Ms. Stierch's comments are exactly on target.
Do the GGTF-type organizing off wiki, not on-wiki. That's not the place for it.
Start your own message board akin to Wikipediocracy. Organize (and vent) there.
Use Facebook, etc.
Concentrate on developing new feminist editors, helping them through the steep learning curve, with an emphasis on content, content, content. Nobody is going to have a problem with that.
Tim Davenport Carrite on WP /// Randy from Boise on WPO Corvallis, OR
====
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 14:25:33 -0800 From: Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com
My tips are:
1) No talk pages if I can avoid it 2) Other channels (sorry people, but not all revolutions can take place in front of everyone) 3) Social media
I get more value asking for help on Twitter and Facebook than I do on any other medium.
ANd that's why the WikiWomen's Collaborative was created - social media brings more females (since we use it more than males!).
-Sarah
As long as (mostly male) Wikipedia editors are allowed to insult and harass editors whose edits they oppose for whatever reason Wikipedia cannot retain women, no matter how much they follow the suggestions below. (Unless of course they focus on shaming the WMF until it uses its terms of service against offending editors and administrators and arbitrators and that is my particular interest at this point.)
Since few women have any interest in editing in a hostile editing environment. Many males leave quickly for the same reason. This is especially true in political, economic or current events areas which too many males consider their fiefdoms where womens' input not appreciated. And FYI just 2% of males is too many IF they are allowed to get away with insults and harassment.
So reigning in the worst offenders on Wikipedia - without punishing even harder those who oppose - or EVEN lose their tempers about - their offenses is necessary.
On 12/30/2014 8:30 AM, Tim Davenport wrote:
Ms. Stierch's comments are exactly on target.
Do the GGTF-type organizing off wiki, not on-wiki. That's not the place for it.
Start your own message board akin to Wikipediocracy. Organize (and vent) there.
Use Facebook, etc.
Concentrate on developing new feminist editors, helping them through the steep learning curve, with an emphasis on content, content, content. Nobody is going to have a problem with that.
Tim Davenport Carrite on WP /// Randy from Boise on WPO Corvallis, OR
Carol....let's just deconstruct what you're saying here.
If we were to take the words "female" and "male" and "women" and "men" out of it entirely, would it sum up one of the major issues in editor retention? I'm going to be honest, I've read a genuinely disproportionate number of insulting edits made by women (as a percentage of overall edits by editors I know to be women), and it's something that needs to be kept in mind; while the overwhelming majority of editors are male, I've not seen any evidence that a male editor is any more or less likely to behave badly than a female editor. It's just more obvious because they outnumber us 10 to 1.
Risker/Anne
On 30 December 2014 at 09:57, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
As long as (mostly male) Wikipedia editors are allowed to insult and harass editors whose edits they oppose for whatever reason Wikipedia cannot retain women, no matter how much they follow the suggestions below. (Unless of course they focus on shaming the WMF until it uses its terms of service against offending editors and administrators and arbitrators and that is my particular interest at this point.)
Since few women have any interest in editing in a hostile editing environment. Many males leave quickly for the same reason. This is especially true in political, economic or current events areas which too many males consider their fiefdoms where womens' input not appreciated. And FYI just 2% of males is too many IF they are allowed to get away with insults and harassment.
So reigning in the worst offenders on Wikipedia - without punishing even harder those who oppose - or EVEN lose their tempers about - their offenses is necessary.
On 12/30/2014 8:30 AM, Tim Davenport wrote:
Ms. Stierch's comments are exactly on target.
Do the GGTF-type organizing off wiki, not on-wiki. That's not the place for it.
Start your own message board akin to Wikipediocracy. Organize (and vent) there.
Use Facebook, etc.
Concentrate on developing new feminist editors, helping them through the steep learning curve, with an emphasis on content, content, content. Nobody is going to have a problem with that.
Tim Davenport Carrite on WP /// Randy from Boise on WPO Corvallis, OR
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Carol....let's just deconstruct what you're saying here.
If we were to take the words "female" and "male" and "women" and "men" out of it entirely, would it sum up one of the major issues in editor retention? I'm going to be honest, I've read a genuinely disproportionate number of insulting edits made by women (as a percentage of overall edits by editors I know to be women), and it's something that needs to be kept in mind; while the overwhelming majority of editors are male, I've not seen any evidence that a male editor is any more or less likely to behave badly than a female editor. It's just more obvious because they outnumber us 10 to 1.
On the subject of gender nomenclature, I continue to find it interesting when for some writers males are "males" and females are "women" in normal usage. Not just picking on Carol, because I've observed it on a semi-regular basis - but almost exclusively where feminist topics are being discussed.
In my experience, except for alleged women coming to GGTF talk age and arbitration page, and a transwoman in Austrian economics, I only ran into one woman who was particularly insulting. And that was on the highly sensitive Death of Caylee Anthony article where tempers sometimes ran high. So anecdotes aren't too helpful.
What helps is to listen to all the women - and men - who have complained about the combative and hostile male-dominated editing culture to the point it's been mentioned repeatedly in research and articles. See the research, media, organizational and related links posted from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias...
CM
On 12/30/2014 10:15 AM, Risker wrote:
Carol....let's just deconstruct what you're saying here. If we were to take the words "female" and "male" and "women" and "men" out of it entirely, would it sum up one of the major issues in editor retention? I'm going to be honest, I've read a genuinely disproportionate number of insulting edits made by women (as a percentage of overall edits by editors I know to be women), and it's something that needs to be kept in mind; while the overwhelming majority of editors are male, I've not seen any evidence that a male editor is any more or less likely to behave badly than a female editor. It's just more obvious because they outnumber us 10 to 1. Risker/Anne
I think there is very little that Carol and I would agree on when it comes to subjects and article topics, and we definitely have different editing styles, but I absolutely agree with her on one thing, and that is the hostility on Wikipedia is a turn-off to a lot of women and men. I would much rather be editing articles most of the time, and the only reason that I got into civility policy and related issues is because of what I've experienced and observed.
There are insulting women on WP, but I believe they're either women who are that way by nature, or who have adopted their attitudes to be "one of the guys." They'll throw other women under the bus in a heartbeat.
Here's the thing: Even if we attract scores of women to come and edit, if the environment stays the same, most of them will leave (and a lot of the men who come during the same time). If you're running an exclusionary club and you want a more diverse membership - it's not just enough to throw the doors open and *say* "come on in." You don't ask your new guests to change their ways, you ask yourselves: What can we change about our club that will help these new members to feel welcome?
Lightbreather
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Carol....let's just deconstruct what you're saying here.
If we were to take the words "female" and "male" and "women" and "men" out of it entirely, would it sum up one of the major issues in editor retention? I'm going to be honest, I've read a genuinely disproportionate number of insulting edits made by women (as a percentage of overall edits by editors I know to be women), and it's something that needs to be kept in mind; while the overwhelming majority of editors are male, I've not seen any evidence that a male editor is any more or less likely to behave badly than a female editor. It's just more obvious because they outnumber us 10 to 1.
Risker/Anne
On 30 December 2014 at 09:57, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
As long as (mostly male) Wikipedia editors are allowed to insult and harass editors whose edits they oppose for whatever reason Wikipedia cannot retain women, no matter how much they follow the suggestions below. (Unless of course they focus on shaming the WMF until it uses its terms of service against offending editors and administrators and arbitrators and that is my particular interest at this point.)
Since few women have any interest in editing in a hostile editing environment. Many males leave quickly for the same reason. This is especially true in political, economic or current events areas which too many males consider their fiefdoms where womens' input not appreciated. And FYI just 2% of males is too many IF they are allowed to get away with insults and harassment.
So reigning in the worst offenders on Wikipedia - without punishing even harder those who oppose - or EVEN lose their tempers about - their offenses is necessary.
On 12/30/2014 8:30 AM, Tim Davenport wrote:
Ms. Stierch's comments are exactly on target.
Do the GGTF-type organizing off wiki, not on-wiki. That's not the place for it.
Start your own message board akin to Wikipediocracy. Organize (and vent) there.
Use Facebook, etc.
Concentrate on developing new feminist editors, helping them through the steep learning curve, with an emphasis on content, content, content. Nobody is going to have a problem with that.
