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(a)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(a)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&ol…]8867180]. 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

the uk chairman band was mentioned in daily dot today http://dly.do/M9K4Sv

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

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 &lt;laura(a)fanhistory.com <mailto:laura@fanhistory.com>> wrote: On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Risker &lt;risker.wp(a)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 &lt;carolmooredc(a)verizon.net&gt; 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#.22Wiki… 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 &lt;laura(a)fanhistory.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

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

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 &lt;laura(a)fanhistory.com&gt; wrote: -- *Sandra Ordonez* *Web Astronaut* (503)866-2697 @Collaboracion "Helping you rock out in the virtual, collaborative world." *www.collaborativenation.com* _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)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 &lt;sydney.poore(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: -- 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* << _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Miss Angelou

On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Pete Forsyth &lt;peteforsyth(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: wrote: and 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(a)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 <http://goog_748452647>Honorary 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 Freeman<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathy_Freeman>was 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 Curie<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie>does 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 Smith<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnes_and_Margaret_Smith>is 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 &lt;emilymonroe03(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap