On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/fashion/students-startup-weaves-a-web-that-k...
http://wikifashion.com/wiki/Main_Page
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikifashion&...
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Madeline_Veenstr...
??
What's the point of all this?
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.netwrote:
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/fashion/students-startup-weaves-a-web-that-k...
*''If you look at Wikipedia, a lot of the [fashion] designer or brand pages do not have a lot of information on them, and Wikipedia does not really focus on images, so you will not ever find the new collections or [fashion] look books on there,'' she says.
''At the moment, there is no central database for fashion, a location where a girl can find the latest look book for Marc Jacobs or the first collection for Chanel. Either they are not there or they are on a host of different websites, so we want to create all of that in one place.''* * *...uh..it's called Style.com and it's the greatest fashion website, *ever*, and has been for almost ten years. (Always makes me laugh that people in the fashion world forget men are as into fashion as much as women are, too!)
I really like the layout and such of the website. I do think it's kind of interesting, that for a fashion website, they don't have any copyright data for the photographs they are using (most are copyrighted), fair use mentions, etc. After reading a few pages in the Designer category... (and as someone recovering from a career in the fashion industry) it's a mix of preachy bias content about how amazing certain designers are (Yes, Karl Lagerfeld is awesome, I have to admit), small time or no-name designers who write their own articles and upload photos of their designs, etc, or cut and paste unsourced content. The website started in 2008 and most articles have under 8 edits and lack special mark up. It is promotional enough, they also have one paid advert and is not a non-profit org ;)
Perhaps this is what people want? ;)
I suppose I'm being debbie downer (as usual) but, I tend to look at female dominated Wiki's and see what makes them different, with a critical eye, to see what *we* are doing right and wrong, and vice versa.
I do like this though (scroll down to badges), not the portraits..but the round badges. I'd love to see something like this developed for Wikipedia. I'd have them on my tumblr, etc.
http://wikifashion.com/wiki/Wikifashion:Contributors_Needed
Sarah
My one issue with fashion wiki is the licensing. It's a copyrighted wiki:
*(a) Unless otherwise indicated, My Lemmings Pty Ltd reserves all copyright in the Content and design of wikifashion.com. (b) My Lemmings Pty Ltd owns all such copyright or uses it under licence or applicable law to Users of Users of wikifashion.com. (c) Other than for the purposes of and subject to the conditions prescribed under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (or any other applicable legislation throughout the world), or as otherwise provided for in this copyright notice, no part of any Content may in any form or by any means (including framing, screen scraping, electronic, mechanical, microcopying, photocopying or recording) be reproduced, adapted, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without the prior written permission of My Lemmings Pty Ltd. (d) My Lemmings Pty Ltd is the owner of several trade marks which appear on its Website. Unauthorised use of these trade marks will infringe our intellectual property rights. (e) My Lemmings Pty Ltd reserves all other rights in Content and wikifashion.com.* * * *-* http://wikifashion.com/wiki/Wikifashion:Terms_of_Service#9..09Copyright_in_C... * * I have asked about this on Quora where I know the wikiFashion founders are active in answering questions and have never gotten an answer.
A similar area where Wikipedia is lacking is cosmetics and I don't mean in terms of how to create makeup looks or pictures of every shade of nail polish, but general information on cosmetics companies like Cover Girl and Maybelline. I think there needs to more information on the history of each company as well as criticisms. In addition, those articles are lacking in citations.
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.netwrote:
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/fashion/students-startup-weaves-a-web-that-k...
*''If you look at Wikipedia, a lot of the [fashion] designer or brand pages do not have a lot of information on them, and Wikipedia does not really focus on images, so you will not ever find the new collections or [fashion] look books on there,'' she says.
''At the moment, there is no central database for fashion, a location where a girl can find the latest look book for Marc Jacobs or the first collection for Chanel. Either they are not there or they are on a host of different websites, so we want to create all of that in one place.''*
*...uh..it's called Style.com and it's the greatest fashion website, *ever *, and has been for almost ten years. (Always makes me laugh that people in the fashion world forget men are as into fashion as much as women are, too!)
I really like the layout and such of the website. I do think it's kind of interesting, that for a fashion website, they don't have any copyright data for the photographs they are using (most are copyrighted), fair use mentions, etc. After reading a few pages in the Designer category... (and as someone recovering from a career in the fashion industry) it's a mix of preachy bias content about how amazing certain designers are (Yes, Karl Lagerfeld is awesome, I have to admit), small time or no-name designers who write their own articles and upload photos of their designs, etc, or cut and paste unsourced content. The website started in 2008 and most articles have under 8 edits and lack special mark up. It is promotional enough, they also have one paid advert and is not a non-profit org ;)
Perhaps this is what people want? ;)
I suppose I'm being debbie downer (as usual) but, I tend to look at female dominated Wiki's and see what makes them different, with a critical eye, to see what *we* are doing right and wrong, and vice versa.
I do like this though (scroll down to badges), not the portraits..but the round badges. I'd love to see something like this developed for Wikipedia. I'd have them on my tumblr, etc.
http://wikifashion.com/wiki/Wikifashion:Contributors_Needed
Sarah
-- GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia http://www.glamwiki.org Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Arthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch and Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Nicole: A similar area where Wikipedia is lacking is cosmetics and I don't mean in terms of how to create makeup looks or pictures of every shade of nail polish, but general information on cosmetics companies like Cover Girl and Maybelline. I think there needs to more information on the history of each company as well as criticisms. In addition, those articles are lacking in citations.
My reply:
I was the first male user to sign on to WikiProject Fashion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FASHION) and, as I have said every other time someone brings this up, that project is dreadfully short of editors with the time (I did a lot in the beginning, an outgrowth of the effort I put into [[The Devil Wears Prada (novel)]], [[The Devil Wears Prada (film)]] and [[Anna Wintour]], but I haven't been able to focus on it in a while. So, anyone who feels that they can contribute there is welcome ... in the "beauty" department, I am happy to see that [[Template:Cosmetics]] has grown as much as it has since I first created it in the project's early days, though perhaps I should restore the original color scheme (once denounced by an anon as sexist: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cosmetics&diff=351849...) now that a CSS has been written to allow users who have vision problems to override navbox coloring to high-contrast defaults).
Daniel Case
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
I do like this though (scroll down to badges), not the portraits..but the round badges. I'd love to see something like this developed for Wikipedia. I'd have them on my tumblr, etc.
Really???? I find them loathsome in the extreme; very Facebooky.
On 14 September 2011 10:03, Michael J. Lowrey orangemike@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
I do like this though (scroll down to badges), not the portraits..but the round badges. I'd love to see something like this developed for Wikipedia. I'd have them on my tumblr, etc.
Really???? I find them loathsome in the extreme; very Facebooky.
Soooo funny: everyone is different, and that is fine.
I remember Jack Herrick seeming flustered and a little embarrassed one day by a purple girly welcome message on WikiHow. But I loved the purple girly welcome message, personally :-)
Thanks, Sue
As a wikiHowian, I can speak to this a bit. Although I can't speak for Jack, I have my own aversions to purple girly welcome messages and I think this reasoning is seen on other wiki projects.
On wikiHow we have struggled to have professional looking welcome messages. I think the worst of it was one that had a picture of a bunny and said "follow the bunny to wikiHow" or something like that. So, I think that view may have (at least for me) trickled down even to welcome messages that are a "girly" color", since I am concerned that girliness and even just girly colors will cause wikiHow to be taken less seriously as a project.
The funny thing, however, is that one of the "girlier" welcome messages I've seen (pastel background, '<3') is one that was created by a male wikiHowian and no one seems to have any problem with it so far that I know of.
As one of the females in the male-dominated wiki world, I have sometimes felt that I've had to put my girliness aside in order to be taken seriously. I also feel that there is a backlash against girly pink userpages and the like on wiki projects and that generalizations are made about people based on their username or userpage and not on their contributions to the wiki.
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 14 September 2011 10:03, Michael J. Lowrey orangemike@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com
wrote:
I do like this though (scroll down to badges), not the portraits..but
the
round badges. I'd love to see something like this developed for
Wikipedia.
I'd have them on my tumblr, etc.
Really???? I find them loathsome in the extreme; very Facebooky.
Soooo funny: everyone is different, and that is fine.
I remember Jack Herrick seeming flustered and a little embarrassed one day by a purple girly welcome message on WikiHow. But I loved the purple girly welcome message, personally :-)
Thanks, Sue
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
As one of the females in the male-dominated wiki world, I have sometimes felt that I've had to put my girliness aside in order to be taken seriously. I also feel that there is a backlash against girly pink userpages and the like on wiki projects and that generalizations are made about people based on their username or userpage and not on their contributions to the wiki.
I find I'm not really girly girly all that much. Pink and purple used to be my absolute favorite colors, for example, but now "Pretty much shade of blue" fills a slot above them. Of course, at least in America, blue=baby boy, know what I mean?
What I'm trying to say is, sometimes somebody who's comfortable with being a woman isn't always going to fulfill the "fluff, rainbow, unicorns, and sparkles!" stereotypical of how a woman should act. I don't want a backlash in response to this sort of concern severe enough that I feel uncomfortable editing.
From, Emily
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Nicole Willson artisticaltruist@gmail.comwrote:
As a wikiHowian, I can speak to this a bit. Although I can't speak for Jack, I have my own aversions to purple girly welcome messages and I think this reasoning is seen on other wiki projects.
On wikiHow we have struggled to have professional looking welcome messages. I think the worst of it was one that had a picture of a bunny and said "follow the bunny to wikiHow" or something like that. So, I think that view may have (at least for me) trickled down even to welcome messages that are a "girly" color", since I am concerned that girliness and even just girly colors will cause wikiHow to be taken less seriously as a project.
The funny thing, however, is that one of the "girlier" welcome messages I've seen (pastel background, '<3') is one that was created by a male wikiHowian and no one seems to have any problem with it so far that I know of.
As one of the females in the male-dominated wiki world, I have sometimes felt that I've had to put my girliness aside in order to be taken seriously. I also feel that there is a backlash against girly pink userpages and the like on wiki projects and that generalizations are made about people based on their username or userpage and not on their contributions to the wiki.
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On 14 September 2011 10:03, Michael J. Lowrey orangemike@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Sarah Stierch <
sarah.stierch@gmail.com> wrote:
I do like this though (scroll down to badges), not the portraits..but
the
round badges. I'd love to see something like this developed for
Wikipedia.
I'd have them on my tumblr, etc.
Really???? I find them loathsome in the extreme; very Facebooky.
Soooo funny: everyone is different, and that is fine.
I remember Jack Herrick seeming flustered and a little embarrassed one day by a purple girly welcome message on WikiHow. But I loved the purple girly welcome message, personally :-)
Thanks, Sue
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- "Only the shallow know themselves." - Oscar Wilde
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 7:25 PM, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.comwrote:
I find I'm not really girly girly all that much. Pink and purple used to be my absolute favorite colors, for example, but now "Pretty much shade of blue" fills a slot above them. Of course, at least in America, blue=baby boy, know what I mean?
What I'm trying to say is, sometimes somebody who's comfortable with being a woman isn't always going to fulfill the "fluff, rainbow, unicorns, and sparkles!" stereotypical of how a woman should act. I don't want a backlash in response to this sort of concern severe enough that I feel uncomfortable editing.
I think a number of people here can relate to this sentiment. When I was a child, one of my bedrooms was white with pink roses. I hated it so much, I slept in a closet..literally, by choice. As a teenager I was raised by my father and teal and black were the shades of choice. To this very day I wear black most days and I prefer "fuchsia" over pink. But, I must admit, I love the smell of roses.
I don't believe any of us want an uber-femme Wikipedia to be a tool to encourage contributors. I do really like the idea of expanding on skin options, and I do think the option of having a "user friendly" look can help improve contributions (just like the visual editor..which I have missed a demo of..twice).
In a fantasy world it'd be really neat to demo different skins and user experiences with women of all ages - usability studies (like we do at the Archives of American Art with researchers of all ages and experience levels). I suppose that will be the only way we'll know if aesthetics, functionality and usability matter when it comes to women contributing to Wikipedia.
-Sarah (and yeah I like unicorns..)
I think a number of people here can relate to this sentiment. When I was a child, one of my bedrooms was white with pink roses. I hated it so much, I slept in a closet..literally, by choice. As a teenager I was raised by my father and teal and black were the shades of choice. To this very day I wear black most days and I prefer "fuchsia" over pink. But, I must admit, I love the smell of roses.
I don't believe any of us want an uber-femme Wikipedia to be a tool to encourage contributors. I do really like the idea of expanding on skin options, and I do think the option of having a "user friendly" look can help improve contributions [snip]
My point exactly!
From, Emily
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 7:25 PM, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.comwrote:
I find I'm not really girly girly all that much. Pink and purple used to be my absolute favorite colors, for example, but now "Pretty much shade of blue" fills a slot above them. Of course, at least in America, blue=baby boy, know what I mean?
What I'm trying to say is, sometimes somebody who's comfortable with being a woman isn't always going to fulfill the "fluff, rainbow, unicorns, and sparkles!" stereotypical of how a woman should act. I don't want a backlash in response to this sort of concern severe enough that I feel uncomfortable editing.
I think a number of people here can relate to this sentiment. When I was a child, one of my bedrooms was white with pink roses. I hated it so much, I slept in a closet..literally, by choice. As a teenager I was raised by my father and teal and black were the shades of choice. To this very day I wear black most days and I prefer "fuchsia" over pink. But, I must admit, I love the smell of roses.
I don't believe any of us want an uber-femme Wikipedia to be a tool to encourage contributors. I do really like the idea of expanding on skin options, and I do think the option of having a "user friendly" look can help improve contributions (just like the visual editor..which I have missed a demo of..twice).
In a fantasy world it'd be really neat to demo different skins and user experiences with women of all ages - usability studies (like we do at the Archives of American Art with researchers of all ages and experience levels). I suppose that will be the only way we'll know if aesthetics, functionality and usability matter when it comes to women contributing to Wikipedia.
-Sarah (and yeah I like unicorns..)
-- GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia http://www.glamwiki.org Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Arthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch and Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/fashion/students-startup-weaves-a-web-that-k...
''If you look at Wikipedia, a lot of the [fashion] designer or brand pages do not have a lot of information on them, and Wikipedia does not really focus on images, so you will not ever find the new collections or [fashion] look books on there,'' she says.
''At the moment, there is no central database for fashion, a location where a girl can find the latest look book for Marc Jacobs or the first collection for Chanel. Either they are not there or they are on a host of different websites, so we want to create all of that in one place.'' Sarah Stierch says:
...uh..it's called Style.com and it's the greatest fashion website, ever, and has been for almost ten years. (Always makes me laugh that people in the fashion world forget men are as into fashion as much as women are, too!)
And I comment:
Given my experience with Wikipedia's fashion coverage, I think I can speak to this with some authority.
We did create a little external-link template for style.com: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Style.com_collection, that can be used as you would use the Facebook, Twitter or MySpace templates. It's, as Sarah says, an excellent resource.
I don't mind the idea of the look-book thing-we could and should arguably have articles on notable designers' biannual collections, and there would thus inevitably be associated Commons categories, which would serve as look books.
What we'd need-and this, it seems to me, is where wikifashion is failing-is someone who can take those pictures with a decent enough camera and can get access to the shows. Someone with some professional experience as a fashion photographer (cue Steely Dan's "Peg", from the now-deleted "Songs about fashion" category: "When the shutter falls / You see it all in 3-D / It's your favorite foreign movie ..."), in other words.
The problem, though, is that these people are not usually open to freely-licensing their work. And even, I suppose, a Wikipedian with the skill set might not necessarily be welcome at a fashion show, not if it was known that they were going to create images that would undermine the commercial value of the work of every other photographer there.
But, then again, we did get people into sporting events eventually, so I'm sure we'll eventually get someone into a fashion show or two.
Daniel Case