The only solution would be lack of anonymity. That won't fly, but it would cause the creepiness to go away.
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:42 AM, JJ Marr jjmarr@gmail.com wrote:
What do you propose a "take back the night" would be like? On Nov 30, 2014 8:12 AM, "Kathleen McCook" klmccook@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, one can see easily how they move from topic to topic. Connected and ensuring their POV dominates.
The issue of feminism should not be defined by men whose motivation seems to be to create an environment where women are "free" to be what they (the men discussed here ) imagine to us to be.
I believe that Marie's statements about keeping these issues off one's main course are the result of continuous attacks.
Wikipedia needs a TAKE BACK THE NIGHT movement. In my days on campus women attacked were told they shouldn't be out at night.So marches began to TAKE BACK THE NIGHT.
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 2:16 AM, JJ Marr jjmarr@gmail.com wrote:
To quote you in the context of your dispute over a video, you say "I dispute that it "makes little sense" and why does it even need to add informational value? Why can't it just be to add aesthetics to the article as pictures and videos often are?” I ask why don't you take that dispute up with the editor in question?
Also, you need to be more clear in what you are saying. I have no context to this message, and I think it is a complaint about a content dispute.
Please explain why this is relevant to the gender gap, since you are sending it out to everyone on the gender gap mailing list, and secondly, why a minor content dispute on enwiki is relevant to the Wikimedia gender gap community as a whole. On Nov 30, 2014 1:47 AM, "Marie Earley" eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
Not sure if this will produce a new thread or attach to the existing one (I've checked my spam folder, there's nothing there) but anyway....
Tim: I just wondered whether you regard this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic...
...as a lack of civility or a gender gap issue?
In particular this comment: "...As has been indicated on the talk page of the proposed decision, *repeatedly,* there is some question as to exactly *which* women this group seems to be reaching out toward, specifically, whether it is more or less of a more or less radical feminist perspective...."
I thought it summed up in a nutshell what the GGTF was really up against. It's a kind of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
- Are you now or have you ever been a feminist who believes that sex
work is the opposite of feminism? Anyone who answers yes that question is judged to be a "radical", a subversive who wants to push POV and therefore they are fair game.
On WP's list of feminists there were a very odd mish-mash of categories of feminist https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=54413... and lots of names missing e.g. Gail Dines. I did a major rewrite to organize it chronologically and it meant that "anti-pornography feminists", "anti-prostitution feminists" and "socialist feminists" could go onto the list https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=54566...
The list has recently been changed to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feminists and I'm working with a couple of editors to see how we can improve it further.
I've largely avoided trouble by sticking to admin based work such as this, and similar work: Cleaning up bibliographies, e.g. Joseph Schumpeter, from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=63356... to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=63434...
Creating an article for the International Association for Feminist Economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_for_Feminist_Economi... and improving the article for the Human Development and Capability Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_and_Capability_Association then creating biographies for past presidents of IAFFE and fellows of the HDCA. Adding DOBs to notable scholars and then adding them to Wiki's calendar (births).
These organisations / individuals argues against sex work on the grounds of the perception of women that is generated (i.e. as a thing / object). The problem with the MRA, pro-porn, pro-sex work POV is they have no problem with anti-porn etc. POV provided it is in a box labelled "mad" or "religious" with a sub-text that the only people that could possibly support that POV are from the moral right and are probably racist and homophobic as well. The other problem that the MRA have is that, human development and capability, which includes feminist economics / inequality / care work etc. collectively constitutes a 'single broad topic' (WP:SPATG), so they are unable to stop editors, who wish to edit in this area, from doing so. The natural place for this work is within the Gender Studies project. Which is why they write nonsense like this: http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorshi... (if there were really the kind of censorship that they are talking about on WP then there would be no Pornography Project).
Any attempt to show 3 distinct POVs (a) Pro-sex work (b) Right-wing anti-sex work (on moral / judgemental grounds), and (c) Left-wing anti-sex work (on negative perception grounds) - the POV that dare not speak its name ... is met with a steel fist hammered onto the table.
I made a video for use in the article "sex wars", an article which is all about the separation between (b) and (c) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminist_sex_wars&oldid=54699... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Feminist_sex_wars.ogv It was deleted instantly on the grounds that the "Video makes little sense and does not add to informational value of article." I dispute that it "makes little sense" and why does it even need to add informational value? Why can't it just be to add aesthetics to the article as pictures and videos often are?
As soon as I step off the path of admin related tasks that the MRA-mob can't get me for, and stray into article content I am jumped on, obstensibly for technical reasons but they are almost exclusively by editors whose other edits are connected to porn and sex-positive feminism, who have pretty much hijacked the Feminism project and they are trying to do as much damage as possible to the Gender Studies project as they can as well.
It may be time for an article on "fourth-wave feminism" which is separate to the "history of feminism", but the article would have to say that the term is used by both (a) and (c), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism#Fourth_Wave . You're not supposed to mention (c), you're only supposed to mention (a) and (b) - and then arch your eyebrows at the moral and out-of-touch group that is (b). Anyone trying to create it would run into the MRA trying to lump (b) and (c) together. The talk page would be full of stuff like, "well the article should say that, 'group (b) have been called fourth-wave, but it is just a very, few number of places and the term is far more attributed to group (a) than any other group of feminists'.
This message is longer than I originally intended it to be but I do think that there are a lot of well meaning editors on WP who are either unaware or a bit *naïve* when it comes the antics of the people that we are talking about. It is also *naïve* to think that they are not co-ordinating their handiwork off-wiki.
Marie
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
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
You could go to Citizendium, considering that has a lack of anonymity and strict civility rules.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizendium http://citizendium.org/ On Nov 30, 2014 11:52 AM, "Kathleen McCook" klmccook@gmail.com wrote:
The only solution would be lack of anonymity. That won't fly, but it would cause the creepiness to go away.
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:42 AM, JJ Marr jjmarr@gmail.com wrote:
What do you propose a "take back the night" would be like? On Nov 30, 2014 8:12 AM, "Kathleen McCook" klmccook@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, one can see easily how they move from topic to topic. Connected and ensuring their POV dominates.
The issue of feminism should not be defined by men whose motivation seems to be to create an environment where women are "free" to be what they (the men discussed here ) imagine to us to be.
I believe that Marie's statements about keeping these issues off one's main course are the result of continuous attacks.
Wikipedia needs a TAKE BACK THE NIGHT movement. In my days on campus women attacked were told they shouldn't be out at night.So marches began to TAKE BACK THE NIGHT.
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 2:16 AM, JJ Marr jjmarr@gmail.com wrote:
To quote you in the context of your dispute over a video, you say "I dispute that it "makes little sense" and why does it even need to add informational value? Why can't it just be to add aesthetics to the article as pictures and videos often are?" I ask why don't you take that dispute up with the editor in question?
Also, you need to be more clear in what you are saying. I have no context to this message, and I think it is a complaint about a content dispute.
Please explain why this is relevant to the gender gap, since you are sending it out to everyone on the gender gap mailing list, and secondly, why a minor content dispute on enwiki is relevant to the Wikimedia gender gap community as a whole. On Nov 30, 2014 1:47 AM, "Marie Earley" eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
Not sure if this will produce a new thread or attach to the existing one (I've checked my spam folder, there's nothing there) but anyway....
Tim: I just wondered whether you regard this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic...
...as a lack of civility or a gender gap issue?
In particular this comment: "...As has been indicated on the talk page of the proposed decision, *repeatedly,* there is some question as to exactly *which* women this group seems to be reaching out toward, specifically, whether it is more or less of a more or less radical feminist perspective...."
I thought it summed up in a nutshell what the GGTF was really up against. It's a kind of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
- Are you now or have you ever been a feminist who believes that sex
work is the opposite of feminism? Anyone who answers yes that question is judged to be a "radical", a subversive who wants to push POV and therefore they are fair game.
On WP's list of feminists there were a very odd mish-mash of categories of feminist https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=54413... and lots of names missing e.g. Gail Dines. I did a major rewrite to organize it chronologically and it meant that "anti-pornography feminists", "anti-prostitution feminists" and "socialist feminists" could go onto the list https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=54566...
The list has recently been changed to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feminists and I'm working with a couple of editors to see how we can improve it further.
I've largely avoided trouble by sticking to admin based work such as this, and similar work: Cleaning up bibliographies, e.g. Joseph Schumpeter, from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=63356... to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=63434...
Creating an article for the International Association for Feminist Economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_for_Feminist_Economi... and improving the article for the Human Development and Capability Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_and_Capability_Association then creating biographies for past presidents of IAFFE and fellows of the HDCA. Adding DOBs to notable scholars and then adding them to Wiki's calendar (births).
These organisations / individuals argues against sex work on the grounds of the perception of women that is generated (i.e. as a thing / object). The problem with the MRA, pro-porn, pro-sex work POV is they have no problem with anti-porn etc. POV provided it is in a box labelled "mad" or "religious" with a sub-text that the only people that could possibly support that POV are from the moral right and are probably racist and homophobic as well. The other problem that the MRA have is that, human development and capability, which includes feminist economics / inequality / care work etc. collectively constitutes a 'single broad topic' (WP:SPATG), so they are unable to stop editors, who wish to edit in this area, from doing so. The natural place for this work is within the Gender Studies project. Which is why they write nonsense like this: http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorshi... (if there were really the kind of censorship that they are talking about on WP then there would be no Pornography Project).
Any attempt to show 3 distinct POVs (a) Pro-sex work (b) Right-wing anti-sex work (on moral / judgemental grounds), and (c) Left-wing anti-sex work (on negative perception grounds) - the POV that dare not speak its name ... is met with a steel fist hammered onto the table.
I made a video for use in the article "sex wars", an article which is all about the separation between (b) and (c) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminist_sex_wars&oldid=54699... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Feminist_sex_wars.ogv It was deleted instantly on the grounds that the "Video makes little sense and does not add to informational value of article." I dispute that it "makes little sense" and why does it even need to add informational value? Why can't it just be to add aesthetics to the article as pictures and videos often are?
As soon as I step off the path of admin related tasks that the MRA-mob can't get me for, and stray into article content I am jumped on, obstensibly for technical reasons but they are almost exclusively by editors whose other edits are connected to porn and sex-positive feminism, who have pretty much hijacked the Feminism project and they are trying to do as much damage as possible to the Gender Studies project as they can as well.
It may be time for an article on "fourth-wave feminism" which is separate to the "history of feminism", but the article would have to say that the term is used by both (a) and (c), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism#Fourth_Wave . You're not supposed to mention (c), you're only supposed to mention (a) and (b) - and then arch your eyebrows at the moral and out-of-touch group that is (b). Anyone trying to create it would run into the MRA trying to lump (b) and (c) together. The talk page would be full of stuff like, "well the article should say that, 'group (b) have been called fourth-wave, but it is just a very, few number of places and the term is far more attributed to group (a) than any other group of feminists'.
This message is longer than I originally intended it to be but I do think that there are a lot of well meaning editors on WP who are either unaware or a bit *naïve* when it comes the antics of the people that we are talking about. It is also *naïve* to think that they are not co-ordinating their handiwork off-wiki.
Marie
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
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 11/30/2014 11:51 AM, Kathleen McCook wrote:
The only solution would be lack of anonymity. That won't fly, but it would cause the creepiness to go away.
I used to think that too. But some people don't care about people knowing who they are, what they think or who the mess with. I don't care that much about anonymity and have said a few problematic things (usually under intense harassment). Assuming he really is "Eric Corbett", he's said a lot. Sitush has outed who he really is at least three times and redacted only one, so that's widely known. Same is true for a lot of individuals, some of whom flame away just within the boundaries of NPA.
The problem is there are all sorts of harassers out there, some of them paid by govts, who will harass or come after individuals who disagree with them or who criticize their favorite program, politician, party or country.
Better would be a sliding scale of privileges depending on whether you are an IP or registered and confirmed and whether you are at least willing to admit who you are to the Foundation, including confirming via phone or skype. The latter would be mandatory to become an Admin or an Arbitrator or to retain editing privileges after violating important policies repeatedly.
This would work REALLY good to stop BLP violations which have been the biggest time sink for me, at least until GGTF. Once the Foundation knows who you are, it's really easy for pissed off subjects of trashy BLPs to get a subpoena and sue your butt.
I have a list of good ideas in formulation, some drawn from previous discussions, and one of these days soon will post here, at my carolmoore.net/wikipedia, at the new youtube site and who knows where else. (Opinion page of NY TImes? ha ha ha)
CM
I am really not comfortable with this list being used to host or organize opposition research or commentary against individual editors. I understand that people are angry about the disposition of this case (and I agree that it was pretty craptastic), but taking it as an opportunity to delve into and opine on the real lives of those on the "other side" is as much personalizing the dispute as anything else that happened in this case (and is unattractively similar to doxxing-style intimidation in my mind, even if you don't propose to explicitly list addresses or phone numbers). Speaking as someone who has had similar done to me because in the other person's mind I was wrong, evil, corrupt, etc: it's not any righter when we do it because we think "I'm good and they're bad" than when someone else does it to us because they think they're "good" and we're "bad".
-Fluffernutter
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 3:51 PM, marinka marinkavandam.com < marinka@marinkavandam.com> wrote:
I'm new to this mailing list, so I may not be doing this right. Please let me know if I'm not. I wish to make a response to Carol's remarks on anonymity.
I don't propose to doxx Corbett here, but I don't think there was ever any problem about his identity even when he was editing under the monniker Malleus Fatuorum ("hammer of men" - but originally it it was Malleus Fatuarum, "hammer of women"). His first few edits are classical in nature and then there is a hiatus of several months after which he resumes again and commences his familiar program of edits centered around his local history and things Northern in the UK. Should one have wished to identify him then, it really shouldn't have been difficult even in those early days. And of course he subsequently made, earlier this year, a remark about a dreadful family tragedy which certainly does serve to identify him should anyone wish to research it.
My experience of life is that sexist men are generally unaware of their trait, would indignantly deny it if put to them, and thus don't necessarily feel the need to remain anonymous.
What I find interesting about Corbett is his lack of notability when you go searching for him. Other than a couple of Amazon reviews (which appear to be his based on the subjects reviewed) I can't find a single blog, article or any other resource authored by him with a single exception pertaining to a charitable fund his family and associates appear to have set up (for the welfare of ferrets). Otherwise the world outside Wikipedia is silent on him, and he in that wider world.
I confess myself quite curious about Corbett and his Manchester circle, and not merely within the context of Wikipedia's gender gap but within the broader context of exercising power, and for that reason I am making a preliminary study of his editing history with a view to discovering how he came to achieve his position of dominance in Wikipedia. If I have anything significant to say about that, I shall upload it to my website and let the list know. I don't expect that will be before next Spring,
Marinka van Dam (a pseudonym)
Reclaim the night have just celebrated their 10th anniversary here in the UK http://www.reclaimthenight.co.uk/
I like the idea, not sure what it would look like in practice. I can't help thinking we have them already with women's edit-a-thons. The thing that strikes me about them is they tend to be about women writers, scientists, women's history - all valuable, but where are edit-a-thons for women economists, politicians and entrepreneurs?
It's one of the reasons I stick to cleaning up bibliographies and creating new blps - after drafting the hell out them to make them bullet-proof first.
Marie
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 11:51:47 -0500 From: klmccook@gmail.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Gendergap] coordination work off-wiki
The only solution would be lack of anonymity. That won't fly, but it would cause the creepiness to go away. On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:42 AM, JJ Marr jjmarr@gmail.com wrote: What do you propose a "take back the night" would be like? On Nov 30, 2014 8:12 AM, "Kathleen McCook" klmccook@gmail.com wrote: Yes, one can see easily how they move from topic to topic. Connected and ensuring their POV dominates. The issue of feminism should not be defined by men whose motivation seems to be to create an environment where women are "free" to be what they (the men discussed here ) imagine to us to be. I believe that Marie's statements about keeping these issues off one's main course are the result of continuous attacks. Wikipedia needs a TAKE BACK THE NIGHT movement. In my days on campus women attacked were told they shouldn't be out at night.So marches began to TAKE BACK THE NIGHT. On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 2:16 AM, JJ Marr jjmarr@gmail.com wrote: To quote you in the context of your dispute over a video, you say "I dispute that it "makes little sense" and why does it even need to add informational value? Why can't it just be to add aesthetics to the article as pictures and videos often are?” I ask why don't you take that dispute up with the editor in question? Also, you need to be more clear in what you are saying. I have no context to this message, and I think it is a complaint about a content dispute. Please explain why this is relevant to the gender gap, since you are sending it out to everyone on the gender gap mailing list, and secondly, why a minor content dispute on enwiki is relevant to the Wikimedia gender gap community as a whole. On Nov 30, 2014 1:47 AM, "Marie Earley" eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
Not sure if this will produce a new thread or attach to the existing one (I've checked my spam folder, there's nothing there) but anyway....
Tim: I just wondered whether you regard this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic...
...as a lack of civility or a gender gap issue?
In particular this comment: "...As has been indicated on the talk page of the proposed decision, repeatedly, there is some question as to exactly which women this group seems to be reaching out toward, specifically, whether it is more or less of a more or less radical feminist perspective...."
I thought it summed up in a nutshell what the GGTF was really up against. It's a kind of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism * Are you now or have you ever been a feminist who believes that sex work is the opposite of feminism? Anyone who answers yes that question is judged to be a "radical", a subversive who wants to push POV and therefore they are fair game.
On WP's list of feminists there were a very odd mish-mash of categories of feminist https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=54413... and lots of names missing e.g. Gail Dines. I did a major rewrite to organize it chronologically and it meant that "anti-pornography feminists", "anti-prostitution feminists" and "socialist feminists" could go onto the list https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=54566...
The list has recently been changed to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feminists and I'm working with a couple of editors to see how we can improve it further.
I've largely avoided trouble by sticking to admin based work such as this, and similar work: Cleaning up bibliographies, e.g. Joseph Schumpeter, from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=63356... to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=63434... Creating an article for the International Association for Feminist Economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_for_Feminist_Economi... and improving the article for the Human Development and Capability Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_and_Capability_Association then creating biographies for past presidents of IAFFE and fellows of the HDCA. Adding DOBs to notable scholars and then adding them to Wiki's calendar (births).
These organisations / individuals argues against sex work on the grounds of the perception of women that is generated (i.e. as a thing / object). The problem with the MRA, pro-porn, pro-sex work POV is they have no problem with anti-porn etc. POV provided it is in a box labelled "mad" or "religious" with a sub-text that the only people that could possibly support that POV are from the moral right and are probably racist and homophobic as well. The other problem that the MRA have is that, human development and capability, which includes feminist economics / inequality / care work etc. collectively constitutes a 'single broad topic' (WP:SPATG), so they are unable to stop editors, who wish to edit in this area, from doing so. The natural place for this work is within the Gender Studies project. Which is why they write nonsense like this: http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorshi... (if there were really the kind of censorship that they are talking about on WP then there would be no Pornography Project).
Any attempt to show 3 distinct POVs (a) Pro-sex work (b) Right-wing anti-sex work (on moral / judgemental grounds), and (c) Left-wing anti-sex work (on negative perception grounds) - the POV that dare not speak its name ... is met with a steel fist hammered onto the table.
I made a video for use in the article "sex wars", an article which is all about the separation between (b) and (c) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminist_sex_wars&oldid=54699... It was deleted instantly on the grounds that the "Video makes little sense and does not add to informational value of article." I dispute that it "makes little sense" and why does it even need to add informational value? Why can't it just be to add aesthetics to the article as pictures and videos often are?
As soon as I step off the path of admin related tasks that the MRA-mob can't get me for, and stray into article content I am jumped on, obstensibly for technical reasons but they are almost exclusively by editors whose other edits are connected to porn and sex-positive feminism, who have pretty much hijacked the Feminism project and they are trying to do as much damage as possible to the Gender Studies project as they can as well.
It may be time for an article on "fourth-wave feminism" which is separate to the "history of feminism", but the article would have to say that the term is used by both (a) and (c), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism#Fourth_Wave . You're not supposed to mention (c), you're only supposed to mention (a) and (b) - and then arch your eyebrows at the moral and out-of-touch group that is (b). Anyone trying to create it would run into the MRA trying to lump (b) and (c) together. The talk page would be full of stuff like, "well the article should say that, 'group (b) have been called fourth-wave, but it is just a very, few number of places and the term is far more attributed to group (a) than any other group of feminists'.
This message is longer than I originally intended it to be but I do think that there are a lot of well meaning editors on WP who are either unaware or a bit naïve when it comes the antics of the people that we are talking about. It is also naïve to think that they are not co-ordinating their handiwork off-wiki.
Marie
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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