Tim Davenport Carrite on WP /// Randy from Boise on WPO Corvallis, OR
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 12/30/2014 11:17 AM, LB wrote:
I think there is very little that Carol and I would agree on when it comes to subjects and article topics, and we definitely have different editing styles, but I absolutely agree with her on one thing, and that is the hostility on Wikipedia is a turn-off to a lot of women and men. I would much rather be editing articles most of the time, and the only reason that I got into civility policy and related issues is because of what I've experienced and observed.
Also, as I've noted, I came from 15 years in a highly combative email discussion arena dominated by guys. LB might have been in more supportive or collaborative email environments.
But despite these differences we both had much higher expectations of Wikipedia given it's principles of collaboration and NPOV and Civility, all of which were shown to be unevenly and unfairly applied by partisan and cliquish editors.
I suggest that an environment made up of *mostly* men is going to behave in a way that is *mostly* male.
The Argument Culture http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/DAED_a_00211?journalCode=daed#.VKLQgF4AA by Deborah Tannen PhD
Lightbreather
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Carol....let's just deconstruct what you're saying here.
If we were to take the words "female" and "male" and "women" and "men" out of it entirely, would it sum up one of the major issues in editor retention? I'm going to be honest, I've read a genuinely disproportionate number of insulting edits made by women (as a percentage of overall edits by editors I know to be women), and it's something that needs to be kept in mind; while the overwhelming majority of editors are male, I've not seen any evidence that a male editor is any more or less likely to behave badly than a female editor. It's just more obvious because they outnumber us 10 to 1.
Risker/Anne
On 30 December 2014 at 09:57, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
As long as (mostly male) Wikipedia editors are allowed to insult and harass editors whose edits they oppose for whatever reason Wikipedia cannot retain women, no matter how much they follow the suggestions below. (Unless of course they focus on shaming the WMF until it uses its terms of service against offending editors and administrators and arbitrators and that is my particular interest at this point.)
Since few women have any interest in editing in a hostile editing environment. Many males leave quickly for the same reason. This is especially true in political, economic or current events areas which too many males consider their fiefdoms where womens' input not appreciated. And FYI just 2% of males is too many IF they are allowed to get away with insults and harassment.
So reigning in the worst offenders on Wikipedia - without punishing even harder those who oppose - or EVEN lose their tempers about - their offenses is necessary.
On 12/30/2014 8:30 AM, Tim Davenport wrote:
Ms. Stierch's comments are exactly on target.
Do the GGTF-type organizing off wiki, not on-wiki. That's not the place for it.
Start your own message board akin to Wikipediocracy. Organize (and vent) there.
Use Facebook, etc.
Concentrate on developing new feminist editors, helping them through the steep learning curve, with an emphasis on content, content, content. Nobody is going to have a problem with that.
Tim Davenport Carrite on WP /// Randy from Boise on WPO Corvallis, OR
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
That's what I have been doing. That's what Adrianne and I practice(d) and it's worked well so far.
Now it's a global movement devoid of the drama that happens here. I am proud of that.
Sarah On Dec 30, 2014 5:30 AM, "Tim Davenport" shoehutch@gmail.com wrote:
Ms. Stierch's comments are exactly on target.
Do the GGTF-type organizing off wiki, not on-wiki. That's not the place for it.
Start your own message board akin to Wikipediocracy. Organize (and vent) there.
Use Facebook, etc.
Concentrate on developing new feminist editors, helping them through the steep learning curve, with an emphasis on content, content, content. Nobody is going to have a problem with that.
Tim Davenport Carrite on WP /// Randy from Boise on WPO Corvallis, OR
====
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 14:25:33 -0800 From: Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com
My tips are:
- No talk pages if I can avoid it
- Other channels (sorry people, but not all revolutions can take place in
front of everyone) 3) Social media
I get more value asking for help on Twitter and Facebook than I do on any other medium.
ANd that's why the WikiWomen's Collaborative was created - social media brings more females (since we use it more than males!).
-Sarah
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
We're abandoning the GGTF on Wikipedia? Fair enough.
It was just that I had an editor accused me of radical feminism POV pushing on GGTF via my talk page (I dared to say that it was "interesting" that the example topics that he thought women would be interested in editing, other than feminism, might be "fashion, cookery, domestic affairs and childrearing" rather than "science, business, filmmaking or politics"). There was then this follow-on swipe on GGTF.
"...one of the reasonable first steps toward seeing what women in wikipedia
thinks needs to be done most would be to actively ask women who have self-identified as women what content of particular interest to women might be underrepresented or undercovered here. Those women would presumably be in a better position to clearly state their concerns than would be individuals who can only speculate on them or draw potentially flawed assumptions based on limited previous personal experience."
So, my potentially flawed assumptions and limited previous personal experience are surplus to requirements at the GGTF. The plan now seems to go out and find answers that fit a pre-existing narrative about what is causing the Gender Gap.
So... "I believe the Gender Gap is caused by women who want to write about knitting thinking that Wikipedia does not welcome articles about knitting." I will create a skewed survey to fit this narrative and get the "right kind of women" to fill it in and prove my pre-conceived notions correct.
I really don't see the point of it. If you ask 1,000 female editors, "What kind of articles do you like to edit?", then you'll get 1,000 answers with a wide variety of topics. What would that prove? Suppose you find 90% of them edit traditionally feminine topics, what conclusion would you draw from it? Would it prove that they clearly prefer to edit those topics, or those are the topics that they feel less likely to encounter intimidation, or a combination of the two? I just think the GGTF board is currently being used to promote a truly pointless exercise.
Marie
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 07:56:24 -0800 From: sarah.stierch@gmail.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] GGTF talk page
That's what I have been doing. That's what Adrianne and I practice(d) and it's worked well so far. Now it's a global movement devoid of the drama that happens here. I am proud of that. Sarah On Dec 30, 2014 5:30 AM, "Tim Davenport" shoehutch@gmail.com wrote: Ms. Stierch's comments are exactly on target. Do the GGTF-type organizing off wiki, not on-wiki. That's not the place for it. Start your own message board akin to Wikipediocracy. Organize (and vent) there. Use Facebook, etc. Concentrate on developing new feminist editors, helping them through the steep learning curve, with an emphasis on content, content, content. Nobody is going to have a problem with that.
Tim DavenportCarrite on WP /// Randy from Boise on WPOCorvallis, OR
==== Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 14:25:33 -0800From: Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com
My tips are:1) No talk pages if I can avoid it2) Other channels (sorry people, but not all revolutions can take place infront of everyone)3) Social mediaI get more value asking for help on Twitter and Facebook than I do on anyother medium.ANd that's why the WikiWomen's Collaborative was created - social mediabrings more females (since we use it more than males!).-Sarah
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I've just read through the last few weeks of discussion on that talkpage, and I can't blame anyone for abandoning it. Holy cow! What a mess. The last thing I would ever recommend someone do is bring an article or discussion there for feedback, support, assistance, etc. let alone any idea about the actual gender gap.
Why abandon it? Let's reclaim it. Just ignore those who try to distract and derail. There are sanctions so no nastiness, but nastiness is not my usual style anyway. On Dec 30, 2014 10:25 AM, "Marie Earley" eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
We're abandoning the GGTF on Wikipedia? Fair enough.
It was just that I had an editor accused me of radical feminism POV pushing on GGTF via my talk page (I dared to say that it was "interesting" that the example topics that he thought women would be interested in editing, other than feminism, might be "*fashion, cookery, domestic affairs and childrearing*" rather than "*science, business, filmmaking or politics*"). There was then this follow-on swipe on GGTF.
"...one of the reasonable first steps toward seeing what women in
wikipedia thinks needs to be done most would be to actively ask women who have self-identified as women what content of particular interest to women might be underrepresented or undercovered here. Those women would presumably be in a better position to clearly state their concerns than would be individuals who can only speculate on them or draw potentially flawed assumptions based on limited previous personal experience."
So, my potentially flawed assumptions and limited previous personal experience are surplus to requirements at the GGTF. The plan now seems to go out and find answers that fit a pre-existing narrative about what is causing the Gender Gap.
So... "I believe the Gender Gap is caused by women who want to write about knitting thinking that Wikipedia does not welcome articles about knitting." I will create a skewed survey to fit this narrative and get the "right kind of women" to fill it in and prove my pre-conceived notions correct.
