I've been doing my part in addressing the gender gap in en.Wikipedia, and this week marks a major accomplishment for me in this area and for me as an editor. [[Maya Angelou]] is now a featured article.
I've been literally working on Angelou's article for years; my very first edit of it was early in my WP-editing career, in September 2007: [diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maya_Angelou&diff=prev&old...]. It took this long mostly because I do have a life, most of the time. When I came across it, I realized that Angelou's work and life was sorely underrepresented and not at all comprehensive, way before I came to understand the gender gap in this project. I also realized that in order to do the subject justice, I needed to become a MA-expert, something I definitely was not at the time. I realized that at the very least, I needed to read her six autobiographies, and while I was at it, write articles about them. Only one article existed at the time: her first autobiography [[I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings]], which was in a pitiable state. A year's worth of research, a lot of assistance from some of the most premiere editors in the project, and 3 FACs later, it became an FA.
In the ensuing years, I created and wrote articles about Angelou's five remaining autobiographies (one is a FA, the others are GAs), some ancillary articles about her other works, and a couple of lists. ([[Works of Maya Angelou]] is currently up for FLC.) After I completed the article about Angelou's final autobiography, I worked to get her bio up to snuff, and it had a relatively easy FAC, my first FA to pass in its first candidacy. I think that was due to the fact that the article was truly prepared before it was submitted. For anyone who wants to drive an article through the FAC process, that's my advice: make sure it's ready to be reviewed, and do not use FAC (or GAC, even) to review it. There are other places for that, so use them before bringing it to FAC.
My next goal is to create a Maya Angelou Featured Topic. There are some things that need to be accomplished before that; my goal is to get there before Dr. Angelou's 85th birthday in April. I'm certain, at the very least, that her bio will on the front page. Ironically, this is the week I started researching the article about another elderly and important woman: [[Joan Ganz Cooney]], co-creator of Sesame Street.
Christine Username: Figureskatingfan
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Christine Meyer christinewmeyer@gmail.com wrote:
I've been doing my part in addressing the gender gap in en.Wikipedia, and this week marks a major accomplishment for me in this area and for me as an editor. [[Maya Angelou]] is now a featured article.
This is amazing work! Congratulations on getting it as a featured article, and thanks for writing and telling us about how you ddi it. I personally find this very inspiring.
-VAL
Christine, that's truly awesome. :-)
I've watched you working on the Maya Angelou topic for years now, and thrilled to see that you've got her biography to FA. It will be fantastic for her article to be on the main page on her birthday as a feature article!
Sydney User:FloNight
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Christine Meyer christinewmeyer@gmail.comwrote:
I've been doing my part in addressing the gender gap in en.Wikipedia, and this week marks a major accomplishment for me in this area and for me as an editor. [[Maya Angelou]] is now a featured article.
I've been literally working on Angelou's article for years; my very first edit of it was early in my WP-editing career, in September 2007: [diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maya_Angelou&diff=prev&old...]. It took this long mostly because I do have a life, most of the time. When I came across it, I realized that Angelou's work and life was sorely underrepresented and not at all comprehensive, way before I came to understand the gender gap in this project. I also realized that in order to do the subject justice, I needed to become a MA-expert, something I definitely was not at the time. I realized that at the very least, I needed to read her six autobiographies, and while I was at it, write articles about them. Only one article existed at the time: her first autobiography [[I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings]], which was in a pitiable state. A year's worth of research, a lot of assistance from some of the most premiere editors in the project, and 3 FACs later, it became an FA.
In the ensuing years, I created and wrote articles about Angelou's five remaining autobiographies (one is a FA, the others are GAs), some ancillary articles about her other works, and a couple of lists. ([[Works of Maya Angelou]] is currently up for FLC.) After I completed the article about Angelou's final autobiography, I worked to get her bio up to snuff, and it had a relatively easy FAC, my first FA to pass in its first candidacy. I think that was due to the fact that the article was truly prepared before it was submitted. For anyone who wants to drive an article through the FAC process, that's my advice: make sure it's ready to be reviewed, and do not use FAC (or GAC, even) to review it. There are other places for that, so use them before bringing it to FAC.
My next goal is to create a Maya Angelou Featured Topic. There are some things that need to be accomplished before that; my goal is to get there before Dr. Angelou's 85th birthday in April. I'm certain, at the very least, that her bio will on the front page. Ironically, this is the week I started researching the article about another elderly and important woman: [[Joan Ganz Cooney]], co-creator of Sesame Street.
Christine Username: Figureskatingfan
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
My own thoughts echo those expressed by others. Great job, Christine! No surprise though, I think your work is outstanding!
Cindy
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.comwrote:
Christine, that's truly awesome. :-)
I've watched you working on the Maya Angelou topic for years now, and thrilled to see that you've got her biography to FA. It will be fantastic for her article to be on the main page on her birthday as a feature article!
Sydney User:FloNight
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Christine Meyer < christinewmeyer@gmail.com> wrote:
I've been doing my part in addressing the gender gap in en.Wikipedia, and this week marks a major accomplishment for me in this area and for me as an editor. [[Maya Angelou]] is now a featured article.
I've been literally working on Angelou's article for years; my very first edit of it was early in my WP-editing career, in September 2007: [diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maya_Angelou&diff=prev&old...]. It took this long mostly because I do have a life, most of the time. When I came across it, I realized that Angelou's work and life was sorely underrepresented and not at all comprehensive, way before I came to understand the gender gap in this project. I also realized that in order to do the subject justice, I needed to become a MA-expert, something I definitely was not at the time. I realized that at the very least, I needed to read her six autobiographies, and while I was at it, write articles about them. Only one article existed at the time: her first autobiography [[I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings]], which was in a pitiable state. A year's worth of research, a lot of assistance from some of the most premiere editors in the project, and 3 FACs later, it became an FA.
In the ensuing years, I created and wrote articles about Angelou's five remaining autobiographies (one is a FA, the others are GAs), some ancillary articles about her other works, and a couple of lists. ([[Works of Maya Angelou]] is currently up for FLC.) After I completed the article about Angelou's final autobiography, I worked to get her bio up to snuff, and it had a relatively easy FAC, my first FA to pass in its first candidacy. I think that was due to the fact that the article was truly prepared before it was submitted. For anyone who wants to drive an article through the FAC process, that's my advice: make sure it's ready to be reviewed, and do not use FAC (or GAC, even) to review it. There are other places for that, so use them before bringing it to FAC.
My next goal is to create a Maya Angelou Featured Topic. There are some things that need to be accomplished before that; my goal is to get there before Dr. Angelou's 85th birthday in April. I'm certain, at the very least, that her bio will on the front page. Ironically, this is the week I started researching the article about another elderly and important woman: [[Joan Ganz Cooney]], co-creator of Sesame Street.
Christine Username: Figureskatingfan
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
the uk chairman band was mentioned in daily dot today http://dly.do/M9K4Sv
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 1, 2012, at 6:16 AM, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson cindamuse@gmail.com wrote:
My own thoughts echo those expressed by others. Great job, Christine! No surprise though, I think your work is outstanding!
Cindy
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote: Christine, that's truly awesome. :-)
I've watched you working on the Maya Angelou topic for years now, and thrilled to see that you've got her biography to FA. It will be fantastic for her article to be on the main page on her birthday as a feature article!
Sydney User:FloNight
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Christine Meyer christinewmeyer@gmail.com wrote: I've been doing my part in addressing the gender gap in en.Wikipedia, and this week marks a major accomplishment for me in this area and for me as an editor. [[Maya Angelou]] is now a featured article.
I've been literally working on Angelou's article for years; my very first edit of it was early in my WP-editing career, in September 2007: [diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maya_Angelou&diff=prev&old...]. It took this long mostly because I do have a life, most of the time. When I came across it, I realized that Angelou's work and life was sorely underrepresented and not at all comprehensive, way before I came to understand the gender gap in this project. I also realized that in order to do the subject justice, I needed to become a MA-expert, something I definitely was not at the time. I realized that at the very least, I needed to read her six autobiographies, and while I was at it, write articles about them. Only one article existed at the time: her first autobiography [[I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings]], which was in a pitiable state. A year's worth of research, a lot of assistance from some of the most premiere editors in the project, and 3 FACs later, it became an FA.
In the ensuing years, I created and wrote articles about Angelou's five remaining autobiographies (one is a FA, the others are GAs), some ancillary articles about her other works, and a couple of lists. ([[Works of Maya Angelou]] is currently up for FLC.) After I completed the article about Angelou's final autobiography, I worked to get her bio up to snuff, and it had a relatively easy FAC, my first FA to pass in its first candidacy. I think that was due to the fact that the article was truly prepared before it was submitted. For anyone who wants to drive an article through the FAC process, that's my advice: make sure it's ready to be reviewed, and do not use FAC (or GAC, even) to review it. There are other places for that, so use them before bringing it to FAC.
My next goal is to create a Maya Angelou Featured Topic. There are some things that need to be accomplished before that; my goal is to get there before Dr. Angelou's 85th birthday in April. I'm certain, at the very least, that her bio will on the front page. Ironically, this is the week I started researching the article about another elderly and important woman: [[Joan Ganz Cooney]], co-creator of Sesame Street.
Christine Username: Figureskatingfan
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
--
Best regards,
Cindy Ashley-Nelson "Yes. Her again." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cindamuse
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Also coverage of varying quality in ...
The Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/9439046/Chairman-of-Wikipedi...
Civil Society (media outlet focused on charities)
http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/news/content/13090/wikimedia_chairm...
Gizmodo
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/07/bondage-porn-links-earn-uk-wikipedia-charit...
Fox News
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/08/01/50-shades-wikipedia-uk-head-banned-af...
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Sandra Ordonez sandratordonez@gmail.comwrote:
the uk chairman band was mentioned in daily dot today http://dly.do/M9K4Sv
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 1, 2012, at 6:16 AM, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson cindamuse@gmail.com wrote:
My own thoughts echo those expressed by others. Great job, Christine! No surprise though, I think your work is outstanding!
Cindy
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.comwrote:
Christine, that's truly awesome. :-)
I've watched you working on the Maya Angelou topic for years now, and thrilled to see that you've got her biography to FA. It will be fantastic for her article to be on the main page on her birthday as a feature article!
Sydney User:FloNight
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Christine Meyer < christinewmeyer@gmail.com> wrote:
I've been doing my part in addressing the gender gap in en.Wikipedia, and this week marks a major accomplishment for me in this area and for me as an editor. [[Maya Angelou]] is now a featured article.
I've been literally working on Angelou's article for years; my very first edit of it was early in my WP-editing career, in September 2007: [diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maya_Angelou&diff=prev&old...]. It took this long mostly because I do have a life, most of the time. When I came across it, I realized that Angelou's work and life was sorely underrepresented and not at all comprehensive, way before I came to understand the gender gap in this project. I also realized that in order to do the subject justice, I needed to become a MA-expert, something I definitely was not at the time. I realized that at the very least, I needed to read her six autobiographies, and while I was at it, write articles about them. Only one article existed at the time: her first autobiography [[I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings]], which was in a pitiable state. A year's worth of research, a lot of assistance from some of the most premiere editors in the project, and 3 FACs later, it became an FA.
In the ensuing years, I created and wrote articles about Angelou's five remaining autobiographies (one is a FA, the others are GAs), some ancillary articles about her other works, and a couple of lists. ([[Works of Maya Angelou]] is currently up for FLC.) After I completed the article about Angelou's final autobiography, I worked to get her bio up to snuff, and it had a relatively easy FAC, my first FA to pass in its first candidacy. I think that was due to the fact that the article was truly prepared before it was submitted. For anyone who wants to drive an article through the FAC process, that's my advice: make sure it's ready to be reviewed, and do not use FAC (or GAC, even) to review it. There are other places for that, so use them before bringing it to FAC.
My next goal is to create a Maya Angelou Featured Topic. There are some things that need to be accomplished before that; my goal is to get there before Dr. Angelou's 85th birthday in April. I'm certain, at the very least, that her bio will on the front page. Ironically, this is the week I started researching the article about another elderly and important woman: [[Joan Ganz Cooney]], co-creator of Sesame Street.
Christine Username: Figureskatingfan
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
--
Best regards,
Cindy Ashley-Nelson "Yes. *Her again.*" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cindamuse
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Sandra Ordonez sandratordonez@gmail.com wrote:
the uk chairman band was mentioned in daily dot today http://dly.do/M9K4Sv
Ugh, please, please, please just start a new thread from scratch (send an email to gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org ) if it's unrelated to an existing thread. (You did change the subject which was nice but not enough!)
Thanks, Jeremy
I have to be honest here, I'm not really certain what this thread has to do with the gender gap. It just feels more like gossip than anything, particularly as a significant portion of the reporting either (a) has nothing to do with the purported subject of the articles and/or (b) is inaccurate.
Risker/Anne
On 1 August 2012 18:03, Jeremy Baron jeremy@tuxmachine.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Sandra Ordonez sandratordonez@gmail.com wrote:
the uk chairman band was mentioned in daily dot today
Ugh, please, please, please just start a new thread from scratch (send an email to gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org ) if it's unrelated to an existing thread. (You did change the subject which was nice but not enough!)
Thanks, Jeremy
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I have to be honest here, I'm not really certain what this thread has to do with the gender gap. It just feels more like gossip than anything, particularly as a significant portion of the reporting either (a) has nothing to do with the purported subject of the articles and/or (b) is inaccurate.
Risker/Anne
This. No one has provided any solid evidence of a connection between the limited presence of a few pornographic pictures on Wikipedia and the gendergap. At best, the gender gap story here would be: This sort of story discourages women from becoming involved.
In my opinion, it's very much within the remit of this list to share anything that creates an environment that is not welcoming to new contributors. It doesn't need to be proven every time, as far as I'm concerned, that women are disproportionately affected, for a topic to be germane to this list.
In this case, I consider it highly relevant information, considering that someone in a position of trust in our community (chair of the UK board) was found by English Wikipedia's highest authority:
* (unanimously) to have violated important policies meant to protect the health of the community (failing to disclose information about his past accounts that he was required to disclose) * (by a slim majority) to have made "unacceptable personal attacks" * (unanimously) to have made "ad hominem attacks to discredit others" * to have "attempted to deceive the community" on more than one count * was banned (indefinitely, with opportunity for appeal starting in 1 year) from editing the encyclopedia
I am aware that this person has made a number of high quality contributions to our site, and is well respected for much of his work, and do not discount that in any way. But the fact that he would continue in a position of trust, as chair of the Board of the UK Wikimedia chapter, in light of these findings, is distressing to me. It seems to me that he, and the board that is supporting him (I'm unclear whether it's the UK or WMF board) is choosing to place his personal status above the interests of the movement, and choosing to accept the consequences of a story like this, which in my view will surely tend to discourage people from participating in the Wikimedia movement.
I don't carry any ill will toward this person, or wish to deny his efforts to continue to contribute to our projects. But it does distress me that he would continue to carry a Wikimedia business card, and represent our movement in a high-profile position of trust, in light of these findings.
And I'm glad to have information about something like this posted on a list dedicated to the removal of barriers to participation.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I have to be honest here, I'm not really certain what this thread has to do with the gender gap. It just feels more like gossip than anything, particularly as a significant portion of the reporting either (a) has nothing to do with the purported subject of the articles and/or (b) is inaccurate.
Risker/Anne
This. No one has provided any solid evidence of a connection between the limited presence of a few pornographic pictures on Wikipedia and the gendergap. At best, the gender gap story here would be: This sort of story discourages women from becoming involved.
-- twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I actually didn't read the first few posts because of the misspelling ;-) But when I read in the telegraph article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7883064/MPs-scandals-covered-up-on-... *He's used multiple accounts *Very interested in bondage *Can be hostile to other users
I began to wonder if he was the editor who was so hostile to me in early 2011 when someone brought me to WP:COIN on a completely different issue. I got so annoyed at the hounding and nitpicking defacto attacks from this editor whom I'd never run into before that I went to his contributions page to see what his POV was. I saw articles all of women bondage related and then asked on his talk page if abusing women was how he got his jollies - this got me blocked for the first time. There was a big WP:ANI brouhaha whose details I won't go into, but he did stop editing completely at that point. Which makes me wonder if it was a sock who felt too much attention had been brought to him.
So if it IS the same individual, I certainly would understand the decision... Power corrupts, even in Wikipedia. So it's good to "impeach" the powerful from time to time to keep them all on their best behavior. (I'll have to check WP:ANI and see why my biggest nemesis Admin hasn't posted in two months, since we last had a policy dispute on an article, his last series of edits. Maybe I missed something. Some one else high profile who had a nice long block a few years back that did somewhat improve his behavior, though he started getting worse again lately.)
CM:
PS: Just about ready to put my Wikimania 2012 blog report on my blog, but it might be too POV to "promote or advertise" among wikipedians. Comments on a number of Wiki issues, and my own naughtiness here and there, so guess I should just let people chance upon it... :-)
Only one issue that was important enough to bring to a policy talk page as a question, with one response so far. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource_talk:What_is_Wikisource%3F#.22Wikis...
Ah the things women and feminists could leak from the places of power they need leaking from... sigh...
On 8/1/2012 9:53 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
In my opinion, it's very much within the remit of this list to share anything that creates an environment that is not welcoming to new contributors. It doesn't need to be proven every time, as far as I'm concerned, that women are disproportionately affected, for a topic to be germane to this list.
In this case, I consider it highly relevant information, considering that someone in a position of trust in our community (chair of the UK board) was found by English Wikipedia's highest authority:
- (unanimously) to have violated important policies meant to protect
the health of the community (failing to disclose information about his past accounts that he was required to disclose)
- (by a slim majority) to have made "unacceptable personal attacks"
- (unanimously) to have made "ad hominem attacks to discredit others"
- to have "attempted to deceive the community" on more than one count
- was banned (indefinitely, with opportunity for appeal starting in 1
year) from editing the encyclopedia
I am aware that this person has made a number of high quality contributions to our site, and is well respected for much of his work, and do not discount that in any way. But the fact that he would continue in a position of trust, as chair of the Board of the UK Wikimedia chapter, in light of these findings, is distressing to me. It seems to me that he, and the board that is supporting him (I'm unclear whether it's the UK or WMF board) is choosing to place his personal status above the interests of the movement, and choosing to accept the consequences of a story like this, which in my view will surely tend to discourage people from participating in the Wikimedia movement.
I don't carry any ill will toward this person, or wish to deny his efforts to continue to contribute to our projects. But it does distress me that he would continue to carry a Wikimedia business card, and represent our movement in a high-profile position of trust, in light of these findings.
And I'm glad to have information about something like this posted on a list dedicated to the removal of barriers to participation.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Laura Hale <laura@fanhistory.com mailto:laura@fanhistory.com> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com <mailto:risker.wp@gmail.com>> wrote: I have to be honest here, I'm not really certain what this thread has to do with the gender gap. It just feels more like gossip than anything, particularly as a significant portion of the reporting either (a) has nothing to do with the purported subject of the articles and/or (b) is inaccurate. Risker/Anne This. No one has provided any solid evidence of a connection between the limited presence of a few pornographic pictures on Wikipedia and the gendergap. At best, the gender gap story here would be: This sort of story discourages women from becoming involved. -- twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com <http://ozziesport.com>
Carol- I do not think they are the same people. In fact,I am 95% sure. Just FYI.
Sarah
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 1, 2012, at 8:50 PM, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
I actually didn't read the first few posts because of the misspelling ;-) But when I read in the telegraph article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7883064/MPs-scandals-covered-up-on-... *He's used multiple accounts *Very interested in bondage *Can be hostile to other users
I began to wonder if he was the editor who was so hostile to me in early 2011 when someone brought me to WP:COIN on a completely different issue. I got so annoyed at the hounding and nitpicking defacto attacks from this editor whom I'd never run into before that I went to his contributions page to see what his POV was. I saw articles all of women bondage related and then asked on his talk page if abusing women was how he got his jollies - this got me blocked for the first time. There was a big WP:ANI brouhaha whose details I won't go into, but he did stop editing completely at that point. Which makes me wonder if it was a sock who felt too much attention had been brought to him.
So if it IS the same individual, I certainly would understand the decision... Power corrupts, even in Wikipedia. So it's good to "impeach" the powerful from time to time to keep them all on their best behavior. (I'll have to check WP:ANI and see why my biggest nemesis Admin hasn't posted in two months, since we last had a policy dispute on an article, his last series of edits. Maybe I missed something. Some one else high profile who had a nice long block a few years back that did somewhat improve his behavior, though he started getting worse again lately.)
CM:
PS: Just about ready to put my Wikimania 2012 blog report on my blog, but it might be too POV to "promote or advertise" among wikipedians. Comments on a number of Wiki issues, and my own naughtiness here and there, so guess I should just let people chance upon it... :-)
Only one issue that was important enough to bring to a policy talk page as a question, with one response so far. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource_talk:What_is_Wikisource%3F#.22Wikis...
Ah the things women and feminists could leak from the places of power they need leaking from... sigh...
On 8/1/2012 9:53 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
In my opinion, it's very much within the remit of this list to share anything that creates an environment that is not welcoming to new contributors. It doesn't need to be proven every time, as far as I'm concerned, that women are disproportionately affected, for a topic to be germane to this list.
In this case, I consider it highly relevant information, considering that someone in a position of trust in our community (chair of the UK board) was found by English Wikipedia's highest authority:
- (unanimously) to have violated important policies meant to protect the health of the community (failing to disclose information about his past accounts that he was required to disclose)
- (by a slim majority) to have made "unacceptable personal attacks"
- (unanimously) to have made "ad hominem attacks to discredit others"
- to have "attempted to deceive the community" on more than one count
- was banned (indefinitely, with opportunity for appeal starting in 1 year) from editing the encyclopedia
I am aware that this person has made a number of high quality contributions to our site, and is well respected for much of his work, and do not discount that in any way. But the fact that he would continue in a position of trust, as chair of the Board of the UK Wikimedia chapter, in light of these findings, is distressing to me. It seems to me that he, and the board that is supporting him (I'm unclear whether it's the UK or WMF board) is choosing to place his personal status above the interests of the movement, and choosing to accept the consequences of a story like this, which in my view will surely tend to discourage people from participating in the Wikimedia movement.
I don't carry any ill will toward this person, or wish to deny his efforts to continue to contribute to our projects. But it does distress me that he would continue to carry a Wikimedia business card, and represent our movement in a high-profile position of trust, in light of these findings.
And I'm glad to have information about something like this posted on a list dedicated to the removal of barriers to participation.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote: I have to be honest here, I'm not really certain what this thread has to do with the gender gap. It just feels more like gossip than anything, particularly as a significant portion of the reporting either (a) has nothing to do with the purported subject of the articles and/or (b) is inaccurate.
Risker/Anne
This. No one has provided any solid evidence of a connection between the limited presence of a few pornographic pictures on Wikipedia and the gendergap. At best, the gender gap story here would be: This sort of story discourages women from becoming involved.
-- twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Indeed not, and the bondage imagery the articles mention was generally from gay contexts.
However, the BLP edit mentioned in the arbitration decision (re-)inserted a link to a commercial porn site into the Karrine Steffans BLP, featuring an uncensored clip from a sex video the BLP subject had tried to suppress, and showing her having sex.
Rather unusual BLP sourcing, even for Wikipedia. Yet he defended it vigorously last summer, and only recently acknowledged that it was inappropriate.
Andreas
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.comwrote:
Carol- I do not think they are the same people. In fact,I am 95% sure. Just FYI.
Sarah
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 1, 2012, at 8:50 PM, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
I actually didn't read the first few posts because of the misspelling ;-) But when I read in the telegraph article
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7883064/MPs-scandals-covered-up-on-... *He's used multiple accounts *Very interested in bondage *Can be hostile to other users
I began to wonder if he was the editor who was so hostile to me in early 2011 when someone brought me to WP:COIN on a completely different issue. I got so annoyed at the hounding and nitpicking defacto attacks from this editor whom I'd never run into before that I went to his contributions page to see what his POV was. I saw articles all of women bondage related and then asked on his talk page if abusing women was how he got his jollies - this got me blocked for the first time. There was a big WP:ANI brouhaha whose details I won't go into, but he did stop editing completely at that point. Which makes me wonder if it was a sock who felt too much attention had been brought to him.
So if it IS the same individual, I certainly would understand the decision... Power corrupts, even in Wikipedia. So it's good to "impeach" the powerful from time to time to keep them all on their best behavior. (I'll have to check WP:ANI and see why my biggest nemesis Admin hasn't posted in two months, since we last had a policy dispute on an article, his last series of edits. Maybe I missed something. Some one else high profile who had a nice long block a few years back that did somewhat improve his behavior, though he started getting worse again lately.)
CM:
PS: Just about ready to put my Wikimania 2012 blog report on my blog, but it might be too POV to "promote or advertise" among wikipedians. Comments on a number of Wiki issues, and my own naughtiness here and there, so guess I should just let people chance upon it... :-)
Only one issue that was important enough to bring to a policy talk page as a question, with one response so far.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource_talk:What_is_Wikisource%3F#.22Wikis...
Ah the things women and feminists could leak from the places of power they need leaking from... sigh...
On 8/1/2012 9:53 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
In my opinion, it's very much within the remit of this list to share anything that creates an environment that is not welcoming to new contributors. It doesn't need to be proven every time, as far as I'm concerned, that women are disproportionately affected, for a topic to be germane to this list.
In this case, I consider it highly relevant information, considering that someone in a position of trust in our community (chair of the UK board) was found by English Wikipedia's highest authority:
- (unanimously) to have violated important policies meant to protect the
health of the community (failing to disclose information about his past accounts that he was required to disclose)
- (by a slim majority) to have made "unacceptable personal attacks"
- (unanimously) to have made "ad hominem attacks to discredit others"
- to have "attempted to deceive the community" on more than one count
- was banned (indefinitely, with opportunity for appeal starting in 1
year) from editing the encyclopedia
I am aware that this person has made a number of high quality contributions to our site, and is well respected for much of his work, and do not discount that in any way. But the fact that he would continue in a position of trust, as chair of the Board of the UK Wikimedia chapter, in light of these findings, is distressing to me. It seems to me that he, and the board that is supporting him (I'm unclear whether it's the UK or WMF board) is choosing to place his personal status above the interests of the movement, and choosing to accept the consequences of a story like this, which in my view will surely tend to discourage people from participating in the Wikimedia movement.
I don't carry any ill will toward this person, or wish to deny his efforts to continue to contribute to our projects. But it does distress me that he would continue to carry a Wikimedia business card, and represent our movement in a high-profile position of trust, in light of these findings.
And I'm glad to have information about something like this posted on a list dedicated to the removal of barriers to participation.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I have to be honest here, I'm not really certain what this thread has to do with the gender gap. It just feels more like gossip than anything, particularly as a significant portion of the reporting either (a) has nothing to do with the purported subject of the articles and/or (b) is inaccurate.
Risker/Anne
This. No one has provided any solid evidence of a connection between the limited presence of a few pornographic pictures on Wikipedia and the gendergap. At best, the gender gap story here would be: This sort of story discourages women from becoming involved.
-- twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Aug 1, 2012, at 10:50 PM, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
<snip>
Only one issue that was important enough to bring to a policy talk page as a question, with one response so far. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource_talk:What_is_Wikisource%3F#.22Wikis...
Ah the things women and feminists could leak from the places of power they need leaking from... sigh...
<snip>
The best place to discuss something on en.WP does not generally translate well to other wikis. If you want generally or particularly discuss something at en.WS it all happens at:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium
A general rule of thumb is look at the dates of the rest of the discussion on a given talk page. If it is not recent, if there are large gaps between posts and replies, then there is probably a better page to use. Recent changes is your friend when searching out the watering holes in an unfamiliar community.
On the particular topic you are interested in. Here is the main archived discussion:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2011-01#Wikile...
The Scriptorium also has a search tool for the archives near the top of the main page if you want look for more.
Without re-reading any of the discussion (and therefore I could only be remembering my personal thoughts here), I recall that the main issue was less philosophical than practical. Do you plan on actually curating the the XYZ documents that you wish to see on en.WS? Will you arrange them, add contextual links, watchlist them, and stick around? Or do you think just they should exist on en.WS and wish to arrange a duplicate dump of them and the rest of the cables into someone else's lap?
Discussing this as the "Wikileaks cables" tends to end up with en.WS, or at least myself, balking at being treated as if it were a dumping ground *yet again*. It carries the baggage of all the energy spent (still to be spent) cleaning the bot assisted dumps from en.WP back-in-the-day, the energy spent resisting those who wanted to insist that someone-besides-themselves kept and curated n digits of Pi, the energy spent going researching the copyright of grey area bulk content that was uploaded and abandoned. It tends to be a negative discussion.
However if you find some documents that you want to raise up on en.WS. Texts that inspire you to stick around, are free content, and otherwise fit the inclusion guidelines. I don't think the fact that the document happened to be a "Wikileaks cable" should be deal-breaker. But I would frame the discussion with *that* focus, about a small group of documents that you want to work on which happen to have this affiliation. No guarantees, but that is how I would approach it if I was interested in working on that sort of thing.
Birgitte SB
On Thursday, 2 August 2012 at 02:53, Pete Forsyth wrote:
In this case, I consider it highly relevant information, considering that someone in a position of trust in our community (chair of the UK board) was found by English Wikipedia's highest authority:
- (unanimously) to have violated important policies meant to protect the health of the community (failing to disclose information about his past accounts that he was required to disclose)
- (by a slim majority) to have made "unacceptable personal attacks"
- (unanimously) to have made "ad hominem attacks to discredit others"
- to have "attempted to deceive the community" on more than one count
- was banned (indefinitely, with opportunity for appeal starting in 1 year) from editing the encyclopedia
You seem to have omitted the bit about how he was subject to a relentless campaign of vicious homophobic abuse.
Or, indeed, ArbCom's complete failure to understand the importance of how such abuse and bullying occurs. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SilkTork&diff=49842...
Given the numerous instance of female editors I've spoken to who have been the subject of painful stalking incidents, and the ongoing risk to women and other minority groups on-wiki, I'd suggest ArbCom's failure to understand the nature of such harassment ought to be rather concerning...
This is not to excuse what Fae has done. Two wrongs don't make a right. But let's not pretend that there's not another side to this sad tale.
On 8/2/2012 4:16 AM, Tom Morris wrote:
You seem to have omitted the bit about how he was subject to a relentless campaign of vicious homophobic abuse.
Or, indeed, ArbCom's complete failure to understand the importance of how such abuse and bullying occurs. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SilkTork&diff=49842...
Given the numerous instance of female editors I've spoken to who have been the subject of painful stalking incidents, and the ongoing risk to women and other minority groups on-wiki, I'd suggest ArbCom's failure to understand the nature of such harassment ought to be rather concerning...
This is not to excuse what Fae has done. Two wrongs don't make a right. But let's not pretend that there's not another side to this sad tale.
Your link did not include examples of actual harassment, though I'm sure they exist. It also still is not clear to me if he ONLY post gay bondage photos. And if went beyond being educational and usable for articles to just being prurient.
Obviously, if every time he lashed out it was in response to harassment, that would be understandable - On the other hand, it also would show that wikipedia's ways of dealing with harassment were not too good.
Now in the case I cited where I got blocked my asking an untoward question came after I was harassed as an "antisemite" for a couple weeks for trying to uphold policy on an Israel-Palestine related article. (A couple of obvious males who actually used bigoted sounding language were ignored!) So I lashed out inappropriately for asking about an individual's sexual attitudes towards women (I also linked my question to a women's group on offsite wikia which I naively thought was part of Wikipedia, but that was only a minor reason for the block).
The important thing was that the initial block also was six months and the BrouHaHa was that I was unfairly harassed on the article leading to my losing it. After the protests, the block was reduced to a week.
After there was such a long thread about it at ANI, the individuals who had been harassing me largely DID stop using those kinds of attacks and stuck to policy issues in future debates on that and other articles. So I do think a good airing of harassment issues on WP:Wikiquette or WP:ANI with the relevant parties can help. Of course, blocking harassers until they stop would help too.
Anyway, always looking for double standards, I suspect that if I had reacted snottily to people every time I was harassed and hounded (more than a hundred death threats, FYI), I'd have been blocked for six months way before whatever it was that got User:Fae blocked. This of course probably related to the fact that he is a powerful male and (in the deep recesses of the minds of too many but *not* all males) I'm just some erzatz female... So to me that's the relevance to this list.
Frankly I don't feel like reading the whole case right now, but here it is and porn only mentioned once, bondage not at all; civility and other rules the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/F%C3%A6
CM in DC
The Telegraph has now reported Fæ's resignation as Chair of Wikimedia UK
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/9447161/Wikipedia-charity-ch...
if i was a woman who wasn't familiar with Wikipedia, and I read this article, I would be a bit put off. #JustSaying
Maybe its my ADD creating that connection, but I obviously thought it relevant enough to post.
You don't have to agree with me, but I would appreciate you don't discredit my opinion/thoughts by calling it gossip. thanks!
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I have to be honest here, I'm not really certain what this thread has to do with the gender gap. It just feels more like gossip than anything, particularly as a significant portion of the reporting either (a) has nothing to do with the purported subject of the articles and/or (b) is inaccurate.
Risker/Anne
This. No one has provided any solid evidence of a connection between the limited presence of a few pornographic pictures on Wikipedia and the gendergap. At best, the gender gap story here would be: This sort of story discourages women from becoming involved.
-- twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Hi Sandra, I didn't mean that your posting it to this list was "gossip", I was referring to the initial news reports. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to figure out that there was a secondary motive behind the "disclosure" of this information to the press.
Risker/Anne
On 2 August 2012 00:54, Sandra ordonez sandratordonez@gmail.com wrote:
if i was a woman who wasn't familiar with Wikipedia, and I read this article, I would be a bit put off. #JustSaying
Maybe its my ADD creating that connection, but I obviously thought it relevant enough to post.
You don't have to agree with me, but I would appreciate you don't discredit my opinion/thoughts by calling it gossip. thanks!
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I have to be honest here, I'm not really certain what this thread has to do with the gender gap. It just feels more like gossip than anything, particularly as a significant portion of the reporting either (a) has nothing to do with the purported subject of the articles and/or (b) is inaccurate.
Risker/Anne
This. No one has provided any solid evidence of a connection between the limited presence of a few pornographic pictures on Wikipedia and the gendergap. At best, the gender gap story here would be: This sort of story discourages women from becoming involved.
-- twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- *Sandra Ordonez* *Web Astronaut* (503)866-2697 @Collaboracion
"Helping you rock out in the virtual, collaborative world."
*www.collaborativenation.com*
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I second everyone's comments before mine! I was actually out with a friend and was saying "oh wow, Figureskatingfan has been working on Maya Angelou.." and was bragging (for lack of a better word!) about how awesome your work is with Wikipedia and how amazing your new news about Miss Angelou is.
Your work is inspiring and so amazing!!! Congratulations !!!
-Sarah
On 8/1/12 3:16 AM, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson wrote:
My own thoughts echo those expressed by others. Great job, Christine! No surprise though, I think your work is outstanding!
Cindy
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Sydney Poore <sydney.poore@gmail.com mailto:sydney.poore@gmail.com> wrote:
Christine, that's truly awesome. :-) I've watched you working on the Maya Angelou topic for years now, and thrilled to see that you've got her biography to FA. It will be fantastic for her article to be on the main page on her birthday as a feature article! Sydney User:FloNight On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Christine Meyer <christinewmeyer@gmail.com <mailto:christinewmeyer@gmail.com>> wrote: I've been doing my part in addressing the gender gap in en.Wikipedia, and this week marks a major accomplishment for me in this area and for me as an editor. [[Maya Angelou]] is now a featured article. I've been literally working on Angelou's article for years; my very first edit of it was early in my WP-editing career, in September 2007: [diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maya_Angelou&diff=prev&oldid=158867180]. It took this long mostly because I do have a life, most of the time. When I came across it, I realized that Angelou's work and life was sorely underrepresented and not at all comprehensive, way before I came to understand the gender gap in this project. I also realized that in order to do the subject justice, I needed to become a MA-expert, something I definitely was not at the time. I realized that at the very least, I needed to read her six autobiographies, and while I was at it, write articles about them. Only one article existed at the time: her first autobiography [[I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings]], which was in a pitiable state. A year's worth of research, a lot of assistance from some of the most premiere editors in the project, and 3 FACs later, it became an FA. In the ensuing years, I created and wrote articles about Angelou's five remaining autobiographies (one is a FA, the others are GAs), some ancillary articles about her other works, and a couple of lists. ([[Works of Maya Angelou]] is currently up for FLC.) After I completed the article about Angelou's final autobiography, I worked to get her bio up to snuff, and it had a relatively easy FAC, my first FA to pass in its first candidacy. I think that was due to the fact that the article was truly prepared before it was submitted. For anyone who wants to drive an article through the FAC process, that's my advice: make sure it's ready to be reviewed, and do not use FAC (or GAC, even) to review it. There are other places for that, so use them before bringing it to FAC. My next goal is to create a Maya Angelou Featured Topic. There are some things that need to be accomplished before that; my goal is to get there before Dr. Angelou's 85th birthday in April. I'm certain, at the very least, that her bio will on the front page. Ironically, this is the week I started researching the article about another elderly and important woman: [[Joan Ganz Cooney]], co-creator of Sesame Street. Christine Username: Figureskatingfan _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap--
Best regards,
Cindy Ashley-Nelson "Yes. /Her again./" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cindamuse
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Wow, how nice is this. As a WP editor, you don't expect any recognition so I appreciate your kind words and the kind words of others who have responded.
Christine
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.comwrote:
I second everyone's comments before mine! I was actually out with a friend and was saying "oh wow, Figureskatingfan has been working on Maya Angelou.." and was bragging (for lack of a better word!) about how awesome your work is with Wikipedia and how amazing your new news about Miss Angelou is.
Your work is inspiring and so amazing!!! Congratulations !!!
-Sarah
On 8/1/12 3:16 AM, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson wrote:
My own thoughts echo those expressed by others. Great job, Christine! No surprise though, I think your work is outstanding!
Cindy
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.comwrote:
Christine, that's truly awesome. :-)
I've watched you working on the Maya Angelou topic for years now, and thrilled to see that you've got her biography to FA. It will be fantastic for her article to be on the main page on her birthday as a feature article!
Sydney User:FloNight
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Christine Meyer < christinewmeyer@gmail.com> wrote:
I've been doing my part in addressing the gender gap in en.Wikipedia, and this week marks a major accomplishment for me in this area and for me as an editor. [[Maya Angelou]] is now a featured article.
I've been literally working on Angelou's article for years; my very first edit of it was early in my WP-editing career, in September 2007: [diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maya_Angelou&diff=prev&old...]. It took this long mostly because I do have a life, most of the time. When I came across it, I realized that Angelou's work and life was sorely underrepresented and not at all comprehensive, way before I came to understand the gender gap in this project. I also realized that in order to do the subject justice, I needed to become a MA-expert, something I definitely was not at the time. I realized that at the very least, I needed to read her six autobiographies, and while I was at it, write articles about them. Only one article existed at the time: her first autobiography [[I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings]], which was in a pitiable state. A year's worth of research, a lot of assistance from some of the most premiere editors in the project, and 3 FACs later, it became an FA.
In the ensuing years, I created and wrote articles about Angelou's five remaining autobiographies (one is a FA, the others are GAs), some ancillary articles about her other works, and a couple of lists. ([[Works of Maya Angelou]] is currently up for FLC.) After I completed the article about Angelou's final autobiography, I worked to get her bio up to snuff, and it had a relatively easy FAC, my first FA to pass in its first candidacy. I think that was due to the fact that the article was truly prepared before it was submitted. For anyone who wants to drive an article through the FAC process, that's my advice: make sure it's ready to be reviewed, and do not use FAC (or GAC, even) to review it. There are other places for that, so use them before bringing it to FAC.
My next goal is to create a Maya Angelou Featured Topic. There are some things that need to be accomplished before that; my goal is to get there before Dr. Angelou's 85th birthday in April. I'm certain, at the very least, that her bio will on the front page. Ironically, this is the week I started researching the article about another elderly and important woman: [[Joan Ganz Cooney]], co-creator of Sesame Street.
Christine Username: Figureskatingfan
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
--
Best regards,
Cindy Ashley-Nelson "Yes. *Her again.*" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cindamuse
Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate todayhttps://donate.wikimedia.org/
<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
A belated note of admiration - what I love about this work is the rigour, persistence, diligence and intellectual effort that has been applied to produce such a fine result. In other words - dare I say it - the whole thing is so scholarly!
Whiteghost.ink
On 2 August 2012 04:26, Christine Meyer christinewmeyer@gmail.com wrote:
Wow, how nice is this. As a WP editor, you don't expect any recognition so I appreciate your kind words and the kind words of others who have responded.
Christine
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.comwrote:
I second everyone's comments before mine! I was actually out with a friend and was saying "oh wow, Figureskatingfan has been working on Maya Angelou.." and was bragging (for lack of a better word!) about how awesome your work is with Wikipedia and how amazing your new news about Miss Angelou is.
Your work is inspiring and so amazing!!! Congratulations !!!
-Sarah
On 8/1/12 3:16 AM, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson wrote:
My own thoughts echo those expressed by others. Great job, Christine! No surprise though, I think your work is outstanding!
Cindy
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.comwrote:
Christine, that's truly awesome. :-)
I've watched you working on the Maya Angelou topic for years now, and thrilled to see that you've got her biography to FA. It will be fantastic for her article to be on the main page on her birthday as a feature article!
Sydney User:FloNight
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Christine Meyer < christinewmeyer@gmail.com> wrote:
I've been doing my part in addressing the gender gap in en.Wikipedia, and this week marks a major accomplishment for me in this area and for me as an editor. [[Maya Angelou]] is now a featured article.
I've been literally working on Angelou's article for years; my very first edit of it was early in my WP-editing career, in September 2007: [diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maya_Angelou&diff=prev&old...]. It took this long mostly because I do have a life, most of the time. When I came across it, I realized that Angelou's work and life was sorely underrepresented and not at all comprehensive, way before I came to understand the gender gap in this project. I also realized that in order to do the subject justice, I needed to become a MA-expert, something I definitely was not at the time. I realized that at the very least, I needed to read her six autobiographies, and while I was at it, write articles about them. Only one article existed at the time: her first autobiography [[I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings]], which was in a pitiable state. A year's worth of research, a lot of assistance from some of the most premiere editors in the project, and 3 FACs later, it became an FA.
In the ensuing years, I created and wrote articles about Angelou's five remaining autobiographies (one is a FA, the others are GAs), some ancillary articles about her other works, and a couple of lists. ([[Works of Maya Angelou]] is currently up for FLC.) After I completed the article about Angelou's final autobiography, I worked to get her bio up to snuff, and it had a relatively easy FAC, my first FA to pass in its first candidacy. I think that was due to the fact that the article was truly prepared before it was submitted. For anyone who wants to drive an article through the FAC process, that's my advice: make sure it's ready to be reviewed, and do not use FAC (or GAC, even) to review it. There are other places for that, so use them before bringing it to FAC.
My next goal is to create a Maya Angelou Featured Topic. There are some things that need to be accomplished before that; my goal is to get there before Dr. Angelou's 85th birthday in April. I'm certain, at the very least, that her bio will on the front page. Ironically, this is the week I started researching the article about another elderly and important woman: [[Joan Ganz Cooney]], co-creator of Sesame Street.
Christine Username: Figureskatingfan
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
--
Best regards,
Cindy Ashley-Nelson "Yes. *Her again.*" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cindamuse
Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate todayhttps://donate.wikimedia.org/
<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Aug 1, 2012 11:09 AM, "Sarah Stierch" sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Miss Angelou
Sorry to be a nitpicker, but while in high school I had the privilege of meeting DOCTOR Angelou (through a Facing History and Ourselves program), and it was impressed on us early and often (and effectively, it seems) before that meeting that DOCTOR Angelou's name is DOCTOR Angelou, not Maya, Miss Angelou, etc :)
Kudos, from me too, on the FA! Pete
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 1, 2012 11:09 AM, "Sarah Stierch" sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Miss Angelou
Sorry to be a nitpicker, but while in high school I had the privilege of meeting DOCTOR Angelou (through a Facing History and Ourselves program), and it was impressed on us early and often (and effectively, it seems) before that meeting that DOCTOR Angelou's name is DOCTOR Angelou, not Maya, Miss Angelou, etc :)
I forget to use women's titles sometimes too, but if I remember, I take positive pleasure in calling women with PhD's "Dr." - especially in areas where people don't often use their titles. :)
-VAL
I think the standard way to name a human subject of a Wikipedia article is by their bolded full name at the first mention (so *Dr. Maya [middle name(s)] Angelou*) and then by their last name (Angelou) by then on . From, Emily
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Valerie Aurora valerie@adainitiative.orgwrote:
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 1, 2012 11:09 AM, "Sarah Stierch" sarah.stierch@gmail.com
wrote:
Miss Angelou
Sorry to be a nitpicker, but while in high school I had the privilege of meeting DOCTOR Angelou (through a Facing History and Ourselves program),
and
it was impressed on us early and often (and effectively, it seems) before that meeting that DOCTOR Angelou's name is DOCTOR Angelou, not Maya, Miss Angelou, etc :)
I forget to use women's titles sometimes too, but if I remember, I take positive pleasure in calling women with PhD's "Dr." - especially in areas where people don't often use their titles. :)
-VAL
-- Increasing the participation of women in open technology and culture http://adainitiative.org
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
While Angelou apparently has adopted the use of the "doctor", "*It is not customary, however, for recipients of an honorary doctorate to adopt the prefix 'Dr'* " and "many universities, however, request that an honorary graduate refrain from such practice". See <goog_748452647>Honorary degreeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorary_degrees#practical%20use#practical use.
