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.

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(a)verizon.net> wrote: _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

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(a)verizon.net> wrote: _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

"...one of the reasonable first steps toward seeing what women in wikipedia

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. 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(a)gmail.com To: gendergap(a)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(a)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(a)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 _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

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(a)gmail.com> wrote: _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote: _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote: _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)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.

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(a)lists.wikimedia.org, right? I think that's what I've used before. Lightbreather

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(a)gmail.com> wrote: _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote: ​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 ​ _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap