Don't forget, you can also add the category to any women you might know who have Wikipedia articles and are Wikipedians. Such as Sue or Valerie!
-Sarah
Umm, please don't do that. Users themselves should be the sole deciders of what categories they wish to link to. For example, I hope nobody puts that category on my userpage, and if they do it will be removed as soon as I can log in.
Some people deliberately choose not to categorize themselves.
Risker/Anne
On 9 September 2012 17:10, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Don't forget, you can also add the category to any women you might know who have Wikipedia articles and are Wikipedians. Such as Sue or Valerie!
-Sarah
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate todayhttps://donate.wikimedia.org/
<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I think Sarah's point was that one could add this category to the Wikipedia articles on women Wikipedians, and not on their userpages.
Of course, I do not want anybody to put any category on my userpage too. But if an article about me existed on Wikipedia, it is not under my control to choose which category that page should belong to.
And yes, I added Category : Female Wikipedians to my userpage a few minutes ago :)
Netha
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 3:00 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Umm, please don't do that. Users themselves should be the sole deciders of what categories they wish to link to. For example, I hope nobody puts that category on my userpage, and if they do it will be removed as soon as I can log in.
Some people deliberately choose not to categorize themselves.
Risker/Anne
On 9 September 2012 17:10, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Don't forget, you can also add the category to any women you might know who have Wikipedia articles and are Wikipedians. Such as Sue or Valerie!
-Sarah
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate todayhttps://donate.wikimedia.org/
<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I think the argument behind deleting this category is WP:MYSPACE, which isn't really sexist. I mean, I think it's taking WP:MYSPACE too far, personally, but still.
Just FYI, I just tried to search for "male wikipedians" and couldn't find it. Anyone have better luck?
From, Emily
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Netha Hussain nethahussain@gmail.comwrote:
I think Sarah's point was that one could add this category to the Wikipedia articles on women Wikipedians, and not on their userpages.
Of course, I do not want anybody to put any category on my userpage too. But if an article about me existed on Wikipedia, it is not under my control to choose which category that page should belong to.
And yes, I added Category : Female Wikipedians to my userpage a few minutes ago :)
Netha
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 3:00 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Umm, please don't do that. Users themselves should be the sole deciders of what categories they wish to link to. For example, I hope nobody puts that category on my userpage, and if they do it will be removed as soon as I can log in.
Some people deliberately choose not to categorize themselves.
Risker/Anne
On 9 September 2012 17:10, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Don't forget, you can also add the category to any women you might know who have Wikipedia articles and are Wikipedians. Such as Sue or Valerie!
-Sarah
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate todayhttps://donate.wikimedia.org/
<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- Netha Hussain Student of Medicine and Surgery Govt. Medical College, Kozhikode Blogs : *nethahussain.blogspot.com swethaambari.wordpress.com*
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 9/9/12 3:08 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:
I think the argument behind deleting this category is WP:MYSPACE, which isn't really sexist. I mean, I think it's taking WP:MYSPACE too far, personally, but still.
Just FYI, I just tried to search for "male wikipedians" and couldn't find it. Anyone have better luck?
There is no male Wikipedian category. JUst like there aren't "men's history" classes because history has been written about and by men for the majority of time ;) It's that same type of thing.
-Sarah
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Netha Hussain <nethahussain@gmail.com mailto:nethahussain@gmail.com> wrote:
I think Sarah's point was that one could add this category to the Wikipedia articles on women Wikipedians, and not on their userpages. Of course, I do not want anybody to put any category on my userpage too. But if an article about me existed on Wikipedia, it is not under my control to choose which category that page should belong to. And yes, I added Category : Female Wikipedians to my userpage a few minutes ago :) Netha On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 3:00 AM, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com <mailto:risker.wp@gmail.com>> wrote: Umm, please don't do that. Users themselves should be the sole deciders of what categories they wish to link to. For example, I hope nobody puts that category on my userpage, and if they do it will be removed as soon as I can log in. Some people deliberately choose not to categorize themselves. Risker/Anne On 9 September 2012 17:10, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch@gmail.com <mailto:sarah.stierch@gmail.com>> wrote: Don't forget, you can also add the category to any women you might know who have Wikipedia articles and are Wikipedians. Such as Sue or Valerie! -Sarah -- *Sarah Stierch* */Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow/* >>Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate today <https://donate.wikimedia.org/><< _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- Netha Hussain Student of Medicine and Surgery Govt. Medical College, Kozhikode Blogs : /nethahussain.blogspot.com <http://nethahussain.blogspot.com> swethaambari.wordpress.com <http://swethaambari.wordpress.com>/ _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Oh, sorry, I meant to say the Wikipedia articles about people who are Wikipedians :)
Both of them have Wikipedia articles and also state on their Wikipedian user pages that they are who they are.
-Sarah
On 9/9/12 2:30 PM, Risker wrote:
Umm, please don't do that. Users themselves should be the sole deciders of what categories they wish to link to. For example, I hope nobody puts that category on my userpage, and if they do it will be removed as soon as I can log in.
Some people deliberately choose not to categorize themselves.
Risker/Anne
On 9 September 2012 17:10, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch@gmail.com mailto:sarah.stierch@gmail.com> wrote:
Don't forget, you can also add the category to any women you might know who have Wikipedia articles and are Wikipedians. Such as Sue or Valerie! -Sarah -- *Sarah Stierch* */Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow/* >>Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate today <https://donate.wikimedia.org/><< _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I'd suggest having a different category for that. (although I am not sure it is utile in the first place).
To avoid the mix up of back end admin and academic content.
Tom Morton
On 9 Sep 2012, at 23:21, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, sorry, I meant to say the Wikipedia articles about people who are Wikipedians :)
Both of them have Wikipedia articles and also state on their Wikipedian user pages that they are who they are.
-Sarah
On 9/9/12 2:30 PM, Risker wrote:
Umm, please don't do that. Users themselves should be the sole deciders of what categories they wish to link to. For example, I hope nobody puts that category on my userpage, and if they do it will be removed as soon as I can log in.
Some people deliberately choose not to categorize themselves.
Risker/Anne
On 9 September 2012 17:10, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Don't forget, you can also add the category to any women you might know who have Wikipedia articles and are Wikipedians. Such as Sue or Valerie!
-Sarah
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate todayhttps://donate.wikimedia.org/
<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
There is no male Wikipedian category. JUst like there aren't "men's history" classes because history has been written about and by men for the majority of time ;) It's that same type of thing.
It might partially the same thing, but not entirely. There's another reason why Category:Male Wikipedians doesn't exist: WP:MYSPACE.
If the WP:MYSPACErs' are vigilant enough, Category:Female Wikipedia is going to get deleted eventually.
From, Emily
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.comwrote:
I'd suggest having a different category for that. (although I am not sure it is utile in the first place).
To avoid the mix up of back end admin and academic content.
Tom Morton
On 9 Sep 2012, at 23:21, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, sorry, I meant to say the Wikipedia articles about people who are Wikipedians :)
Both of them have Wikipedia articles and also state on their Wikipedian user pages that they are who they are.
-Sarah
On 9/9/12 2:30 PM, Risker wrote:
Umm, please don't do that. Users themselves should be the sole deciders of what categories they wish to link to. For example, I hope nobody puts that category on my userpage, and if they do it will be removed as soon as I can log in.
Some people deliberately choose not to categorize themselves.
Risker/Anne
On 9 September 2012 17:10, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Don't forget, you can also add the category to any women you might know who have Wikipedia articles and are Wikipedians. Such as Sue or Valerie!
-Sarah
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate todayhttps://donate.wikimedia.org/
<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate todayhttps://donate.wikimedia.org/
<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
See now....I don't see a lot of value in categorizing articles this way. I'm not even certain that being a Wikipedian is a notable enough category to include for an article, let alone being a *female* Wikipedian. The standard for including someone in a category is that the category is representative of something actually discussed in the article. Sure Sue occasionally edits Wikipedia - but it's not even mentioned in her article, so she doesn't qualify for the category from the "article" perspective.
(I'm not sure which Valerie you're referring to, so I can't comment there.)
There is also the longstanding tradition that any category that refers to a person's Wikipedia status/preference/etc is considered a "user" category rather than an "article" category. I don't think the two should be mixed.
Risker/Anne
On 9 September 2012 18:25, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.comwrote:
I'd suggest having a different category for that. (although I am not sure it is utile in the first place).
To avoid the mix up of back end admin and academic content.
Tom Morton
On 9 Sep 2012, at 23:21, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, sorry, I meant to say the Wikipedia articles about people who are Wikipedians :)
Both of them have Wikipedia articles and also state on their Wikipedian user pages that they are who they are.
-Sarah
On 9/9/12 2:30 PM, Risker wrote:
Umm, please don't do that. Users themselves should be the sole deciders of what categories they wish to link to. For example, I hope nobody puts that category on my userpage, and if they do it will be removed as soon as I can log in.
Some people deliberately choose not to categorize themselves.
Risker/Anne
On 9 September 2012 17:10, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Don't forget, you can also add the category to any women you might know who have Wikipedia articles and are Wikipedians. Such as Sue or Valerie!
-Sarah
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate todayhttps://donate.wikimedia.org/
<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate todayhttps://donate.wikimedia.org/
<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Aww, Sarah - I see you've already added those categories to Valerie Aurora's and Sue Gardner's pages. Please don't do that. Neither of their articles mentions that they edit Wikipedia, so your edits don't meet the standard.
I understand you wanting to promote women in Wikipedia, but taking what is intended to be a user category and transplanting it into article space does nothing to promote women in editing, but does a great deal to annoy editors who work in categorization, editors who have worked on the articles in question and decided this was not notable enough to include, and editors who don't want to see article space politicized.
Risker/Anne
On 9 September 2012 18:29, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
See now....I don't see a lot of value in categorizing articles this way. I'm not even certain that being a Wikipedian is a notable enough category to include for an article, let alone being a *female* Wikipedian. The standard for including someone in a category is that the category is representative of something actually discussed in the article. Sure Sue occasionally edits Wikipedia - but it's not even mentioned in her article, so she doesn't qualify for the category from the "article" perspective.
(I'm not sure which Valerie you're referring to, so I can't comment there.)
There is also the longstanding tradition that any category that refers to a person's Wikipedia status/preference/etc is considered a "user" category rather than an "article" category. I don't think the two should be mixed.
Risker/Anne
On 9 September 2012 18:25, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.comwrote:
I'd suggest having a different category for that. (although I am not sure it is utile in the first place).
To avoid the mix up of back end admin and academic content.
Tom Morton
On 9 Sep 2012, at 23:21, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, sorry, I meant to say the Wikipedia articles about people who are Wikipedians :)
Both of them have Wikipedia articles and also state on their Wikipedian user pages that they are who they are.
-Sarah
On 9/9/12 2:30 PM, Risker wrote:
Umm, please don't do that. Users themselves should be the sole deciders of what categories they wish to link to. For example, I hope nobody puts that category on my userpage, and if they do it will be removed as soon as I can log in.
Some people deliberately choose not to categorize themselves.
Risker/Anne
On 9 September 2012 17:10, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Don't forget, you can also add the category to any women you might know who have Wikipedia articles and are Wikipedians. Such as Sue or Valerie!
-Sarah
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate todayhttps://donate.wikimedia.org/
<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate todayhttps://donate.wikimedia.org/
<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Feel free to remove! :-)
No skin off my back!
Sarah
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 9, 2012, at 3:39 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Aww, Sarah - I see you've already added those categories to Valerie Aurora's and Sue Gardner's pages. Please don't do that. Neither of their articles mentions that they edit Wikipedia, so your edits don't meet the standard.
I understand you wanting to promote women in Wikipedia, but taking what is intended to be a user category and transplanting it into article space does nothing to promote women in editing, but does a great deal to annoy editors who work in categorization, editors who have worked on the articles in question and decided this was not notable enough to include, and editors who don't want to see article space politicized.
Risker/Anne
On 9 September 2012 18:29, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote: See now....I don't see a lot of value in categorizing articles this way. I'm not even certain that being a Wikipedian is a notable enough category to include for an article, let alone being a *female* Wikipedian. The standard for including someone in a category is that the category is representative of something actually discussed in the article. Sure Sue occasionally edits Wikipedia - but it's not even mentioned in her article, so she doesn't qualify for the category from the "article" perspective.
(I'm not sure which Valerie you're referring to, so I can't comment there.)
There is also the longstanding tradition that any category that refers to a person's Wikipedia status/preference/etc is considered a "user" category rather than an "article" category. I don't think the two should be mixed.
Risker/Anne
On 9 September 2012 18:25, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote: I'd suggest having a different category for that. (although I am not sure it is utile in the first place).
To avoid the mix up of back end admin and academic content.
Tom Morton
On 9 Sep 2012, at 23:21, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, sorry, I meant to say the Wikipedia articles about people who are Wikipedians :)
Both of them have Wikipedia articles and also state on their Wikipedian user pages that they are who they are.
-Sarah
On 9/9/12 2:30 PM, Risker wrote:
Umm, please don't do that. Users themselves should be the sole deciders of what categories they wish to link to. For example, I hope nobody puts that category on my userpage, and if they do it will be removed as soon as I can log in.
Some people deliberately choose not to categorize themselves.
Risker/Anne
On 9 September 2012 17:10, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Don't forget, you can also add the category to any women you might know who have Wikipedia articles and are Wikipedians. Such as Sue or Valerie!
-Sarah
-- Sarah Stierch Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow
Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate today<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- Sarah Stierch Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow
Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate today<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I agree that user categories should not be mixed up with article categories. Being a Wikipedian isn't necessarily notable.
And for the record I don't choose to self-identify by placing myself in to very many user categories, just ones that relate to getting the job of editing done. There's nothing wrong with folks who do choose to self-identify whatever categories they belong to of course, but I don't feel like deleting the user categories is a problem, per WP:NOT#MYSPACE, not even the gender related ones.
Cheers,
Valfontis
[[User:Valfontis]]
P.S. I'm female.
Risker wrote, On 9/9/2012 3:29 PM:
See now....I don't see a lot of value in categorizing articles this way. I'm not even certain that being a Wikipedian is a notable enough category to include for an article, let alone being a *female* Wikipedian. The standard for including someone in a category is that the category is representative of something actually discussed in the article. Sure Sue occasionally edits Wikipedia - but it's not even mentioned in her article, so she doesn't qualify for the category from the "article" perspective.
(I'm not sure which Valerie you're referring to, so I can't comment there.)
There is also the longstanding tradition that any category that refers to a person's Wikipedia status/preference/etc is considered a "user" category rather than an "article" category. I don't think the two should be mixed.
Risker/Anne
On 9 September 2012 18:25, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas@googlemail.com mailto:morton.thomas@googlemail.com> wrote:
I'd suggest having a different category for that. (although I am not sure it is utile in the first place). To avoid the mix up of back end admin and academic content. Tom Morton On 9 Sep 2012, at 23:21, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch@gmail.com <mailto:sarah.stierch@gmail.com>> wrote:Oh, sorry, I meant to say the Wikipedia articles about people who are Wikipedians :) Both of them have Wikipedia articles and also state on their Wikipedian user pages that they are who they are. -Sarah On 9/9/12 2:30 PM, Risker wrote:Umm, please don't do that. Users themselves should be the sole deciders of what categories they wish to link to. For example, I hope nobody puts that category on my userpage, and if they do it will be removed as soon as I can log in. Some people deliberately choose not to categorize themselves. Risker/Anne On 9 September 2012 17:10, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch@gmail.com <mailto:sarah.stierch@gmail.com>> wrote: Don't forget, you can also add the category to any women you might know who have Wikipedia articles and are Wikipedians. Such as Sue or Valerie! -Sarah
I don't know enough about Wikipedia conventions to talk about this specific topic, but I can talk about the value of lists of "women in X." When we have few role models because there are few women in a field, one of the ways to increase women's participation is to show women or girls considering joining examples of women who are part of the field.
-VAL
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
See now....I don't see a lot of value in categorizing articles this way. I'm not even certain that being a Wikipedian is a notable enough category to include for an article, let alone being a *female* Wikipedian. The standard for including someone in a category is that the category is representative of something actually discussed in the article. Sure Sue occasionally edits Wikipedia - but it's not even mentioned in her article, so she doesn't qualify for the category from the "article" perspective.
(I'm not sure which Valerie you're referring to, so I can't comment there.)
There is also the longstanding tradition that any category that refers to a person's Wikipedia status/preference/etc is considered a "user" category rather than an "article" category. I don't think the two should be mixed.
Risker/Anne
On 9 September 2012 18:25, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
I'd suggest having a different category for that. (although I am not sure it is utile in the first place).
To avoid the mix up of back end admin and academic content.
Tom Morton
On 9 Sep 2012, at 23:21, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, sorry, I meant to say the Wikipedia articles about people who are Wikipedians :)
Both of them have Wikipedia articles and also state on their Wikipedian user pages that they are who they are.
-Sarah
On 9/9/12 2:30 PM, Risker wrote:
Umm, please don't do that. Users themselves should be the sole deciders of what categories they wish to link to. For example, I hope nobody puts that category on my userpage, and if they do it will be removed as soon as I can log in.
Some people deliberately choose not to categorize themselves.
Risker/Anne
On 9 September 2012 17:10, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Don't forget, you can also add the category to any women you might know who have Wikipedia articles and are Wikipedians. Such as Sue or Valerie!
-Sarah
-- Sarah Stierch Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow
Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate today<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- Sarah Stierch Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow
Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate today<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Valerie Aurora valerie@adainitiative.orgwrote:
I don't know enough about Wikipedia conventions to talk about this specific topic, but I can talk about the value of lists of "women in X." When we have few role models because there are few women in a field, one of the ways to increase women's participation is to show women or girls considering joining examples of women who are part of the field.
-VAL
Hi Val, I agree, and although I don't have my user page listed in any other categories, I added it to this category yesterday when I saw the cat was up for deletion. It's looking a little sparse at the moment, with just eight entries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_Wikipedians
It would be wonderful if women would start adding themselves so that we get a good overview of how many women are active. You can do it either by adding [[Category:Female Wikipedians]] to the bottom of your user page, or by adding to your user page one of the user boxes listed on the category page.
Sarah
On 9/10/2012 6:25 PM, Sarah wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Valerie Aurora <valerie@adainitiative.org mailto:valerie@adainitiative.org> wrote:
I don't know enough about Wikipedia conventions to talk about this specific topic, but I can talk about the value of lists of "women in X." When we have few role models because there are few women in a field, one of the ways to increase women's participation is to show women or girls considering joining examples of women who are part of the field. -VALHi Val, I agree, and although I don't have my user page listed in any other categories, I added it to this category yesterday when I saw the cat was up for deletion. It's looking a little sparse at the moment, with just eight entries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_Wikipedians
It would be wonderful if women would start adding themselves so that we get a good overview of how many women are active. You can do it either by adding [[Category:Female Wikipedians]] to the bottom of your user page, or by adding to your user page one of the user boxes listed on the category page.
Sarah
*I second. Also note that I just put it in Category:Wikipedians yesterday, so only now is it available for those who think to put themselves in any category and thus happen to find Category:Wikipedians . I don't think I did it myself til I'd been editing around 3 -4 years.
And of course there are women who don't want to be hassled by admitting they are women. There certainly was a point at which I wish I hadn't made it clear. (Still ambivalent about using real name.)
CM