As an extra point, sometimes honorary degrees (although not in this case) have been given to people whose accomplishments are in fields other than intellectual, as a means of trying to derive prestige for the institution from its association with the person. For example, Cathy Freemanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathy_Freemanwas given one. Freeman is an amazing athlete but she is no intellectual. I remember one offended quietly hardworking academic, on learning of this award, asking for an honorary Olympic medal, so long as it wasn't in synchonised swimming. Thankfully, it seems that here at least, honorary doctorates are given these days for for intellectual achievement.
Even a professional academic such as Marie Curiehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curiedoes not have her degree in the lead. Perhaps she should, but as with most real academics, the doctorate is the foundation, that is, the beginning, not the end of their achievements. The case of Agnes and Margaret Smithhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnes_and_Margaret_Smithis instructive. They were world famous scholars, many of whose honorary degrees were granted by German universities at a time when their own university (Cambridge) did not award degrees to women.
The place for earned degrees may be in the lead, but generally, honorary ones should be in the text under Awards.
Whiteghost.ink
On 5 August 2012 07:29, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
I think the standard way to name a human subject of a Wikipedia article is by their bolded full name at the first mention (so *Dr. Maya [middle name(s)] Angelou*) and then by their last name (Angelou) by then on . From, Emily
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Valerie Aurora valerie@adainitiative.orgwrote:
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 1, 2012 11:09 AM, "Sarah Stierch" sarah.stierch@gmail.com
wrote:
Miss Angelou
Sorry to be a nitpicker, but while in high school I had the privilege of meeting DOCTOR Angelou (through a Facing History and Ourselves
program), and
it was impressed on us early and often (and effectively, it seems)
before
that meeting that DOCTOR Angelou's name is DOCTOR Angelou, not Maya,
Miss
Angelou, etc :)
I forget to use women's titles sometimes too, but if I remember, I take positive pleasure in calling women with PhD's "Dr." - especially in areas where people don't often use their titles. :)
-VAL
-- Increasing the participation of women in open technology and culture http://adainitiative.org
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Sorry it's taken me a little while to respond to this thread; I was out of town. How Dr. Angelou should be referred to in her bio article has actually been an issue in the past. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maya_Angelou/Archive_1#Honorifics. Of course, this was early in the article's development, and it's obvious that I was still learning the basics and that I had missed the mark. In the time since, though, you'll notice that it followed WP policy more closely, and as is standard, she's referred to as her last name throughout.
The link above does explain, though, why honorifics are so important to Angelou. I agree with whiteghost below; since Angelou's degrees are honorary, they're not what makes her notable, so it isn't in the lead. I also think that her honorary degrees, while not being "academic", are legitimate because much of her career is academic-based and literary. Many of the other articles about her discuss her self-education and literary influences.
I also think that the reason Angelou and those around her insist so strongly that people call her "Dr." is a reaction against the extreme racism and sexism she's experienced in her life. She deserves respect, and deserves insisting that people treat her with respect. It needs to be clarified and demanded because what's behind people insisting on calling her "Maya" and even "Ms." is subtle racism and sexism, even if they're not aware of it. It verges on over-reaction, but anyone who knows Angelou's struggles and how she's fought against racism and sexism should understand it.
These days, when young people simply aren't taught to respect their elders, it's nice to have a model of an elderly woman who insists on treating others with respect and insisting that people treat her with respect.
Christine User:Figureskatingfan
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 4:33 PM, whiteghost .ink whiteghost.ink@gmail.comwrote:
While Angelou apparently has adopted the use of the "doctor", "*It is not customary, however, for recipients of an honorary doctorate to adopt the prefix 'Dr'* " and "many universities, however, request that an honorary graduate refrain from such practice". See http://goog_748452647Honorary degrees http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorary_degrees#practical%20use#practical use.
As an extra point, sometimes honorary degrees (although not in this case) have been given to people whose accomplishments are in fields other than intellectual, as a means of trying to derive prestige for the institution from its association with the person. For example, Cathy Freemanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathy_Freemanwas given one. Freeman is an amazing athlete but she is no intellectual. I remember one offended quietly hardworking academic, on learning of this award, asking for an honorary Olympic medal, so long as it wasn't in synchonised swimming. Thankfully, it seems that here at least, honorary doctorates are given these days for for intellectual achievement.
Even a professional academic such as Marie Curiehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curiedoes not have her degree in the lead. Perhaps she should, but as with most real academics, the doctorate is the foundation, that is, the beginning, not the end of their achievements. The case of Agnes and Margaret Smithhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnes_and_Margaret_Smithis instructive. They were world famous scholars, many of whose honorary degrees were granted by German universities at a time when their own university (Cambridge) did not award degrees to women.
The place for earned degrees may be in the lead, but generally, honorary ones should be in the text under Awards.
Whiteghost.ink
On 5 August 2012 07:29, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
I think the standard way to name a human subject of a Wikipedia article is by their bolded full name at the first mention (so *Dr. Maya [middle name(s)] Angelou*) and then by their last name (Angelou) by then on . From, Emily
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Valerie Aurora <valerie@adainitiative.org
wrote:
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 1, 2012 11:09 AM, "Sarah Stierch" sarah.stierch@gmail.com
wrote:
Miss Angelou
Sorry to be a nitpicker, but while in high school I had the privilege
of
meeting DOCTOR Angelou (through a Facing History and Ourselves
program), and
it was impressed on us early and often (and effectively, it seems)
before
that meeting that DOCTOR Angelou's name is DOCTOR Angelou, not Maya,
Miss
Angelou, etc :)
I forget to use women's titles sometimes too, but if I remember, I take positive pleasure in calling women with PhD's "Dr." - especially in areas where people don't often use their titles. :)
-VAL
-- Increasing the participation of women in open technology and culture http://adainitiative.org
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap