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
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
Pulling out a couple of comments for reply from Marie's statement: On 11/30/2014 1:46 AM, Marie Earley wrote:
.. 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...."
**There definitely are all sorts of feminists. But what happened here was that Eric Corbett defined what is an isn't an acceptable level of feminism and then various of his women friends who may or may not identify as feminists would pop up during GGTF and even more during Arbitration to complain about the horrible radical feminists at GGTF. I have yet to see these horrible radical feminist quotes. Off hand I know there were a couple rather radical proposals by males; my joke about the "systemic bias card" (which is evidence against me in Arbitration!); and angry reactions by a number of males and females who protested the sexist badgering and rejection of opinions of those who supported the project. So Eric, who has been helpful to some women, had lots of women supporters jumping up to poison the well. I'm sure some women who have lower key approaches than others of us were genuinely upset by some womens strong reactions; but maybe their definitions of proper female behavior are way too narrow.
It was quite disappointing when I realized that one editor who identified as female (though not on her user pages) and kept boasting about being a feminist, put down other women she disagreed with and badgered us to make alliance with her on articles she wanted to change. Much later I discovered that early in 2014 she was joking with Eric on his talk page about his not having been naughty enough and causing controversy lately!! She got all the controversy she wanted at GGTF!!! (I put that in evidence.)
...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).
**As a libertarian I don't want to see it illegal (unless it portrays violence forced on women or men). As a feminist I think it's quite often a sick addiction and higher consciousness humans would have little use for it. But that's the bottom line issue at Wikipedia: too many male editors motivated by base emotions and addictions, angry at women for competing with them on wikipedia or not fulfilling their emotional and sexual needs in the real world, and thus engaging in personal attacks, harassment and "gang banger" behavior. Maybe it is only a few hundred like that, out of thousands of male editors, but that's enough to make Wikipedia an incredibly hostile environment for most women, males, mature people, professionals, etc.
CM
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
my joke about the "systemic bias card" (which is evidence against me in Arbitration!);
Yeah, this is one of the more bizarre diffs. I am glad a couple of arbitrators opposed on the basis of that. I would be even happier if it were struck.
This reminds me – someone said at GGTF a few weeks ago that the fact that – according to a recent study – women on average worked in slightly more contentious articles than males proved that women didn't mind contentiousness. What they forgot to take into account there is that articles women contribute to often *become* contentious because their edits are being contested by males.
In that sense, I believe Marie's anecdotes are quite to the point.
I'm getting my GG notifications through now.
JJ Marr: Re: context, I was having trouble getting the GG e-mails so I couldn't hit reply and keep my messages in the same thread (although I did use the same title). It should have been the next message in this thread: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-November/004957.html
I didn't take my dispute up with the editor as I had previously had run-ins with him. His profile says that he edits pornography and radical feminism topics and he is critical of what he sees as "POV pushing and conflicts of interest around a number of articles on individual feminists and feminist organizations"
His deletion of the video, speaks for itself. The same is true of the discussion I linked to previously, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic... It is not about my being "selective", and I'm not even trying to get rid of the pornography project or any of its articles, but if that is what interests these two editors then their involvement in GGTF is spurious.
They try to sugar-coat their comments with "why don't you explain it to me?" and faux concern, "I don't like what GGTF is becoming."
Perhaps members of GGTF should go over to the Pornography Project, become members and behave equally disruptively.
In answer to your other questions: * Please explain why this is relevant to the gender gap, since you are sending it out to everyone on the gender gap mailing list? - Please explain why you think it isn't relevant, since the opening link in my last post (and given again above) is to GGTF's talk page? * [Explain] why a minor content dispute on enwiki is relevant to the Wikimedia gender gap community as a whole? - Because it it provides a telling snap-shop
Marie
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 15:54:49 +0000 From: jayen466@gmail.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote: my joke about the "systemic bias card" (which is evidence against me in Arbitration!);
Yeah, this is one of the more bizarre diffs. I am glad a couple of arbitrators opposed on the basis of that. I would be even happier if it were struck. This reminds me – someone said at GGTF a few weeks ago that the fact that – according to a recent study – women on average worked in slightly more contentious articles than males proved that women didn't mind contentiousness. What they forgot to take into account there is that articles women contribute to often become contentious because their edits are being contested by males. In that sense, I believe Marie's anecdotes are quite to the point.
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Marie Earley eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
In answer to your other questions:
- Please explain why this is relevant to the gender gap, since you are
sending it out to everyone on the gender gap mailing list?
- Please explain why you think it isn't relevant, since the opening link
in my last post (and given again above) is to GGTF's talk page?
- [Explain] why a minor content dispute on enwiki is relevant to the
Wikimedia gender gap community as a whole?
- Because it it provides a telling snap-shop
Marie
Hi Marie, your post was interesting and on-topic. Please don't be discouraged from letting us know about these issues. They have been happening a lot and seem to be increasing.
Sarah
Thanks Sarah,
Yes, they does seem to be a lot more of it lately. I also thought that discussion board stuff would die down. They got their pound of flesh and now they seem to want blood as well.
I pretty much stayed off the boards but I was drawn in by a "Hey-let's-move-on" style opening post which just turned out to be a red herring.
Anyway, before all this kicked off I was looking at bots that do autoassessments, in particular https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DodoBot/Requests
It works like this: * Create a page called - Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies/Categories * On the page that just been created, list the sub-categories that are of interest to the project, e.g. the way that the Toronto project has done here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Toronto/Categories * If the sub-categories have their own sub-categories, and you want to capture all of them then add (Depth:Inf) or to the 'depth' of sub-category that you want to go e.g. (Depth:2) * You can also assign how important you want those articles in that sub-category to be labelled, for example Category: Gender and entertainment (Depth:Inf) (Importance:Mid) - will result in all the articles in the category 'Gender and entertainment', and all the articles in the sub-categories (and the sub-categories of the sub-categories of 'Gender and entertainment' to infinity) being labelled 'mid importance'.
Depth explained a bit better: * Category:Gender and entertainment * Category:Feminism and the arts - (depth level = 1) * Category:Feminist films - (depth level = 2) * Category:Studio Ghibli - (depth level = 3) * Category:Studio Ghibli animated films - (depth level = 4)
* Category: Gender and entertainment (Depth:2) will include all the articles in the categories - Gender and entertainment; Feminism and the arts; Feminist films
* Category: Gender and entertainment (Depth:3) will include all the articles in the categories - Gender and entertainment; Feminism and the arts; Feminist films AND Studio Ghibli
* Category: Gender and entertainment (Depth:Inf) will include all the articles in the category - Gender and entertainment AND all the lower levels, including any new sub-categories created for the Category:Studio Ghibli animated films or lower, such as Category:Studio Ghibli animated films X (depth level = 5), Category:Studio Ghibli animated films X1 (depth level = 6) ... etc. to an infinite depth.
But before you can do any of that you have to get consensus from the project participants on the categories that you want labelling Top, Mid, Low importance. That's the tricky bit.
I don't mind setting up the page and creating a provisional list probably based on existing assessments, but then it will have to go to discussion.
Marie
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 14:32:17 -0700 From: slimvirgin@gmail.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Marie Earley eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
In answer to your other questions: * Please explain why this is relevant to the gender gap, since you are sending it out to everyone on the gender gap mailing list? - Please explain why you think it isn't relevant, since the opening link in my last post (and given again above) is to GGTF's talk page? * [Explain] why a minor content dispute on enwiki is relevant to the Wikimedia gender gap community as a whole? - Because it it provides a telling snap-shop
Marie
Hi Marie, your post was interesting and on-topic. Please don't be discouraged from letting us know about these issues. They have been happening a lot and seem to be increasing.
Sarah
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
The conclusion of the case has sparked the inevitable questions on Jimmy Wales' talk page. Current status of that Q&A session:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=6...
in re: video - addressing the video issue alone -
i think you've sailed upon the shoals of multi-media phobia "i don't like it" = merely decorative
better to argue: that the video, or a diagram illustrates the divergence between sex-positive and anti-sex work feminism; that the diagram certainly adds to your (or the reader's) understanding; that certain reliable sources include such a diagram (so it's not original to you)
keep in mind that one tenet of white male privilege is "5. worship of the written word" so it is a frequent "content dispute" masking ideology.
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 1:46 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
Hmm. I look at it and think "why is the term "sex-positive" being used in this way?" It's highly biased, and it's certainly not terminology used in most of the world amongst those who support prostitution as a career choice; in fact the two have nothing to do with each other. I'd never heard of it being used in this manner before, although I'd heard and read the term being used in a lot of other ways - including the validation for including sex education in the school curriculum.
Risker
On 30 November 2014 at 16:13, Jim Hayes slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
in re: video - addressing the video issue alone -
i think you've sailed upon the shoals of multi-media phobia "i don't like it" = merely decorative
better to argue: that the video, or a diagram illustrates the divergence between sex-positive and anti-sex work feminism; that the diagram certainly adds to your (or the reader's) understanding; that certain reliable sources include such a diagram (so it's not original to you)
keep in mind that one tenet of white male privilege is "5. worship of the written word" so it is a frequent "content dispute" masking ideology.
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 1:46 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