I really don't see the point of it. If you ask 1,000 female editors, "What kind of articles do you like to edit?", then you'll get 1,000 answers with a wide variety of topics. What would that prove? Suppose you find 90% of them edit traditionally feminine topics, what conclusion would you draw from it? Would it prove that they clearly prefer to edit those topics, or those are the topics that they feel less likely to encounter intimidation, or a combination of the two? I just think the GGTF board is currently being used to promote a truly pointless exercise.
Marie
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 07:56:24 -0800 From: sarah.stierch@gmail.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] GGTF talk page
That's what I have been doing. That's what Adrianne and I practice(d) and it's worked well so far.
Now it's a global movement devoid of the drama that happens here. I am proud of that.
Sarah On Dec 30, 2014 5:30 AM, "Tim Davenport" shoehutch@gmail.com wrote:
Ms. Stierch's comments are exactly on target.
Do the GGTF-type organizing off wiki, not on-wiki. That's not the place for it.
Start your own message board akin to Wikipediocracy. Organize (and vent) there.
Use Facebook, etc.
Concentrate on developing new feminist editors, helping them through the steep learning curve, with an emphasis on content, content, content. Nobody is going to have a problem with that.
Tim Davenport Carrite on WP /// Randy from Boise on WPO Corvallis, OR
====
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 14:25:33 -0800 From: Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com
My tips are:
- No talk pages if I can avoid it
- Other channels (sorry people, but not all revolutions can take place in
front of everyone) 3) Social media
I get more value asking for help on Twitter and Facebook than I do on any other medium.
ANd that's why the WikiWomen's Collaborative was created - social media brings more females (since we use it more than males!).
-Sarah
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 7:43 PM, LB lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
Why abandon it? Let's reclaim it. Just ignore those who try to distract and derail. There are sanctions so no nastiness, but nastiness is not my usual style anyway.
I don't know whether it's better to abandon, reclaim or move it. But it has been a lesson in how deep Wikipedia's sexism runs. Any journalists in future wanting examples of it need only read those archives and the dispute-resolution threads that failed to deal with it (which one of us ought to compile at some point).
Marie, I saw the suggestion on GGTF that women might prefer to edit "[f]ashion, cookery, domestic affairs, childrearing". Is it worth continuing with it when that's what we have to deal with?
Sarah
On Dec 30, 2014 10:25 AM, "Marie Earley" eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
We're abandoning the GGTF on Wikipedia? Fair enough.
It was just that I had an editor accused me of radical feminism POV pushing on GGTF via my talk page (I dared to say that it was "interesting" that the example topics that he thought women would be interested in editing, other than feminism, might be "*fashion, cookery, domestic affairs and childrearing*" rather than "*science, business, filmmaking or politics*"). There was then this follow-on swipe on GGTF.
"...one of the reasonable first steps toward seeing what women in
wikipedia thinks needs to be done most would be to actively ask women who have self-identified as women what content of particular interest to women might be underrepresented or undercovered here. Those women would presumably be in a better position to clearly state their concerns than would be individuals who can only speculate on them or draw potentially flawed assumptions based on limited previous personal experience."
So, my potentially flawed assumptions and limited previous personal experience are surplus to requirements at the GGTF. The plan now seems to go out and find answers that fit a pre-existing narrative about what is causing the Gender Gap.
So... "I believe the Gender Gap is caused by women who want to write about knitting thinking that Wikipedia does not welcome articles about knitting." I will create a skewed survey to fit this narrative and get the "right kind of women" to fill it in and prove my pre-conceived notions correct.
I really don't see the point of it. If you ask 1,000 female editors, "What kind of articles do you like to edit?", then you'll get 1,000 answers with a wide variety of topics. What would that prove? Suppose you find 90% of them edit traditionally feminine topics, what conclusion would you draw from it? Would it prove that they clearly prefer to edit those topics, or those are the topics that they feel less likely to encounter intimidation, or a combination of the two? I just think the GGTF board is currently being used to promote a truly pointless exercise.
Marie
You could just start over. Open a collab space in someone's userspace, redirect WP:GGTF to that spot, and invite a few people to come collaborate. Having it in userspace is probably the best (if still minimal) protection against trolls and ne'er-do-wells.
Is it simply impossible to start a Wikipedia project that's open to women, or people who identify as women? (I'm sorry if I don't use the correct terms, but I haven't kept up with them in recent years.)
I mean if we did it... what would the consequences be?
Lightbreather
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 7:43 PM, LB lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
Why abandon it? Let's reclaim it. Just ignore those who try to distract and derail. There are sanctions so no nastiness, but nastiness is not my usual style anyway.
I don't know whether it's better to abandon, reclaim or move it. But it has been a lesson in how deep Wikipedia's sexism runs. Any journalists in future wanting examples of it need only read those archives and the dispute-resolution threads that failed to deal with it (which one of us ought to compile at some point).
Marie, I saw the suggestion on GGTF that women might prefer to edit "[f]ashion, cookery, domestic affairs, childrearing". Is it worth continuing with it when that's what we have to deal with?
Sarah
On Dec 30, 2014 10:25 AM, "Marie Earley" eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
We're abandoning the GGTF on Wikipedia? Fair enough.
It was just that I had an editor accused me of radical feminism POV pushing on GGTF via my talk page (I dared to say that it was "interesting" that the example topics that he thought women would be interested in editing, other than feminism, might be "*fashion, cookery, domestic affairs and childrearing*" rather than "*science, business, filmmaking or politics*"). There was then this follow-on swipe on GGTF.
"...one of the reasonable first steps toward seeing what women in
wikipedia thinks needs to be done most would be to actively ask women who have self-identified as women what content of particular interest to women might be underrepresented or undercovered here. Those women would presumably be in a better position to clearly state their concerns than would be individuals who can only speculate on them or draw potentially flawed assumptions based on limited previous personal experience."
So, my potentially flawed assumptions and limited previous personal experience are surplus to requirements at the GGTF. The plan now seems to go out and find answers that fit a pre-existing narrative about what is causing the Gender Gap.
So... "I believe the Gender Gap is caused by women who want to write about knitting thinking that Wikipedia does not welcome articles about knitting." I will create a skewed survey to fit this narrative and get the "right kind of women" to fill it in and prove my pre-conceived notions correct.
I really don't see the point of it. If you ask 1,000 female editors, "What kind of articles do you like to edit?", then you'll get 1,000 answers with a wide variety of topics. What would that prove? Suppose you find 90% of them edit traditionally feminine topics, what conclusion would you draw from it? Would it prove that they clearly prefer to edit those topics, or those are the topics that they feel less likely to encounter intimidation, or a combination of the two? I just think the GGTF board is currently being used to promote a truly pointless exercise.
Marie
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Could you please clarify, Lightbreather? Do you mean a wikiproject that is *only* open to women/those who identify as women? Because all wikiprojects are open to all interested editors, generally speaking.
Would that not require editors to have to publicly self-identify? How would that be done?
Risker/Anne
On 31 December 2014 at 10:31, LB lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
Is it simply impossible to start a Wikipedia project that's open to women, or people who identify as women? (I'm sorry if I don't use the correct terms, but I haven't kept up with them in recent years.)
I mean if we did it... what would the consequences be?
Lightbreather
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 7:43 PM, LB lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
Why abandon it? Let's reclaim it. Just ignore those who try to distract and derail. There are sanctions so no nastiness, but nastiness is not my usual style anyway.
I don't know whether it's better to abandon, reclaim or move it. But it has been a lesson in how deep Wikipedia's sexism runs. Any journalists in future wanting examples of it need only read those archives and the dispute-resolution threads that failed to deal with it (which one of us ought to compile at some point).
Marie, I saw the suggestion on GGTF that women might prefer to edit "[f]ashion, cookery, domestic affairs, childrearing". Is it worth continuing with it when that's what we have to deal with?
Sarah
On Dec 30, 2014 10:25 AM, "Marie Earley" eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
We're abandoning the GGTF on Wikipedia? Fair enough.
It was just that I had an editor accused me of radical feminism POV pushing on GGTF via my talk page (I dared to say that it was "interesting" that the example topics that he thought women would be interested in editing, other than feminism, might be "*fashion, cookery, domestic affairs and childrearing*" rather than "*science, business, filmmaking or politics*"). There was then this follow-on swipe on GGTF.
"...one of the reasonable first steps toward seeing what women in
wikipedia thinks needs to be done most would be to actively ask women who have self-identified as women what content of particular interest to women might be underrepresented or undercovered here. Those women would presumably be in a better position to clearly state their concerns than would be individuals who can only speculate on them or draw potentially flawed assumptions based on limited previous personal experience."
So, my potentially flawed assumptions and limited previous personal experience are surplus to requirements at the GGTF. The plan now seems to go out and find answers that fit a pre-existing narrative about what is causing the Gender Gap.
So... "I believe the Gender Gap is caused by women who want to write about knitting thinking that Wikipedia does not welcome articles about knitting." I will create a skewed survey to fit this narrative and get the "right kind of women" to fill it in and prove my pre-conceived notions correct.
I really don't see the point of it. If you ask 1,000 female editors, "What kind of articles do you like to edit?", then you'll get 1,000 answers with a wide variety of topics. What would that prove? Suppose you find 90% of them edit traditionally feminine topics, what conclusion would you draw from it? Would it prove that they clearly prefer to edit those topics, or those are the topics that they feel less likely to encounter intimidation, or a combination of the two? I just think the GGTF board is currently being used to promote a truly pointless exercise.
Marie
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Well, I'm brainstorming, but yes... a project that is only open to women or those who identify as women. And yes, that would mean identifying (via one's "she edits" preference - as I know of no other ways to identify, right?) Hypothetically, is there anything to prevent us from doing it?
(I just went and re-identified as "she edits." I had turned that off for a while when I first started getting harassed, but WTF. I'm tired of hiding. I'll bet other women are tired of hiding, too.)
Lightbreather
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Could you please clarify, Lightbreather? Do you mean a wikiproject that is *only* open to women/those who identify as women? Because all wikiprojects are open to all interested editors, generally speaking.
Would that not require editors to have to publicly self-identify? How would that be done?
Risker/Anne
On 31 December 2014 at 10:31, LB lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
Is it simply impossible to start a Wikipedia project that's open to women, or people who identify as women? (I'm sorry if I don't use the correct terms, but I haven't kept up with them in recent years.)
I mean if we did it... what would the consequences be?
Lightbreather
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 7:43 PM, LB lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
Why abandon it? Let's reclaim it. Just ignore those who try to distract and derail. There are sanctions so no nastiness, but nastiness is not my usual style anyway.
I don't know whether it's better to abandon, reclaim or move it. But it has been a lesson in how deep Wikipedia's sexism runs. Any journalists in future wanting examples of it need only read those archives and the dispute-resolution threads that failed to deal with it (which one of us ought to compile at some point).
Marie, I saw the suggestion on GGTF that women might prefer to edit "[f]ashion, cookery, domestic affairs, childrearing". Is it worth continuing with it when that's what we have to deal with?
Sarah
On Dec 30, 2014 10:25 AM, "Marie Earley" eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
We're abandoning the GGTF on Wikipedia? Fair enough.
It was just that I had an editor accused me of radical feminism POV pushing on GGTF via my talk page (I dared to say that it was "interesting" that the example topics that he thought women would be interested in editing, other than feminism, might be "*fashion, cookery, domestic affairs and childrearing*" rather than "*science, business, filmmaking or politics*"). There was then this follow-on swipe on GGTF.
"...one of the reasonable first steps toward seeing what women in
wikipedia thinks needs to be done most would be to actively ask women who have self-identified as women what content of particular interest to women might be underrepresented or undercovered here. Those women would presumably be in a better position to clearly state their concerns than would be individuals who can only speculate on them or draw potentially flawed assumptions based on limited previous personal experience."
So, my potentially flawed assumptions and limited previous personal experience are surplus to requirements at the GGTF. The plan now seems to go out and find answers that fit a pre-existing narrative about what is causing the Gender Gap.
So... "I believe the Gender Gap is caused by women who want to write about knitting thinking that Wikipedia does not welcome articles about knitting." I will create a skewed survey to fit this narrative and get the "right kind of women" to fill it in and prove my pre-conceived notions correct.
I really don't see the point of it. If you ask 1,000 female editors, "What kind of articles do you like to edit?", then you'll get 1,000 answers with a wide variety of topics. What would that prove? Suppose you find 90% of them edit traditionally feminine topics, what conclusion would you draw from it? Would it prove that they clearly prefer to edit those topics, or those are the topics that they feel less likely to encounter intimidation, or a combination of the two? I just think the GGTF board is currently being used to promote a truly pointless exercise.
Marie
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Ahh. I am not certain how "public" that particular preference is; I'm fairly certain there's no public list. The preference was installed on all WMF wikis at the request of projects where there is a different term for "user" depending on the self-identified gender of the user. (For example, the user pages of self-identified female editors on our German projects uses the feminine term for "user".) Not quite sure what the result is on English Wikipedia - is there a list somewhere?
Risker/Anne
On 31 December 2014 at 10:59, LB lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I'm brainstorming, but yes... a project that is only open to women or those who identify as women. And yes, that would mean identifying (via one's "she edits" preference - as I know of no other ways to identify, right?) Hypothetically, is there anything to prevent us from doing it?
(I just went and re-identified as "she edits." I had turned that off for a while when I first started getting harassed, but WTF. I'm tired of hiding. I'll bet other women are tired of hiding, too.)
Lightbreather
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Could you please clarify, Lightbreather? Do you mean a wikiproject that is *only* open to women/those who identify as women? Because all wikiprojects are open to all interested editors, generally speaking.
Would that not require editors to have to publicly self-identify? How would that be done?
Risker/Anne
On 31 December 2014 at 10:31, LB lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
Is it simply impossible to start a Wikipedia project that's open to women, or people who identify as women? (I'm sorry if I don't use the correct terms, but I haven't kept up with them in recent years.)
I mean if we did it... what would the consequences be?
Lightbreather
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 7:43 PM, LB lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
Why abandon it? Let's reclaim it. Just ignore those who try to distract and derail. There are sanctions so no nastiness, but nastiness is not my usual style anyway.
I don't know whether it's better to abandon, reclaim or move it. But it has been a lesson in how deep Wikipedia's sexism runs. Any journalists in future wanting examples of it need only read those archives and the dispute-resolution threads that failed to deal with it (which one of us ought to compile at some point).
Marie, I saw the suggestion on GGTF that women might prefer to edit "[f]ashion, cookery, domestic affairs, childrearing". Is it worth continuing with it when that's what we have to deal with?
Sarah
On Dec 30, 2014 10:25 AM, "Marie Earley" eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
We're abandoning the GGTF on Wikipedia? Fair enough.
It was just that I had an editor accused me of radical feminism POV pushing on GGTF via my talk page (I dared to say that it was "interesting" that the example topics that he thought women would be interested in editing, other than feminism, might be "*fashion, cookery, domestic affairs and childrearing*" rather than "*science, business, filmmaking or politics*"). There was then this follow-on swipe on GGTF.
> "...one of the reasonable first steps toward seeing what women in wikipedia thinks needs to be done most would be to actively ask women who have self-identified as women what content of particular interest to women might be underrepresented or undercovered here. Those women would presumably be in a better position to clearly state their concerns than would be individuals who can only speculate on them or draw potentially flawed assumptions based on limited previous personal experience."
So, my potentially flawed assumptions and limited previous personal experience are surplus to requirements at the GGTF. The plan now seems to go out and find answers that fit a pre-existing narrative about what is causing the Gender Gap.
So... "I believe the Gender Gap is caused by women who want to write about knitting thinking that Wikipedia does not welcome articles about knitting." I will create a skewed survey to fit this narrative and get the "right kind of women" to fill it in and prove my pre-conceived notions correct.
I really don't see the point of it. If you ask 1,000 female editors, "What kind of articles do you like to edit?", then you'll get 1,000 answers with a wide variety of topics. What would that prove? Suppose you find 90% of them edit traditionally feminine topics, what conclusion would you draw from it? Would it prove that they clearly prefer to edit those topics, or those are the topics that they feel less likely to encounter intimidation, or a combination of the two? I just think the GGTF board is currently being used to promote a truly pointless exercise.
Marie
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I know you can use the "they" template to see if a user prefer "he," "she," or "they." It seems like that could be queried to find out who identifies as "she" and send out an invitation to join the women-only project... if such a thing were created. In addition, a notice could go up saying that women editors can join the project, and letting them know that to identify as women they must A) set their preference to "she," and B) swear that they are indeed a woman or identify as a woman.
Again, just brainstorming.
Also, I like what Marie mentioned yesterday. It seems like we should be capturing gender info when users register, giving them the option to be public about it or not I guess. But for demographics, we ought to be capturing that data.
Lightbreather
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Ahh. I am not certain how "public" that particular preference is; I'm fairly certain there's no public list. The preference was installed on all WMF wikis at the request of projects where there is a different term for "user" depending on the self-identified gender of the user. (For example, the user pages of self-identified female editors on our German projects uses the feminine term for "user".) Not quite sure what the result is on English Wikipedia - is there a list somewhere?
Risker/Anne
On 31 December 2014 at 10:59, LB lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I'm brainstorming, but yes... a project that is only open to women or those who identify as women. And yes, that would mean identifying (via one's "she edits" preference - as I know of no other ways to identify, right?) Hypothetically, is there anything to prevent us from doing it?
(I just went and re-identified as "she edits." I had turned that off for a while when I first started getting harassed, but WTF. I'm tired of hiding. I'll bet other women are tired of hiding, too.)
Lightbreather
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Could you please clarify, Lightbreather? Do you mean a wikiproject that is *only* open to women/those who identify as women? Because all wikiprojects are open to all interested editors, generally speaking.
Would that not require editors to have to publicly self-identify? How would that be done?
Risker/Anne
On 31 December 2014 at 10:31, LB lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
Is it simply impossible to start a Wikipedia project that's open to women, or people who identify as women? (I'm sorry if I don't use the correct terms, but I haven't kept up with them in recent years.)
I mean if we did it... what would the consequences be?
Lightbreather
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 7:43 PM, LB lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
Why abandon it? Let's reclaim it. Just ignore those who try to distract and derail. There are sanctions so no nastiness, but nastiness is not my usual style anyway.
I don't know whether it's better to abandon, reclaim or move it. But it has been a lesson in how deep Wikipedia's sexism runs. Any journalists in future wanting examples of it need only read those archives and the dispute-resolution threads that failed to deal with it (which one of us ought to compile at some point).
Marie, I saw the suggestion on GGTF that women might prefer to edit "[f]ashion, cookery, domestic affairs, childrearing". Is it worth continuing with it when that's what we have to deal with?
Sarah
On Dec 30, 2014 10:25 AM, "Marie Earley" eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
> We're abandoning the GGTF on Wikipedia? Fair enough. > > It was just that I had an editor accused me of radical feminism POV > pushing on GGTF via my talk page (I dared to say that it was "interesting" > that the example topics that he thought women would be interested in > editing, other than feminism, might be "*fashion, cookery, domestic > affairs and childrearing*" rather than "*science, business, > filmmaking or politics*"). There was then this follow-on swipe on > GGTF. > > > "...one of the reasonable first steps toward seeing what women in > wikipedia thinks needs to be done most would be to actively ask women who > have self-identified as women what content of particular interest to women > might be underrepresented or undercovered here. Those women would > presumably be in a better position to clearly state their concerns than > would be individuals who can only speculate on them or draw potentially > flawed assumptions based on limited previous personal experience." > > So, my potentially flawed assumptions and limited previous personal > experience are surplus to requirements at the GGTF. The plan now seems to > go out and find answers that fit a pre-existing narrative about what is > causing the Gender Gap. > > So... "I believe the Gender Gap is caused by women who want to > write about knitting thinking that Wikipedia does not welcome articles > about knitting." I will create a skewed survey to fit this narrative and > get the "right kind of women" to fill it in and prove my pre-conceived > notions correct. > > I really don't see the point of it. If you ask 1,000 female editors, > "What kind of articles do you like to edit?", then you'll get 1,000 answers > with a wide variety of topics. What would that prove? Suppose you find 90% > of them edit traditionally feminine topics, what conclusion would you draw > from it? Would it prove that they clearly prefer to edit those topics, or > those are the topics that they feel less likely to encounter intimidation, > or a combination of the two? I just think the GGTF board is currently being > used to promote a truly pointless exercise. > > Marie >
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Well, how would you limit participation to just those people? There's no page-protection option for "check person's gender, then allow edits only if 'female'," and Wikipedia doesn't currently have any policies that would allow, like, topic bans from a Wikiproject based on gender rather than problematic behavior. I imagine the community would be vehemently opposed to such things, and for good reason. Forcing people to identify to participate, or sanctioning people when they've done nothing but been the wrong gender, are antithetical to Wikipedia's "anyone can participate" ethos.
If you were setting something up offwiki, not in association with Wiki[m|p]edia, you'd be as free as anyone else to set your own criteria for membership, but the problem then becomes a) attracting enough high-quality participation b) without becoming a "cabal" in the style of the EEML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list that got people in so much trouble a few years ago.
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 10:59 AM, LB lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I'm brainstorming, but yes... a project that is only open to women or those who identify as women. And yes, that would mean identifying (via one's "she edits" preference - as I know of no other ways to identify, right?) Hypothetically, is there anything to prevent us from doing it?
(I just went and re-identified as "she edits." I had turned that off for a while when I first started getting harassed, but WTF. I'm tired of hiding. I'll bet other women are tired of hiding, too.)
Lightbreather
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Could you please clarify, Lightbreather? Do you mean a wikiproject that is *only* open to women/those who identify as women? Because all wikiprojects are open to all interested editors, generally speaking.
Would that not require editors to have to publicly self-identify? How would that be done?
Risker/Anne
On 31 December 2014 at 10:31, LB lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
Is it simply impossible to start a Wikipedia project that's open to women, or people who identify as women? (I'm sorry if I don't use the correct terms, but I haven't kept up with them in recent years.)
I mean if we did it... what would the consequences be?
Lightbreather
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 7:43 PM, LB lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
Why abandon it? Let's reclaim it. Just ignore those who try to distract and derail. There are sanctions so no nastiness, but nastiness is not my usual style anyway.
I don't know whether it's better to abandon, reclaim or move it. But it has been a lesson in how deep Wikipedia's sexism runs. Any journalists in future wanting examples of it need only read those archives and the dispute-resolution threads that failed to deal with it (which one of us ought to compile at some point).
Marie, I saw the suggestion on GGTF that women might prefer to edit "[f]ashion, cookery, domestic affairs, childrearing". Is it worth continuing with it when that's what we have to deal with?
Sarah
On Dec 30, 2014 10:25 AM, "Marie Earley" eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
We're abandoning the GGTF on Wikipedia? Fair enough.
It was just that I had an editor accused me of radical feminism POV pushing on GGTF via my talk page (I dared to say that it was "interesting" that the example topics that he thought women would be interested in editing, other than feminism, might be "*fashion, cookery, domestic affairs and childrearing*" rather than "*science, business, filmmaking or politics*"). There was then this follow-on swipe on GGTF.
> "...one of the reasonable first steps toward seeing what women in wikipedia thinks needs to be done most would be to actively ask women who have self-identified as women what content of particular interest to women might be underrepresented or undercovered here. Those women would presumably be in a better position to clearly state their concerns than would be individuals who can only speculate on them or draw potentially flawed assumptions based on limited previous personal experience."
So, my potentially flawed assumptions and limited previous personal experience are surplus to requirements at the GGTF. The plan now seems to go out and find answers that fit a pre-existing narrative about what is causing the Gender Gap.
So... "I believe the Gender Gap is caused by women who want to write about knitting thinking that Wikipedia does not welcome articles about knitting." I will create a skewed survey to fit this narrative and get the "right kind of women" to fill it in and prove my pre-conceived notions correct.
I really don't see the point of it. If you ask 1,000 female editors, "What kind of articles do you like to edit?", then you'll get 1,000 answers with a wide variety of topics. What would that prove? Suppose you find 90% of them edit traditionally feminine topics, what conclusion would you draw from it? Would it prove that they clearly prefer to edit those topics, or those are the topics that they feel less likely to encounter intimidation, or a combination of the two? I just think the GGTF board is currently being used to promote a truly pointless exercise.
Marie
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I can imagine the complaints and hurdles. The discussion is it possible? Could it work?
To your specific questions, if there's no page-protection option, can there be? If it's absolutely impossible, then the moderators would have to keep an eye on those things. Also, I think there would be parts of the project that would be vehemently opposed, but others who wouldn't care one way or another, and some who would welcome such a space with open arms.
I don't know about EEML. I will read that.
Again, I am brainstorming here. Discussing how it *could* work, not whether or not it will or would.
Lightbreather
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Katherine Casey < fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, how would you limit participation to just those people? There's no page-protection option for "check person's gender, then allow edits only if 'female'," and Wikipedia doesn't currently have any policies that would allow, like, topic bans from a Wikiproject based on gender rather than problematic behavior. I imagine the community would be vehemently opposed to such things, and for good reason. Forcing people to identify to participate, or sanctioning people when they've done nothing but been the wrong gender, are antithetical to Wikipedia's "anyone can participate" ethos.
If you were setting something up offwiki, not in association with Wiki[m|p]edia, you'd be as free as anyone else to set your own criteria for membership, but the problem then becomes a) attracting enough high-quality participation b) without becoming a "cabal" in the style of the EEML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list that got people in so much trouble a few years ago.
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 10:59 AM, LB lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I'm brainstorming, but yes... a project that is only open to women or those who identify as women. And yes, that would mean identifying (via one's "she edits" preference - as I know of no other ways to identify, right?) Hypothetically, is there anything to prevent us from doing it?
(I just went and re-identified as "she edits." I had turned that off for a while when I first started getting harassed, but WTF. I'm tired of hiding. I'll bet other women are tired of hiding, too.)
Lightbreather
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Could you please clarify, Lightbreather? Do you mean a wikiproject that is *only* open to women/those who identify as women? Because all wikiprojects are open to all interested editors, generally speaking.
Would that not require editors to have to publicly self-identify? How would that be done?
Risker/Anne
On 31 December 2014 at 10:31, LB lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
Is it simply impossible to start a Wikipedia project that's open to women, or people who identify as women? (I'm sorry if I don't use the correct terms, but I haven't kept up with them in recent years.)
I mean if we did it... what would the consequences be?
Lightbreather
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 7:43 PM, LB lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
Why abandon it? Let's reclaim it. Just ignore those who try to distract and derail. There are sanctions so no nastiness, but nastiness is not my usual style anyway.
I don't know whether it's better to abandon, reclaim or move it. But it has been a lesson in how deep Wikipedia's sexism runs. Any journalists in future wanting examples of it need only read those archives and the dispute-resolution threads that failed to deal with it (which one of us ought to compile at some point).
Marie, I saw the suggestion on GGTF that women might prefer to edit "[f]ashion, cookery, domestic affairs, childrearing". Is it worth continuing with it when that's what we have to deal with?
Sarah
On Dec 30, 2014 10:25 AM, "Marie Earley" eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
> We're abandoning the GGTF on Wikipedia? Fair enough. > > It was just that I had an editor accused me of radical feminism POV > pushing on GGTF via my talk page (I dared to say that it was "interesting" > that the example topics that he thought women would be interested in > editing, other than feminism, might be "*fashion, cookery, domestic > affairs and childrearing*" rather than "*science, business, > filmmaking or politics*"). There was then this follow-on swipe on > GGTF. > > > "...one of the reasonable first steps toward seeing what women in > wikipedia thinks needs to be done most would be to actively ask women who > have self-identified as women what content of particular interest to women > might be underrepresented or undercovered here. Those women would > presumably be in a better position to clearly state their concerns than > would be individuals who can only speculate on them or draw potentially > flawed assumptions based on limited previous personal experience." > > So, my potentially flawed assumptions and limited previous personal > experience are surplus to requirements at the GGTF. The plan now seems to > go out and find answers that fit a pre-existing narrative about what is > causing the Gender Gap. > > So... "I believe the Gender Gap is caused by women who want to > write about knitting thinking that Wikipedia does not welcome articles > about knitting." I will create a skewed survey to fit this narrative and > get the "right kind of women" to fill it in and prove my pre-conceived > notions correct. > > I really don't see the point of it. If you ask 1,000 female editors, > "What kind of articles do you like to edit?", then you'll get 1,000 answers > with a wide variety of topics. What would that prove? Suppose you find 90% > of them edit traditionally feminine topics, what conclusion would you draw > from it? Would it prove that they clearly prefer to edit those topics, or > those are the topics that they feel less likely to encounter intimidation, > or a combination of the two? I just think the GGTF board is currently being > used to promote a truly pointless exercise. > > Marie >
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 31 December 2014 at 11:18, LB lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
I can imagine the complaints and hurdles. The discussion is it possible? Could it work?
To your specific questions, if there's no page-protection option, can there be? If it's absolutely impossible, then the moderators would have to keep an eye on those things. Also, I think there would be parts of the project that would be vehemently opposed, but others who wouldn't care one way or another, and some who would welcome such a space with open arms.
I don't know about EEML. I will read that.
The EEML (Eastern European Mailing List) was an invitation-only mailing list populated by a group of editors who supported each other in content contributions, deletion discussions, and other on-wiki activities related generally to the Eastern European region of the world (including articles on the history, economics, politics, notable persons, geography, etc. of the region). The mailing list was non-public. Almost all participants on the list were very significantly sanctioned (including some permanent bans, some topic bans, and a desysop) because of the attempt to manage content in a non-transparent way, in addition to the entire canvassing aspect.
There was once a Wikichix mailing list, moderated and very similar to the one described by Lightbreather. It died a slow death several years ago because, essentially, nobody really had much to say there, absent the ability to discuss actual content.
Risker/Anne
I've started two separate mailing list topics today - Women of GGTF and WP:WOMEN - but they haven't posted. You do send to Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org, right? I think that's what I've used before.
Lightbreather
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 December 2014 at 11:18, LB lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
I can imagine the complaints and hurdles. The discussion is it possible? Could it work?
To your specific questions, if there's no page-protection option, can there be? If it's absolutely impossible, then the moderators would have to keep an eye on those things. Also, I think there would be parts of the project that would be vehemently opposed, but others who wouldn't care one way or another, and some who would welcome such a space with open arms.
I don't know about EEML. I will read that.
The EEML (Eastern European Mailing List) was an invitation-only mailing list populated by a group of editors who supported each other in content contributions, deletion discussions, and other on-wiki activities related generally to the Eastern European region of the world (including articles on the history, economics, politics, notable persons, geography, etc. of the region). The mailing list was non-public. Almost all participants on the list were very significantly sanctioned (including some permanent bans, some topic bans, and a desysop) because of the attempt to manage content in a non-transparent way, in addition to the entire canvassing aspect.
There was once a Wikichix mailing list, moderated and very similar to the one described by Lightbreather. It died a slow death several years ago because, essentially, nobody really had much to say there, absent the ability to discuss actual content.
Risker/Anne
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 31 December 2014 at 11:38, LB lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
I've started two separate mailing list topics today - Women of GGTF and WP:WOMEN - but they haven't posted. You do send to Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org, right? I think that's what I've used before.
Lightbreather
They've been posted, Lightbreather; at least I've seen both of them. Perhaps you've got preferences (either on Mailman or on Gmail) set so that you don't get copies of your "sent" mails.
Risker/Anne
Some thoughts...some ok some negative about a project for women.
Spaces that promote sisterhood and women only that are public generally have overwhelming woman. participation and men often play the role of observers.
That's why I created the WikiWomens Collab. While men "like it", it's extremely rare they interact with it. A place can be public and be focused on women.
But, I do think it will be a challenge on EN WP. That is why WWC was a social media campaign. Women are there. There is a wiki women's group on Facebook too and a few guys have joined but they don't interact on it. its clearly for Women by women (those identifying as women).
I am concerned about a shit storm starting a woman centric space on WP. As long as there is research to prove to the community it might work. You have to show it - we had to do it with the Teahouse. It was nominated for deletion when it was created!!
I put together an entire project page on meta with this research someplace..
There is also an editor retention project already. People will ask - why not just work in that space?
Also, the wikiprojects for WP feminism, women art/science/writers are also overwhelmingly female. I recruited at the beginning but now I am just burnt out so I don't spend time doing it..and the subject gets little press coverage anymore so cries to engaging women have lowered in the press. So this will require more on the boots support. And how will you promote it - especially if you don't know the gender of editors. I guess you can build it and they will come.
So I would think hard before creating something new and thing about what already exists and how to leverage it. And if you cannot leverage it...try it.
I spent a year of my life at WMF working on all of this. We had that idea and canned it and ended up creating the Teahouse. That was created to welcome and help new editors with research focusing on women. It worked. It sounds like you would just be making another Teahouse but for women.
It's funny seeing this conversation happening again. :) it's good though
Sarah (Sent from my phone) On Dec 31, 2014 8:38 AM, "LB" lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
I've started two separate mailing list topics today - Women of GGTF and WP:WOMEN - but they haven't posted. You do send to Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org, right? I think that's what I've used before.
Lightbreather
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 December 2014 at 11:18, LB lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
I can imagine the complaints and hurdles. The discussion is it possible? Could it work?
To your specific questions, if there's no page-protection option, can there be? If it's absolutely impossible, then the moderators would have to keep an eye on those things. Also, I think there would be parts of the project that would be vehemently opposed, but others who wouldn't care one way or another, and some who would welcome such a space with open arms.
I don't know about EEML. I will read that.
The EEML (Eastern European Mailing List) was an invitation-only mailing list populated by a group of editors who supported each other in content contributions, deletion discussions, and other on-wiki activities related generally to the Eastern European region of the world (including articles on the history, economics, politics, notable persons, geography, etc. of the region). The mailing list was non-public. Almost all participants on the list were very significantly sanctioned (including some permanent bans, some topic bans, and a desysop) because of the attempt to manage content in a non-transparent way, in addition to the entire canvassing aspect.
There was once a Wikichix mailing list, moderated and very similar to the one described by Lightbreather. It died a slow death several years ago because, essentially, nobody really had much to say there, absent the ability to discuss actual content.
Risker/Anne
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
A women's project might be a nice complement to the collaborative and the teahouse. The collaborative is a great choice for women who like to use Facebook and Twitter, but some don't. The teahouse is OK (and I'd like to offer myself as a mentor for women editors there), but even there the testosterone can run high sometimes.
Lightbreather
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Some thoughts...some ok some negative about a project for women.
Spaces that promote sisterhood and women only that are public generally have overwhelming woman. participation and men often play the role of observers.
That's why I created the WikiWomens Collab. While men "like it", it's extremely rare they interact with it. A place can be public and be focused on women.
But, I do think it will be a challenge on EN WP. That is why WWC was a social media campaign. Women are there. There is a wiki women's group on Facebook too and a few guys have joined but they don't interact on it. its clearly for Women by women (those identifying as women).
I am concerned about a shit storm starting a woman centric space on WP. As long as there is research to prove to the community it might work. You have to show it - we had to do it with the Teahouse. It was nominated for deletion when it was created!!
I put together an entire project page on meta with this research someplace..
There is also an editor retention project already. People will ask - why not just work in that space?
Also, the wikiprojects for WP feminism, women art/science/writers are also overwhelmingly female. I recruited at the beginning but now I am just burnt out so I don't spend time doing it..and the subject gets little press coverage anymore so cries to engaging women have lowered in the press. So this will require more on the boots support. And how will you promote it - especially if you don't know the gender of editors. I guess you can build it and they will come.
So I would think hard before creating something new and thing about what already exists and how to leverage it. And if you cannot leverage it...try it.
I spent a year of my life at WMF working on all of this. We had that idea and canned it and ended up creating the Teahouse. That was created to welcome and help new editors with research focusing on women. It worked. It sounds like you would just be making another Teahouse but for women.
It's funny seeing this conversation happening again. :) it's good though
Sarah (Sent from my phone) On Dec 31, 2014 8:38 AM, "LB" lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
I've started two separate mailing list topics today - Women of GGTF and WP:WOMEN - but they haven't posted. You do send to Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org, right? I think that's what I've used before.
Lightbreather
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 December 2014 at 11:18, LB lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
I can imagine the complaints and hurdles. The discussion is it possible? Could it work?
To your specific questions, if there's no page-protection option, can there be? If it's absolutely impossible, then the moderators would have to keep an eye on those things. Also, I think there would be parts of the project that would be vehemently opposed, but others who wouldn't care one way or another, and some who would welcome such a space with open arms.
I don't know about EEML. I will read that.
The EEML (Eastern European Mailing List) was an invitation-only mailing list populated by a group of editors who supported each other in content contributions, deletion discussions, and other on-wiki activities related generally to the Eastern European region of the world (including articles on the history, economics, politics, notable persons, geography, etc. of the region). The mailing list was non-public. Almost all participants on the list were very significantly sanctioned (including some permanent bans, some topic bans, and a desysop) because of the attempt to manage content in a non-transparent way, in addition to the entire canvassing aspect.
There was once a Wikichix mailing list, moderated and very similar to the one described by Lightbreather. It died a slow death several years ago because, essentially, nobody really had much to say there, absent the ability to discuss actual content.
Risker/Anne
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Yes, I just suggest that you find as much research as you can to prove why this type of thing would work.
But, perhaps I'm just paranoid. I have had almost every project I have ever started nominated for deletion. So....I'm paranoid :)
"Why does Wikipedia need a woman-centric space for people who identify as women to contribute to Wikipedia"
-Sarah
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:24 AM, LB lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
A women's project might be a nice complement to the collaborative and the teahouse. The collaborative is a great choice for women who like to use Facebook and Twitter, but some don't. The teahouse is OK (and I'd like to offer myself as a mentor for women editors there), but even there the testosterone can run high sometimes.
Lightbreather
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Some thoughts...some ok some negative about a project for women.
Spaces that promote sisterhood and women only that are public generally have overwhelming woman. participation and men often play the role of observers.
That's why I created the WikiWomens Collab. While men "like it", it's extremely rare they interact with it. A place can be public and be focused on women.
But, I do think it will be a challenge on EN WP. That is why WWC was a social media campaign. Women are there. There is a wiki women's group on Facebook too and a few guys have joined but they don't interact on it. its clearly for Women by women (those identifying as women).
I am concerned about a shit storm starting a woman centric space on WP. As long as there is research to prove to the community it might work. You have to show it - we had to do it with the Teahouse. It was nominated for deletion when it was created!!
I put together an entire project page on meta with this research someplace..
There is also an editor retention project already. People will ask - why not just work in that space?
Also, the wikiprojects for WP feminism, women art/science/writers are also overwhelmingly female. I recruited at the beginning but now I am just burnt out so I don't spend time doing it..and the subject gets little press coverage anymore so cries to engaging women have lowered in the press. So this will require more on the boots support. And how will you promote it - especially if you don't know the gender of editors. I guess you can build it and they will come.
So I would think hard before creating something new and thing about what already exists and how to leverage it. And if you cannot leverage it...try it.
I spent a year of my life at WMF working on all of this. We had that idea and canned it and ended up creating the Teahouse. That was created to welcome and help new editors with research focusing on women. It worked. It sounds like you would just be making another Teahouse but for women.
It's funny seeing this conversation happening again. :) it's good though
Sarah (Sent from my phone) On Dec 31, 2014 8:38 AM, "LB" lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
I've started two separate mailing list topics today - Women of GGTF and WP:WOMEN - but they haven't posted. You do send to Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org, right? I think that's what I've used before.
Lightbreather
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 December 2014 at 11:18, LB lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
I can imagine the complaints and hurdles. The discussion is it possible? Could it work?
To your specific questions, if there's no page-protection option, can there be? If it's absolutely impossible, then the moderators would have to keep an eye on those things. Also, I think there would be parts of the project that would be vehemently opposed, but others who wouldn't care one way or another, and some who would welcome such a space with open arms.
I don't know about EEML. I will read that.
The EEML (Eastern European Mailing List) was an invitation-only mailing list populated by a group of editors who supported each other in content contributions, deletion discussions, and other on-wiki activities related generally to the Eastern European region of the world (including articles on the history, economics, politics, notable persons, geography, etc. of the region). The mailing list was non-public. Almost all participants on the list were very significantly sanctioned (including some permanent bans, some topic bans, and a desysop) because of the attempt to manage content in a non-transparent way, in addition to the entire canvassing aspect.
There was once a Wikichix mailing list, moderated and very similar to the one described by Lightbreather. It died a slow death several years ago because, essentially, nobody really had much to say there, absent the ability to discuss actual content.
Risker/Anne
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
As I'm imagining this right now, it would be public. It would be open to those who've identified as women to edit, and to others to read. I suppose it might touch upon content issues, but those would more likely go to the project and article talk pages for specific subjects and topics.
What its focus would be at first would be to recruit more women. To mentor. To discuss policies, guidelines, essays of interest to women. Since, per WP:PROJ, a project has no special rights or privileges, it can't impose anything on articles, policies, etc. It would be a place where women could talk without men - even well-intentioned men - jumping in and commandeering or derailing the discussions. It could be held to a high standard of civility - or even simply to the published civility policy that is overlooked elsewhere on the project.
Lightbreather
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 December 2014 at 11:18, LB lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
I can imagine the complaints and hurdles. The discussion is it possible? Could it work?
To your specific questions, if there's no page-protection option, can there be? If it's absolutely impossible, then the moderators would have to keep an eye on those things. Also, I think there would be parts of the project that would be vehemently opposed, but others who wouldn't care one way or another, and some who would welcome such a space with open arms.
I don't know about EEML. I will read that.
The EEML (Eastern European Mailing List) was an invitation-only mailing list populated by a group of editors who supported each other in content contributions, deletion discussions, and other on-wiki activities related generally to the Eastern European region of the world (including articles on the history, economics, politics, notable persons, geography, etc. of the region). The mailing list was non-public. Almost all participants on the list were very significantly sanctioned (including some permanent bans, some topic bans, and a desysop) because of the attempt to manage content in a non-transparent way, in addition to the entire canvassing aspect.
There was once a Wikichix mailing list, moderated and very similar to the one described by Lightbreather. It died a slow death several years ago because, essentially, nobody really had much to say there, absent the ability to discuss actual content.
Risker/Anne
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I joined the Systers mailing list - women only - administered by the Anita Borg Institute some months ago, and it basically involved swearing that you are female. There are a few moderators who manages the list.
Lightbreather
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Could you please clarify, Lightbreather? Do you mean a wikiproject that is *only* open to women/those who identify as women? Because all wikiprojects are open to all interested editors, generally speaking.
Would that not require editors to have to publicly self-identify? How would that be done?
Risker/Anne
On 31 December 2014 at 10:31, LB lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
Is it simply impossible to start a Wikipedia project that's open to women, or people who identify as women? (I'm sorry if I don't use the correct terms, but I haven't kept up with them in recent years.)
I mean if we did it... what would the consequences be?
Lightbreather
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 7:43 PM, LB lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
Why abandon it? Let's reclaim it. Just ignore those who try to distract and derail. There are sanctions so no nastiness, but nastiness is not my usual style anyway.
I don't know whether it's better to abandon, reclaim or move it. But it has been a lesson in how deep Wikipedia's sexism runs. Any journalists in future wanting examples of it need only read those archives and the dispute-resolution threads that failed to deal with it (which one of us ought to compile at some point).
Marie, I saw the suggestion on GGTF that women might prefer to edit "[f]ashion, cookery, domestic affairs, childrearing". Is it worth continuing with it when that's what we have to deal with?
Sarah
On Dec 30, 2014 10:25 AM, "Marie Earley" eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
We're abandoning the GGTF on Wikipedia? Fair enough.
It was just that I had an editor accused me of radical feminism POV pushing on GGTF via my talk page (I dared to say that it was "interesting" that the example topics that he thought women would be interested in editing, other than feminism, might be "*fashion, cookery, domestic affairs and childrearing*" rather than "*science, business, filmmaking or politics*"). There was then this follow-on swipe on GGTF.
"...one of the reasonable first steps toward seeing what women in
wikipedia thinks needs to be done most would be to actively ask women who have self-identified as women what content of particular interest to women might be underrepresented or undercovered here. Those women would presumably be in a better position to clearly state their concerns than would be individuals who can only speculate on them or draw potentially flawed assumptions based on limited previous personal experience."
So, my potentially flawed assumptions and limited previous personal experience are surplus to requirements at the GGTF. The plan now seems to go out and find answers that fit a pre-existing narrative about what is causing the Gender Gap.
So... "I believe the Gender Gap is caused by women who want to write about knitting thinking that Wikipedia does not welcome articles about knitting." I will create a skewed survey to fit this narrative and get the "right kind of women" to fill it in and prove my pre-conceived notions correct.
I really don't see the point of it. If you ask 1,000 female editors, "What kind of articles do you like to edit?", then you'll get 1,000 answers with a wide variety of topics. What would that prove? Suppose you find 90% of them edit traditionally feminine topics, what conclusion would you draw from it? Would it prove that they clearly prefer to edit those topics, or those are the topics that they feel less likely to encounter intimidation, or a combination of the two? I just think the GGTF board is currently being used to promote a truly pointless exercise.
Marie
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Any journalists in future wanting examples of it need only read those archives and the dispute-resolution threads that failed to deal with it (which one of us ought to compile at some point).
An interesting idea. What would such a compilation look like? (Spoken as someone who used to write the Arbitration Report for the *Signpost*).
Neotarf
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 12:45 AM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 7:43 PM, LB lightbreather2@gmail.com wrote:
Why abandon it? Let's reclaim it. Just ignore those who try to distract and derail. There are sanctions so no nastiness, but nastiness is not my usual style anyway.
I don't know whether it's better to abandon, reclaim or move it. But it has been a lesson in how deep Wikipedia's sexism runs. Any journalists in future wanting examples of it need only read those archives and the dispute-resolution threads that failed to deal with it (which one of us ought to compile at some point).
Marie, I saw the suggestion on GGTF that women might prefer to edit "[f]ashion, cookery, domestic affairs, childrearing". Is it worth continuing with it when that's what we have to deal with?
Sarah
On Dec 30, 2014 10:25 AM, "Marie Earley" eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
We're abandoning the GGTF on Wikipedia? Fair enough.
It was just that I had an editor accused me of radical feminism POV pushing on GGTF via my talk page (I dared to say that it was "interesting" that the example topics that he thought women would be interested in editing, other than feminism, might be "*fashion, cookery, domestic affairs and childrearing*" rather than "*science, business, filmmaking or politics*"). There was then this follow-on swipe on GGTF.
"...one of the reasonable first steps toward seeing what women in
wikipedia thinks needs to be done most would be to actively ask women who have self-identified as women what content of particular interest to women might be underrepresented or undercovered here. Those women would presumably be in a better position to clearly state their concerns than would be individuals who can only speculate on them or draw potentially flawed assumptions based on limited previous personal experience."
So, my potentially flawed assumptions and limited previous personal experience are surplus to requirements at the GGTF. The plan now seems to go out and find answers that fit a pre-existing narrative about what is causing the Gender Gap.
So... "I believe the Gender Gap is caused by women who want to write about knitting thinking that Wikipedia does not welcome articles about knitting." I will create a skewed survey to fit this narrative and get the "right kind of women" to fill it in and prove my pre-conceived notions correct.
I really don't see the point of it. If you ask 1,000 female editors, "What kind of articles do you like to edit?", then you'll get 1,000 answers with a wide variety of topics. What would that prove? Suppose you find 90% of them edit traditionally feminine topics, what conclusion would you draw from it? Would it prove that they clearly prefer to edit those topics, or those are the topics that they feel less likely to encounter intimidation, or a combination of the two? I just think the GGTF board is currently being used to promote a truly pointless exercise.
Marie
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 6:36 AM, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
Any journalists in future wanting examples of it need only read those archives and the dispute-resolution threads that failed to deal with it (which one of us ought to compile at some point).
An interesting idea. What would such a compilation look like? (Spoken as someone who used to write the Arbitration Report for the *Signpost*).
Neotarf
Hi Neotarf,
I think the GGTF page from June to December may become important for journalists and even historians because it makes clear how entrenched and overt the sexism is. The dispute-resolution threads on AN, AN/I and various talk pages show women either failing to get help for a situation that should have been a no-brainer, or getting it only after protracted discussion.
The difficulty is that the threads are scattered, and there are threads that are directly and indirectly related to GGTF. It would be a good idea to compile a list of these threads that we can post on the GGTF archives (perhaps as a template), so that everything is easy to find.