Hey folks,
Erik Moeller, my deputy, created this group at my request, and so I'm its owner. To recap for anyone who doesn't know: this list was prompted by a January 31 New York Times story about Wikipedia's gender gap. The NY Times story prompted a lot of discussion among experienced Wikipedians, new editors, and external people such as researchers and academics. We created this list so that the discussion had somewhere to go -- because people wanted to help, and we wanted to give their energy and momentum a place to grow.
Thus far, I haven't made any attempts to moderate or shape the conversation here in any way. People who are used to Wikimedia lists probably are finding the experience here pretty familiar -- the conversation is unstructured, wide-ranging, and there's no real quality control. People who are more used to non-Wikimedia lists might find it TOO uncontrolled, too noisy, too wide-ranging: I don't know.
My hope when we started the list was that it would be a place where people could come together to share experiences and information about the causes of Wikipedia's gender gap, and kick around possible solutions. I hoped that, at worst, it could become a sort of talkfest and "centre of expertise" on the gender gap issue --- and at best, it would be a place where real work would happen (e.g., the Women Edit Wikipedia Month type stuff). I assumed it'd be a pretty loose conversation, with plenty of noise to the signal, and it would end up (like many of our lists) being supplemented by work on wiki pages.
And that, I think, is pretty much how it's playing out.
So I'm curious to know from the people here:
1) Is the conversation here pretty much what you expected? Is it better or worse than you expected -- and if so, in what ways?
2) Are you comfortable with this discusson being mostly unmoderated, or would you prefer that we had some simple behavioural rules-of-engagement?
3) Would anyone care to offer to help me moderate? The moderation has been pretty light so far: a few people with questions about how to do something, and a half-dozen posts stuck in the approval queue --- it's very easy stuff to handle. I am often in meetings though, or travelling, so I've felt bad when someone's question or post is pending for hours. If you want to help, let me know off-list :-)
4) Any other comments about what we're doing here -- including, ideas about how we can be more effective.
Thanks, Sue
-- Sue Gardner Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation
415 839 6885 office 415 816 9967 cell
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
it would be cool if we published more on meta, particularly with ideas and solutions. With a full time job, I some times hard to follow all the emails (even though i really want to).
I also I think it would beneficial to identify some people that would be willing to do volunteering for their regional area, or maybe meet in RL. Person to person events do wonders to compliment virtual exchanges.
But overall, I think we've had some very good convos.
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey folks,
Erik Moeller, my deputy, created this group at my request, and so I'm its owner. To recap for anyone who doesn't know: this list was prompted by a January 31 New York Times story about Wikipedia's gender gap. The NY Times story prompted a lot of discussion among experienced Wikipedians, new editors, and external people such as researchers and academics. We created this list so that the discussion had somewhere to go -- because people wanted to help, and we wanted to give their energy and momentum a place to grow.
Thus far, I haven't made any attempts to moderate or shape the conversation here in any way. People who are used to Wikimedia lists probably are finding the experience here pretty familiar -- the conversation is unstructured, wide-ranging, and there's no real quality control. People who are more used to non-Wikimedia lists might find it TOO uncontrolled, too noisy, too wide-ranging: I don't know.
My hope when we started the list was that it would be a place where people could come together to share experiences and information about the causes of Wikipedia's gender gap, and kick around possible solutions. I hoped that, at worst, it could become a sort of talkfest and "centre of expertise" on the gender gap issue --- and at best, it would be a place where real work would happen (e.g., the Women Edit Wikipedia Month type stuff). I assumed it'd be a pretty loose conversation, with plenty of noise to the signal, and it would end up (like many of our lists) being supplemented by work on wiki pages.
And that, I think, is pretty much how it's playing out.
So I'm curious to know from the people here:
- Is the conversation here pretty much what you expected? Is it
better or worse than you expected -- and if so, in what ways?
- Are you comfortable with this discusson being mostly unmoderated,
or would you prefer that we had some simple behavioural rules-of-engagement?
- Would anyone care to offer to help me moderate? The moderation has
been pretty light so far: a few people with questions about how to do something, and a half-dozen posts stuck in the approval queue --- it's very easy stuff to handle. I am often in meetings though, or travelling, so I've felt bad when someone's question or post is pending for hours. If you want to help, let me know off-list :-)
- Any other comments about what we're doing here -- including, ideas
about how we can be more effective.
Thanks, Sue
-- Sue Gardner Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation
415 839 6885 <+14158396885> office 415 816 9967 <+14158169967> cell
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Number one rule, practice self control: don't reply to list unless it's important for everyone to know,not just that you want them to know it ;-) Otherwise, reply to individual poster or not at all. Of course this applies more to the more assertive posters.
However, if one is generally reluctant to post, thinking one's contributions are not important enough, one should not be discouraged by this. And the fact there is less gratuitous posting may mean more reluctant posters feel more free to post.
Also self-control cuts down on eventual debate on what should or should not have been moderated.
Carol in dc
- Is the conversation here pretty much what you expected? Is it
better or worse than you expected -- and if so, in what ways?
Yes.
- Are you comfortable with this discusson being mostly unmoderated,
or would you prefer that we had some simple behavioural rules-of-engagement?
Yes to first part.
Daniel Case
Yes, and yes to first part.
Miguel Ángel
- Is the conversation here pretty much what you expected? Is it
better or worse than you expected -- and if so, in what ways?
Yes.
- Are you comfortable with this discusson being mostly unmoderated,
or would you prefer that we had some simple behavioural rules-of-engagement?
Yes to first part.
Daniel Case
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
- Is the conversation here pretty much what you expected? Is it
better or worse than you expected -- and if so, in what ways?
This is messier than I expected it to be. I'm surprised by how much everyone differs in their confidence of exactly what The Problem is.
- Are you comfortable with this discusson being mostly unmoderated,
or would you prefer that we had some simple behavioural rules-of-engagement?
I would prefer moderation, but I'd settle for some rules if they're actually enforced. This free-for-all sort of atmosphere where people are shooting each other's posts and opinions down is reminding me a little too strongly of some article talk pages that I've chosen not to participate in. Dismissing someone's concerns because you haven't experienced them, for example, ought not to be considered cool.
Thanks, Sue
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
- Is the conversation here pretty much what you expected? Is it
better or worse than you expected -- and if so, in what ways?
This is messier than I expected it to be. I'm surprised by how much everyone differs in their confidence of exactly what The Problem is.
- Are you comfortable with this discusson being mostly unmoderated,
or would you prefer that we had some simple behavioural rules-of-engagement?
I would prefer moderation, but I'd settle for some rules if they're actually enforced. This free-for-all sort of atmosphere where people are shooting each other's posts and opinions down is reminding me a little too strongly of some article talk pages that I've chosen not to participate in. Dismissing someone's concerns because you haven't experienced them, for example, ought not to be considered cool.
Should we discuss such problems or should such posts have been rejected by a moderator or the poster warned and required to revise their post?
I have high toleration for disorder, but have found lately that wholesale deletion has been useful when I get behind. The conversations here have not been substantial or focused enough to command sustained attention.
Fred
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 14:11, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Should we discuss such problems or should such posts have been rejected by a moderator or the poster warned and required to revise their post?
I have high toleration for disorder, but have found lately that wholesale deletion has been useful when I get behind. The conversations here have not been substantial or focused enough to command sustained attention.
I wouldn't mind seeing more moderation. I've just changed my preferences to digest mode, which means I'm going to miss things, but it was becoming too much and not focused enough.
I wonder whether it would make sense to have two lists -- one for Wikipedia-specific suggestions, and another for the broader issues.
Sarah
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 5:36 PM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder whether it would make sense to have two lists -- one for Wikipedia-specific suggestions, and another for the broader issues.
Maybe, or just more clear expectations of what isn't the most helpful things here. I've been seeing a lot of general/deep philosophical questions and topics like the Bible and capitalism. I don't know about anyone else, but I just click "mark all as read" for those ones. :-) This list is about increasing gender diversity in Wikimedia projects, not about describing the history of gender issues throughout time.
Seconded. I don't think "another for broader issues" would be at all useful. People are welcome to have wide-ranging discussions about the necessary changes to society etc etc, but the fact of the matter is that the WMF can't *make* those changes.
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Casey Brown lists@caseybrown.org wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 5:36 PM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder whether it would make sense to have two lists -- one for Wikipedia-specific suggestions, and another for the broader issues.
Maybe, or just more clear expectations of what isn't the most helpful things here. I've been seeing a lot of general/deep philosophical questions and topics like the Bible and capitalism. I don't know about anyone else, but I just click "mark all as read" for those ones. :-) This list is about increasing gender diversity in Wikimedia projects, not about describing the history of gender issues throughout time.
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
--- On Mon, 14/2/11, Casey Brown lists@caseybrown.org wrote:
From: Casey Brown lists@caseybrown.org
Maybe, or just more clear expectations of what isn't the most helpful things here. I've been seeing a lot of general/deep philosophical questions and topics like the Bible and capitalism. I don't know about anyone else, but I just click "mark all as read" for those ones. :-) This list is about increasing gender diversity in Wikimedia projects, not about describing the history of gender issues throughout time.
I agree with Casey (although I still read most of these posts). We can't start the discussion with Adam and Eve.
Andreas
Why not? When you're thinking at high level, you have to take everything into account, usually things that would seem ridiculous to a lot of people who are not used to thinking at high level, and it's almost for sure that we won't solve the apple problem, but taking a step backwards helps seeing things with a more realistic point of view, specially when you're scope is global. And the fact is that Wikipedia is an American enterprise affecting the whole world, and another fact is that the United States is a great country, but also a country with a lot of ballast from the past. If we really want to be the *free* encyclopedia, we have to think in a free way, I have to take into account capitalism, you have to take into account socialism, I have to take into account religion, and you have to take into account pornography. Avoiding problems is not the best way to solve them, and the best way to learn to be wise is being stupid sometime.
Miguel Ángel
--- On Mon, 14/2/11, Casey Brown lists@caseybrown.org wrote:
From: Casey Brown lists@caseybrown.org
Maybe, or just more clear expectations of what isn't the most helpful things here. I've been seeing a lot of general/deep philosophical questions and topics like the Bible and capitalism. I don't know about anyone else, but I just click "mark all as read" for those ones. :-) This list is about increasing gender diversity in Wikimedia projects, not about describing the history of gender issues throughout time.
I agree with Casey (although I still read most of these posts). We can't start the discussion with Adam and Eve.
Andreas
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Taking into account is all well and good. This list exists to come up with solutions to the issues. If capitalism is the problem, if socialism is the problem, if religious belief is the problem, wonderful! We know what the problem is. Unfortunately, we can't actually do anything *about* it. Looking at the alleged historical origins of misogyny does not help us deal with the current issues.
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Miguelinito miguelinito@gmail.com wrote:
Why not? When you're thinking at high level, you have to take everything into account, usually things that would seem ridiculous to a lot of people who are not used to thinking at high level, and it's almost for sure that we won't solve the apple problem, but taking a step backwards helps seeing things with a more realistic point of view, specially when you're scope is global. And the fact is that Wikipedia is an American enterprise affecting the whole world, and another fact is that the United States is a great country, but also a country with a lot of ballast from the past. If we really want to be the *free* encyclopedia, we have to think in a free way, I have to take into account capitalism, you have to take into account socialism, I have to take into account religion, and you have to take into account pornography. Avoiding problems is not the best way to solve them, and the best way to learn to be wise is being stupid sometime.
Miguel Ángel
--- On Mon, 14/2/11, Casey Brown lists@caseybrown.org wrote:
From: Casey Brown lists@caseybrown.org
Maybe, or just more clear expectations of what isn't the most helpful things here. I've been seeing a lot of general/deep philosophical questions and topics like the Bible and capitalism. I don't know about anyone else, but I just click "mark all as read" for those ones. :-) This list is about increasing gender diversity in Wikimedia projects, not about describing the history of gender issues throughout time.
I agree with Casey (although I still read most of these posts). We can't start the discussion with Adam and Eve.
Andreas
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- Saludos, Miguelinito mailto:miguelinito@gmail.com
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I think we need to explain something that may be common sense for some but not others, but I think its worth explaining.
When you are dealing with subjects that touch upon sexism, racism, discrimination, etc. This is not a philosophical conversation... This is a conversation that triggers emotional responses in people because its a reality for them. As a result, we need to focus on the issue here: closing the gender gap versus touching upon topics that may trigger emotional conversations that having nothing to do with Wikipedia.
Additionally, most women have their own opinion about why gender gaps in the world, and there is an entire field dedicated to this, its called feminist studies. The field is quite extensive, and I encourage you to read about the different types of feminist that exist, ranging from anarchist feminist to capitalist feminist - all that have different opinions about why sexism exists.
I didn't join this list because I'm confused of why sexism in the world exists, nor did I join this list because I need a therapy outlet. I, like many women, joined this list because we want to focus on something practical - closing the gender gap on Wikipedia.
Let me give you example (and Miguelito, I am not trying to signal you out, but just as an example.) I was born in NY, but half of my family is from Spain and spent 1/3 of my youth living there. When I hear a Spanish man start talking about sexism in the US without analyzing his country first, this pushes my buttons. I am not saying one country is more sexist than the other, or that these conversations should not be had, but not here. When I want to have existential conversations like this I find a feminist meetup, or have coffee with my friends. This is not the forum, and will only cause long debates, and take away from our main goal (that we do have power over) - the gender gap in Wikipedia.
Also, FYI, remember that when you are talking about sexism, you are also indirectly touching upon things related to glass ceiling, sexual objectification, rape, domestic violence, etc. You have to be really sensitive, particularly if you are a man. However, I love the fact that men are trying to learn about this, and we can definitely provide with literature recommendations. In the US, I love Alice Walker, and in Spain, Amelia Valcarcel. Keep on exploring these issues on your own time. I think its awesome, and if you need any direction, let me know. I can definitely refer you to more virutal homes where these conversations are more than appropriate.
Sandy
So it sounds like everyone is in favor of setting some kind of clear(er) standard for discussion here. As far as those standards go...
Does everyone feel good about the mailing list code of conduct on Meta? If you think it's missing something key or includes something unnecessary, please edit it.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_gap#Discuss
If that's something we can get consensus on, then it's a tool we can use for pointing out when a conversation has gone haywire.
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 2:36 PM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
I wouldn't mind seeing more moderation.
On 2/16/2011 7:34 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
So it sounds like everyone is in favor of setting some kind of clear(er) standard for discussion here. As far as those standards go...
Does everyone feel good about the mailing list code of conduct on Meta? If you think it's missing something key or includes something unnecessary, please edit it.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_gap#Discuss
If that's something we can get consensus on, then it's a tool we can use for pointing out when a conversation has gone haywire.
Just a note on this point: "Be aware that using an aggressive or argumentative tone (or even just posting too much) can discourage people from participating."
Often what will be experienced as speaking firmly by a male will be considered being overly aggressive by a female.
So let's be aware when we are falling into such stereotypes.
CM in DC