYI, I am not a 'radical' feminist (in what way does my signature show that?). I am a socialist feminist. Perhaps it is you who need to read properly and need to examine your own paranoia instead of constantly trying rehash the project's scope."
Marie
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 02:07:05 +0100 From: faewik@gmail.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia and Feminism.
I suggest we part this thread. Lukas asked for feedback, which was a very sensible thing to do, so "A" for effort. :-)
I would hope that other Wikimedians writing diversity related posts think of testing them out on Gendergap and similar lists, before committing to publication.
From a brief correspondence on Twitter, it looks like Lukas realizes the blog post was a mistake. I have suggested he takes a break from it, perhaps thinking about a different direction on the area next week.
Thanks, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap