On 2/10/2011 11:45 AM, Oliver Keyes wrote: On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 4:26 PM, <carolmooredc@verizon.net mailto:carolmooredc@verizon.net> wrote:

Hi. I'm Carolmooredc and since I edit on controversial political topics I get in lots of trouble with guys who don't like opinionated females who don't shut up and go away when they are told to. I wish it got me down enough to leave and do something more profitable, but I'm stubborn - and semi-retired with lots of time on my hands.

So if you were a /man/ editing controversial topics, you wouldn't get in trouble?

First, I think we've seen a number of women here have complained about similar problems to mine (which I barely outlined). I waited til I'd seen enough before joining and posting myself.

I don't think it's appropriate to go into detail, but in general on several articles I have noticed there's a total double standard with comments by males that are quite controversial being ignored while comments by me which other males only *interpret* as being controversial are attacked.

More importantly is that in last couple years I've become effective at running to the appropriate noticeboard (especially WP:RS and WP:NPOV) to get help which often has led to my position (which often is shared with one or more males) being supported by the community. However, while the males may suffer some minor abuse (sometimes only because they dare to agree with me!), I'm the only one they are always trying to run off the article, including with sections with my name on it!! (And I won't even go into the off wiki harassment.)

It would be laughable if it weren't obvious that its systematic male bias that has run lots of women off wikipedia before it gets anywhere as bad as it has against me. And it needs to be dealt with.

I don't intend to get into a lot of back and forth on this topic, which I think women posters largely understand.

I'm just interested in seeing actual action on issues in various wikipedias.

CM

I've nominated the article "German women's national football team" to appear as the featured article on the English Wikipedia Main Page on March 8: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/requests#M...

Feel free to add comments there.

Someone should add some women-related entries to the DYK Special occasion holding area as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Did_you_know#Special_occasion_hol...

Ryan Kaldari

User:Herostratus wrote an essay on hardcore pornography images in Wikipedia a few weeks ago. The basic premise of the essay was, "Articles about hardcore pornography subjects should not contain images which are, themselves, hardcore pornography."

The essay underwent an MfD deletion discussion, at which it was kept; one of the Keep votes was Jimbo's.

Herostratus has resisted changes like these being made to the essay:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Herostratus/Hardcore_images&a...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Herostratus/Hardcore_images&a...

As a result, the essay has now been deleted and userfied by an admin, without a new MfD having taken place.

Herostratus's userfied essay is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostratus/Hardcore_images

As the essay is about alleged systemic misogynism, it may be of interest to this list.

The ANI discussion that led to userfication is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden......

Andreas

The result of the request for deletion was keep, but the author seems to insist on the essay being his way and feels he can reject contributions by others.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User_talk:Herostratus/Hardcor...

He has now asked for mediation.

Although I agree with the position taken in the essay, and, indeed, would go much further, I doubt this is the issue to lead on. It has done me no good.

That said, it should be possible to resurrect the essay in the Wikipedia namespace if others are motivated to do so, and the author's WP:OWN issues are dealt with.

Fred

--- On Mon, 14/2/11, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:

...

From: Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com Subject: [Gendergap] Hardcore images essay To: "Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects" gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Monday, 14 February, 2011, 16:46 User:Herostratus wrote an essay on hardcore pornography images in Wikipedia a few weeks ago. The basic premise of the essay was, "Articles about hardcore pornography subjects should not contain images which are, themselves, hardcore pornography."

The essay underwent an MfD deletion discussion, at which it was kept; one of the Keep votes was Jimbo's.

Herostratus has resisted changes like these being made to the essay:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Herostratus/Hardcore_images&a...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Herostratus/Hardcore_images&a...

As a result, the essay has now been deleted and userfied by an admin, without a new MfD having taken place.

Herostratus's userfied essay is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostratus/Hardcore_images

As the essay is about alleged systemic misogynism, it may be of interest to this list.

The ANI discussion that led to userfication is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden......

Andreas

For reference, the previous MfD discussion which resulted in "Keep" is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Har...

Andreas

---

Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Question: Are female participants discouraged by the hardcore pornographic or explicit content in certain topics or articles?

Do you find it offensive, degrading, discouraging?

The women I know (other than my mother, whom I have not asked) have answered those questions generally with a "It doesn't bother me" or "I don't care".

If there is either good ancedotal or statistical evidence that women are actually discouraged or driven off by it, then let's by all means address it, both here and elsewhere. But that claim has often been made by a lot of men, who also suspiciously were themselves offended by it, many of whom do themselves in fact object to any explicit imagery without regard to NOTCENSORED, beyond reasonable values of editorial judgement.

I am not going to lump Jimmy or Herostratus into that category, but the vast bulk of energy expended to remove explicit content seems to be done by people for whom the retort that Wikipedia is not censored is, in fact, a completely legitimate and completely adequate response. They in fact make it harder for reasonable editorial judgement types to engage in discussion, as they're not very good at disguising their underlying moral contempt for that material and their fears that it will indelibly contaminate their precious children.

Actual offensiveness to women or discouragement of women contributors are a potentially valid issue, if it can be corroborated.

Thanks.

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:

--- On Mon, 14/2/11, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User_talk:Herostratus/Hardcor...

...

He has now asked for mediation.

Although I agree with the position taken in the essay, and, indeed, would go much further, I doubt this is the issue to lead on. It has done me no good.

I don't think so far it has done anyone any good who has tried to argue for a more mature attitude towards pornographic content, Jimbo and Herostratus included. Or for an attitude towards this content that more closely matches that employed by what we call reliable sources. Yet it is an issue that cannot be bypassed. Once a more mature community consensus on this issue is reached, a lot of other things will fall into place. It is a key issue, and an emblematic reflection of the present community demographics which we are hoping to change.

...

That said, it should be possible to resurrect the essay in the Wikipedia namespace if others are motivated to do so, and the author's WP:OWN issues are dealt with.

Herostratus makes the point that --

"Look, the Britannica doesn't host porn. Are they 'censored'? Of course not. They are exercising editoral judgement. I think it'd be silly to say 'The Britannica is censored'. The Great Chinese Encyclopedia (or whatever they have) is censored, and that's totally different."

It is a sensible point, yet is always greeted with a chorus of "Wikipedia is not censored."

To be clear: Wikipedia is not Britannica, and we will cover and illustrate topics, including sexual topics, that Britannica does not. I am not saying that Wikipedia must not have nudity in an article like hogtie bondage, or that Commons must not have creampie images. Reliably published sex manuals etc. have similar images. But we should not blaze a trail on Wikipedia's pages that is way beyond mainstream publishing. We make a policy commitment not to go beyond the standards of reliable sources in our texts, and we should do the same for illustrations in Wikipedia.

The fact is that our present community standards in this and other areas are not defined by sources, but by single young males' interests. The bias of these standards relative to the real-world mainstream is very obvious in this area (especially so in Commons). Not challenging these standards where they clearly depart from mainstream publishing feeds an unreflected sense of entitlement masquerading as self-congratulatory liberalism. We need more reflection, not less.

I understand the reluctance of women, and the silent majority (if indeed there is such a silent "majority"), to get involved in this area, because it will get nasty. But it's a nettle that has to be grasped before things will get better.

YMMV.

Andreas

---

Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:

[...] The fact is that most Wikipedians do not have children, or partners, and most people out there in the real world do.

I am not going to generalize from my wife not being insulted by the material, but she wasn't.

We don't have children, but my neighbors do, and my brother, and I appreciate the parents' desire to not warp their childrens' understanding of sexuality by dumping inappropriate sexual content into their lives.

That does not change my opinion on explicit material on Wikipedia, though it tempered the formation of my opinion.

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Madalyn Zimbric madalyn@uchicago.edu wrote:

An authoritative educational resource for everyone should include that subset of everyone who want to learn about pornography, human sexuality, death, spiders, radical political movements, and all sorts of other objectionable things.

Maybe not spiders. We could leave spiders out.

Nepenthe

:)

This is a serious topic and thank you everyone for your honest replies, and I hope this link doesn't make anyone think I'm being flippant about the issue. BUT your comment about spiders reminded me of my all-time favorite Wikipedia proposal, which I am compelled to share: http://www.everytopicintheuniverseexceptchickens.com/

"Now there is a solution!" makes me LOL every time.

-- phoebe

p.s. thanks for an insightful post :)

Ok, I do not think it is negative, degrading etc.

Kim

On 2/14/2011 7:59 PM, Sue Gardner wrote:

On 14 February 2011 16:23, George Herbertgeorge.herbert@gmail.com wrote:

...

Question: Are female participants discouraged by the hardcore pornographic or explicit content in certain topics or articles?

Do you find it offensive, degrading, discouraging?

That's a great question, George: I'm glad you're asking it :-)

Why don't we try this: let's ask every woman here to answer the question solely from her personal perspective. Let's refrain from speculating about what other women might think, and let's hold back on assessing or judging what anybody says. And let's take censorship/intervention/etc. off the table --- all we're doing here is information-gathering, we're not talking about implications.

(Oh, and we should also be aware that the women here may be unrepresentative of the general population on this issue. If explicit imagery on the Wikimedia projects _were_ a major factor in the gender gap then women who currently edit would be unusual, in that they had NOT been deterred.)

So the question is: female editors, have you come across explicit material on the Wikimedia projects that you find offensive, degrading or discouraging?

Thanks, Sue

---

Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

2011/2/15 Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com:

--- On Tue, 15/2/11, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:

...

From: Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org So the question is: female editors, have you come across explicit material on the Wikimedia projects that you find offensive, degrading or discouraging?

Occasionally on user pages. Rarely in the article namespace.

Thanks, Sue.

This is a good question, but there is another important question I would like to ask women as well:

If you had been researching and working on these articles, would you have illustrated them in the same way?

If you want to know how erotic topics in Wikipedia are treated by women editors, I suggest to you having a look at: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Erotik_und_Pornografie http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:BDSM_und_Fetisch

Both were initiated and designed by women.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bondage was brought to "lesenswert" status by a woman.

greetings, elian

There is a story in which a fisher believed that the fishes of his lake were always bigger than 20 cm. What he did not realise is that his net for fishing did not allow to capture smaller animals. Comparing this to WP, I want to point out that it can grow and be enriched by a more active participation of more groups that can potentially give a lot of knowledge.

Some objectives I would suggest:

-          To promote women´s participation in the light of WP´s editing lines

-          To make adequate and confortable space for woman, in which her self-identification as female editor would be very welcome/stimulated

-          To check the content of the WP in different topics and languages in order to meet the shortage of articles on women´s issues and  have a policy of non-gender-discrimination (use of language, photos, etc)

-          To improve the quality of the dialogue in the editing process of WP

-          To maximise efforts, collecting best practices and results

WP is great! The identification of WP with a male-white-young profile took a role in the media –partially true, historical evolution of WP-. It would be good to explore strategies for compensating underrepresentation or unbalance not only in the relation between female and male, but also between old and young; white-black-native-yellow-mix.ea.

The idea of a WP café is very nice. My suggestion is to have this café (gender mix) with some additional rules to be followed by every participant: to be more polite, to recognize your mistakes, to be seriously constructive.

There is a historical gender-gap. However, this gap is diminishing progressively. WP would like to contribute effectively to this process.

----- Original Message ----

From: Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, February 14, 2011 6:59:47 PM Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Hardcore images essay

On 14 February 2011 16:23, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:

...

Question: Are female participants discouraged by the hardcore pornographic or explicit content in certain topics or articles?

Do you find it offensive, degrading, discouraging?

That's a great question, George: I'm glad you're asking it :-)

Why don't we try this: let's ask every woman here to answer the question solely from her personal perspective. Let's refrain from speculating about what other women might think, and let's hold back on assessing or judging what anybody says. And let's take censorship/intervention/etc. off the table --- all we're doing here is information-gathering, we're not talking about implications.

(Oh, and we should also be aware that the women here may be unrepresentative of the general population on this issue. If explicit imagery on the Wikimedia projects _were_ a major factor in the gender gap then women who currently edit would be unusual, in that they had NOT been deterred.)

So the question is: female editors, have you come across explicit material on the Wikimedia projects that you find offensive, degrading or discouraging?

In my personal experience, I when I have come across material I found offensive I was discouraged from editing in the immediate area (or even commenting) and leaving my name in any way associated with the material. I personally would never generalize this discouragement to other areas of the wiki however. It hasn't always been explicit material that I have found unpalatable. But I have always felt that there is level of material (of many varieties) on the wikis that I cannot not strongly object to as counter-mission that I wish to campaign for it's deletion, but that I object to enough on a personal level that I will not do anything to help curate it. Certainly my participation in certain topical areas is discouraged by this. But I don't know that this fact should be seen as problematic. Isn't necessary that there be some pieces of material on the Wikimedia projects for every single individual to find objectionable and offensive? I know of a great deal of material that I find prosaic does discourage others who stringently object to and are greatly offended by it. Shouldn't it work out that much of what I am discouraged by will be prosaic someone else? I don't know the answers here. But I do know that I would find it very hard to mediate with LDS editors over the image on Temple Garment if I were simultaneously campaigning for the deletion of some pornography image.

Speculation here: Women will probably always feel discouraged from contributing to the Hardcore Pornography article, no matter what images it contains. We will likely be more effective in efforts towards seeding pieces of articles that women might be feel encouraged to build upon than removing pieces of articles that may discourage women.

Birgitte SB

____________________________________________________________________________________ Bored stiff? Loosen up... Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. http://games.yahoo.com/games/front

There are two questions:

Reactions of women (from nun to sex worker)

Whether the image in question has educational value in the context it is used. (sliding scale here from pairing of pinups with autos to hard core pornography)

Multiplication of sexually oriented images or material beyond informational requirements is yet another issue.

Fred

On 2/14/11 4:59 PM, Sue Gardner wrote:

...

So the question is: female editors, have you come across explicit material on the Wikimedia projects that you find offensive, degrading or discouraging?

I think this discussion is missing an important point—the context of the explicit material. While most people are not surprised or offended to find explicit images in articles about BDSM or pornography, I've seen plenty of women (and men) upset about explicit material being featured on the Main Page of various projects. A few examples include:

Women objecting to porn on the Main page of Commons in 2009: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Picture_of_the_day/Archive_1#...

Female admins objecting to the following DYK hook (with picture) appearing on the Main Page of English Wikipedia: "Did you know... that after [[Melina Perez|Melina]] ''(pictured)'' stripped [[Torrie Wilson]] to win a bra & panties match at '''[[The Great American Bash (2005)]]''', referee [[Candice Michelle]] stripped Melina and herself as well?

Various people (including Jimmy) objecting to the vulva photo on the Main Page of the German Wikipedia: (Don't have a link, but I imagine it's easy to dig up if you speak German.)

I think if there is an issue to pursue, it is the use of explicit material in non-explicit contexts (which unsurprisingly seems to always involve female nudity rather than male nudity).

Ryan Kaldari

---

Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

On 2/15/11 3:17 PM, Nepenthe wrote:

Graphic material of any sort does not belong on the main page.

This seemingly obvious statement is actually a rather controversial opinion on Wikipedia, and there is currently no policy or guideline discouraging graphic material from appearing on the Main Page of any Wikimedia project that I know of. Any time I have prodded on this issue -- as a simple matter of editorial judgement, not censorship -- I have been met with a wall of opposition. If others share the opinion above, perhaps it is time for us to begin chipping away at that wall. Considering that our Main Page is the first impression for thousands of Wikipedia users, I think this could be a concrete and achievable step towards creating a more welcoming environment for a broader array of people.

Ryan Kaldari

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:

...

On 2/15/11 3:17 PM, Nepenthe wrote:

...

Graphic material of any sort does not belong on the main page.

This seemingly obvious statement is actually a rather controversial opinion on Wikipedia, and there is currently no policy or guideline discouraging graphic material from appearing on the Main Page of any Wikimedia project that I know of. Any time I have prodded on this issue -- as a simple matter of editorial judgement, not censorship -- I have been met with a wall of opposition. If others share the opinion above, perhaps it is time for us to begin chipping away at that wall. Considering that our Main Page is the first impression for thousands of Wikipedia users, I think this could be a concrete and achievable step towards creating a more welcoming environment for a broader array of people.

Ryan Kaldari

It is clearly incompatible with a world-wide readership, but "no censorship" is strongly held. As I have said before, a frontal attack on this point is politically punishing.

I don't think it's incompatible with world-wide readership in general, but editorial judgement should let us keep it from front page appearances, for all the obvious reasons. We can be proud of articles or specific explicit images which are article-appropriate, without forcing them on unexpecting readers. That's not censorship, to avoid that.

I agree that it's politically punishing - in part because some who have pushed this were actually total abolitionists.

Jimbo has restored Herostratus's essay to mainspace. (Three cheers from me.)

There are some excruciatingly naive arguments being made on the essay's talk page, e.g.:

"Culturally biased. What seems misogynistic to some woman could be perfectly fine or even positive to another (e.g. a facial is considered a pleasurable sex act by some women and demeaning by other)"

This bespeaks massive ignorance of the realities of pornographic filmmaking.

In a word: HELP!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Hardcore_images#Reverted_userfic...

and following sections.

Andreas

How about you all contribute to the discussion proper, rather than suggesting things which, if made on-wiki, would result in an immediate block for inappropriate behaviour?

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Joseph Reagle joseph.2008@reagle.orgwrote:

On Tuesday, February 15, 2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote:

...

There are some excruciatingly naive arguments being made on the essay's talk page, e.g.:

Is this the sort of thing that would benefit from public pillory? For example, a posting on Geek Feminism blog or elsewhere? On one hand, I think such attitudes merit public critique, on the other, I wouldn't want such efforts to backfire and make Wikipedia even less appealing to possible contributors, particularly if this is just a rat hole.

---

Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Joseph and Andreas, I think you're assuming facts not in evidence here, so to speak. If you disapprove of porn or the pornmaking process, that's got nothing to do with wikipedia. Unless you can demonstrate that a particular image exploited the person featured in it, you're arguing against a strawman to say the image should be suppressed because it might have involved some hand-wavy mistreatment. Maybe it did. Maybe it didn't. You guys seem to want to assume that all explicit images involved mistreatment, while the NPOV view really is to assume that *we can't know that*.

To take this argument to blogs, based on a guess of what people think, what they mean, and what could in some imaginary world have possibly happened or not happened behind the scenes of a photo, would be a betrayal of what we're trying to work on here on this list. Men don't know what women are thinking. We don't need you to jump to our defense and call out the dogs over something you're concerned *might *bother some women, even though there's no real evidence of that. Ask us, and read our answers. You'll find that it's not nearly as clear-cut as you're assuming.

-Fluffernutter

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Joseph Reagle joseph.2008@reagle.orgwrote:

On Tuesday, February 15, 2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote:

...

There are some excruciatingly naive arguments being made on the essay's talk page, e.g.:

Is this the sort of thing that would benefit from public pillory? For example, a posting on Geek Feminism blog or elsewhere? On one hand, I think such attitudes merit public critique, on the other, I wouldn't want such efforts to backfire and make Wikipedia even less appealing to possible contributors, particularly if this is just a rat hole.

---

Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

This is true, but doesn't help with many projects. Some projects don't have WP;V as a core principle - what do we do with them? "inappropriate" images on Commons would not be bound by such standards.

Frequently viewed articles do not tell readers what we're about, they tell us what readers are about. Do you think people go to the Creampie articles for an image of line drawings? :P. I'm not saying that soft or hard porn on Wikipedia is appropriate, simply that you can't judge *us* by what our * readers* look at.

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:

--- On *Wed, 16/2/11, ChaoticFluffy chaoticfluffy@gmail.com* wrote:

From: ChaoticFluffy chaoticfluffy@gmail.com

...

Joseph and Andreas, I think you're assuming facts not in evidence here,

so to

...

speak. If you disapprove of porn or the pornmaking process, that's got

nothing

...

to do with wikipedia.

Whether a woman in Budapest derives sexual pleasure from receiving five facials

a week from ten men for $200 a go, as some Wikipedians appear to believe, is not

actually the issue here. The issue is this:

Wikipedia’s mission is to reflect coverage in reliable sources. We have basic policy

commitments to that effect – WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. When it comes to sexual

or otherwise controversial images, we should be featuring the same types of

illustrations that reliable sources writing about these matters use. We should be

neither more liberal nor less liberal than topical sources are, on balance.

What happens in Wikipedia is that editors argue that we are bound to reliable sources

in text, but not in illustrations. As far as illustrations are concerned, NOTCENSORED

applies. NOTCENSORED is touted as the community’s right to substitute its own

editorial judgment in matters of illustration for the editorial judgments made by reliable

sources. Our demographics are skewed. The typical Wikipedian is an 18-year-old,

single childless male. As far as we can tell, women make up about 1/8 of our editorship.

Compounding matters, women comment very rarely at discussions concerned with

curating sexology articles. (Three cheers for Carol!)

There is no support in basic policy for the position that Wikipedia should knowingly,

wilfully and systematically depart from the standards espoused by reliable sources

when it comes to sexually explicit images. Yet this is what happens. We don’t do

this in our articles on dinosaurs, say. Our illustrations of dinosaurs look just like

the illustrations of dinosaurs in reliable sources.

This is just a gap that has opened up in our policy fabric. As a result, we are at times

more explicit, gratuitous or inept in our use of sexual or pornographic images in

Wikipedia than reliable sources would choose to be, as in the examples discussed

(and, in part, since addressed on-wiki).

Remember that these articles are some of our most frequently accessed. Both the

Creampie article and the Bukkake article e.g. are ranked among our top articles by page

views (ranks 1,300 and 2,000 or thereabouts). They are viewed significantly more often

than Hilary Clinton’s biography, say.

Frequently viewed articles like that are calling cards. They tell readers and potential

new contributors what we are about.

What we should be about is what reliable sources are about. This is not about protecting

women; it is about protecting Wikipedia from becoming something else than an

educational resource. Women do however have a key role in that, and the gender

gap is intimately related to this issue. What sets reliable sources apart from porn sites

is that reliable sources are written for a mixed readership, just like Wikipedia should be.

Reliable sources – newspapers and scholarly writing – take women’s views into

account. Our editorial process does a poor job of doing that, and the general gender gap

as well as the even more extreme gender gap in curating these articles compounds the

issue.

One thing we could do to address this, beyond increased female participation, is to

enshrine in policy the principle that editorial standards for article illustration should not

depart significantly and systematically from editorial standards in reliable sources.

That would help address the problem.

Andreas

---

Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

On Wednesday, February 16, 2011, ChaoticFluffy wrote:

Joseph and Andreas, I think you're assuming facts not in evidence here, so to speak. If you disapprove of porn or the pornmaking process, that's got nothing to do with wikipedia.

I'll note that I've said nothing about the moral standing of porn or varied sexual practices. I personally think it is inappropriate for WP, but that is my opinion.

My concern here is how to make WP more accessible/friendly (to women and others). I'll note that the conversation is reminiscent of the old "playboy calendars in the firehouse" conversations of the 80/90s (i.e., most guys object to their removal, a few women say it doesn't bother them, someone might even put up a Playgirl in some attempt at parity) and fortunately (IMHO) we've moved beyond that in society at large. Yet, it continues in the free culture movement (why can't we have such images on WP, or display them in FOSS conference presentations, etc.?). In any case, my thinking/concern is informed by evidence that "stereotypical" masculine elements in an environment (e.g., even just Star Trek posters and Mountain Dew cans!) can affect a sense of belonging and interest. (And I say that as someone who kept Kirk and Spock toys on my desk for many years.)

[[ http://depts.washington.edu/sibl/Publications/Cheryan,%20Plaut,%20Davies,%20...

Sapna Cheryan, Victoria C. Plaut, Paul G. Davies, Claude M. Steele Ambient belonging: how stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science j=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology kw=gender n=6 pp =1045-1060 v=97 y=2009 r=20100105 "People can make decisions to join a group based solely on exposure to that group’s physical environment. Four studies demonstrate that the gender difference in interest in computer science is influenced by exposure to environments associated with computer scientists. In Study 1, simply changing the objects in a computer science classroom from those considered stereotypical of computer science (e.g., Star Trek poster, video games) to objects not considered stereotypical of computer science (e.g., nature poster, phone books) was sufficient to boost female undergraduates’ interest in computer science to the level of their male peers. Further investigation revealed that the stereotypical broadcast a masculine stereotype that discouraged women’s sense of ambient belonging and subsequent interest in the environment (Studies 2, 3, and 4) but had no similar effect on men (Studies 3, 4). This masculine stereotype prevented women’s interest from developing even in environments entirely populated by other women (Study 2). Objects can thus come to broadcast stereotypes of a group, which in turn can deter people who do not identify with these stereotypes from joining that group." \acite {CheryanEtal2009abh} * Section: General Discussion * when an environment stereotypically associated with computer science—containing video games, StarTrek memorabilia, and the like—was made salient, women were consistently less interested in joining the domain than men. This effect held across four different decisions (the computer science major, work teams, generic companies, and web design companies), three different gender representations (majority male, entirely female, and gender balanced), and two different methodologies (exposure to actual objects and imagining objects). Across three studies, we observed a consistent explanation for why these objects discouraged women’s participation. Men and women saw the stereotypical environments as masculine. However, this masculinity compromised women’s, but not men’s, sense of ambient belonging, which led to less interest in pursuing the field. In fact, the women who perceived the environment as most masculine were consistently the least interested in joining it. \acite[1058]{CheryanEtal2009abh} * What happened when these objects were replaced with less stereotypical ones? When sitting in a nonstereotypical computer science environment that signaled less masculinity, women expressed more interest in the field. This aversion to the stereotypical environments by women was the case even when the gender proportion, salaries, work hours, and job description were identical across the two environments, demonstrating the power of environments to signal to people whether or not they should enter a domain. \acite[1058]{CheryanEtal2009abh} * Section: Increasing Female Participation in Computer Science * Society has communicated to this young woman and countless others that they should dream in code, watch Star Trek, and read science fiction to be a computer scientist. Instead of changing the women who do not relate to this stereotype, our studies suggest that changing the field of computer science so that those who do not fit the present stereotypes feel that they have a place in the field will go a long way toward recruiting women. The present work shows that changing the stereotypes is possible and suggests a promising strategy. In our studies, a quickset up of a few objects in a computer science environment gave women the means by which to consider the field. The cost-benefit calculation is highly favorable; these are quickly and easily implementable adjustments with great potential for effecting desirable change. \acite[1058] {CheryanEtal2009abh} * But is it wise to overhaul present computer science environments if women will simply enter the field to be greeted by stereotypical objects and people who embody the stereotype? Those actually in the field claim that present stereotypes of computer scientists are highly exaggerated and inaccurate (Borg,1999). However, the stereotype discourages those who do not relate to it from trying computer science, which in turn decreases the prevalence and salience of nonstereotypical environments. Breaking the cycle may therefore involve intentionally and overtly changing the stereotypes. Once women enter the field in greater numbers, the process will hopefully build on itself by further changing environments and stereotypes associated with computer scientists and subsequently attracting more women. \acite[1058]{CheryanEtal2009abh} * Changing the stereotypes of computer science may also encourage more men to enter computer science. Indeed, in each of our studies, there were many men, albeit fewer than women, who also favored the nonstereotypical environment over the stereotypical environment. Although their gender might not be incompatible with the masculinity of the stereotypical environment, other aspects of the stereotype -- for instance, social awkwardness or an unhealthy obsession with computers (Cheryan & Plaut, 2009) -- may discourage some men (and women) from considering a future in computer science. Across all studies, the degree to which people (both men and women) felt they belonged in the environment strongly predicted whether they chose to join that group, under-scoring the importance of belonging in determining choices of members of underrepresented and overrepresented groups. Broadening the image of computer scientists to be inclusive of a greater variety of identities may therefore increase both women’s and men's sense of ambient belonging and participation in computer science. \acite[1058]{CheryanEtal2009abh} * Section: Conclusion * In four studies, we examined the role that stereotypical computer science environments play in communicating stereotypes and a sense of ambient belonging to potential majors. Our studies demonstrated that these environments broadcast a masculinity that made women feel like they do not belong in the field. However, when stereotypes of computer scientists were altered through the objects in the environment, women had the means and motivation with which to engage computer science as a possible future pursuit. Altering a group’s image by changing their environments can therefore inspire those who previously had little or no interest in pursuing the group to express a newfound interest in it. \acite[1058]{CheryanEtal2009abh}

]]

I have extensive close experience with a good example: yoga.

Excellent example. Crestone is infested... And our yoginis here are as unconscious of any issue as any bold, ignore-all-rules Wikipedian.

Fred

Andreas wrote:

This an interesting line of thought. If you look at our interface, does it look like it was designed by a man or a woman? Basically, we have the traditional IBM colour scheme: white, grey and blue, and lots of straight lines and boxes. There is little red, green, pink or yellow, nothing curvy. Everything is very functional. There is no place to socialise (WP:Café?).

I respond:

I understand and respect Andreas's larger point, but we have to be careful of falling into traps further down this line of thinking that will lead us to something like this:

http://videosift.com/video/SNL-ad-Chess-for-Girls

(I remember how this sketch went but, for some reason, I have never gotten it to load from this site, which seems to be the only place online I can find it).

Daniel Case

An important point to remember about images depicting sexual practices on Wikipedia: one has to look for them. In order to see the image stirring so much controversy, one actually has to visit "Bukkake". This isn't Playboy calendars on the wall, it's Playboys under the mattress in a different city.

Unless our missing female contributors are entering through the site through pornography and sexuality pages, it's relatively unlikely that they will see any of these images. Perhaps it is possible to exclude them from "Random page", in which case a person offended by the images would never see them unless they looked for them specifically.

Nepenthe

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Joseph Reagle joseph.2008@reagle.orgwrote:

On Wednesday, February 16, 2011, ChaoticFluffy wrote:

...

Joseph and Andreas, I think you're assuming facts not in evidence here,

so

...

to speak. If you disapprove of porn or the pornmaking process, that's got nothing to do with wikipedia.

I'll note that I've said nothing about the moral standing of porn or varied sexual practices. I personally think it is inappropriate for WP, but that is my opinion.

My concern here is how to make WP more accessible/friendly (to women and others). I'll note that the conversation is reminiscent of the old "playboy calendars in the firehouse" conversations of the 80/90s (i.e., most guys object to their removal, a few women say it doesn't bother them, someone might even put up a Playgirl in some attempt at parity) and fortunately (IMHO) we've moved beyond that in society at large. Yet, it continues in the free culture movement (why can't we have such images on WP, or display them in FOSS conference presentations, etc.?). In any case, my thinking/concern is informed by evidence that "stereotypical" masculine elements in an environment (e.g., even just Star Trek posters and Mountain Dew cans!) can affect a sense of belonging and interest. (And I say that as someone who kept Kirk and Spock toys on my desk for many years.)

[[ http://depts.washington.edu/sibl/Publications/Cheryan,%20Plaut,%20Davies,%20...http://depts.washington.edu/sibl/Publications/Cheryan,%20Plaut,%20Davies,%20&%20Steele%20%282009%29.pdf

Sapna Cheryan, Victoria C. Plaut, Paul G. Davies, Claude M. Steele Ambient belonging: how stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science j=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology kw=gender n=6 pp =1045-1060 v=97 y=2009 r=20100105 "People can make decisions to join a group based solely on exposure to that group’s physical environment. Four studies demonstrate that the gender difference in interest in computer science is influenced by exposure to environments associated with computer scientists. In Study 1, simply changing the objects in a computer science classroom from those considered stereotypical of computer science (e.g., Star Trek poster, video games) to objects not considered stereotypical of computer science (e.g., nature poster, phone books) was sufficient to boost female undergraduates’ interest in computer science to the level of their male peers. Further investigation revealed that the stereotypical broadcast a masculine stereotype that discouraged women’s sense of ambient belonging and subsequent interest in the environment (Studies 2, 3, and 4) but had no similar effect on men (Studies 3, 4). This masculine stereotype prevented women’s interest from developing even in environments entirely populated by other women (Study 2). Objects can thus come to broadcast stereotypes of a group, which in turn can deter people who do not identify with these stereotypes from joining that group." \acite {CheryanEtal2009abh}

• Section: General Discussion
• when an environment stereotypically associated with computer science—containing video games, StarTrek memorabilia, and the like—was made salient, women were consistently less interested in joining the domain than men. This effect held across four different decisions (the computer science major, work teams, generic companies, and web design companies), three different gender representations (majority male, entirely female, and gender balanced), and two different methodologies (exposure to actual objects and imagining objects). Across three studies, we observed a consistent explanation for why these objects discouraged women’s participation. Men and women saw the stereotypical environments as masculine. However, this masculinity compromised women’s, but not men’s, sense of ambient belonging, which led to less interest in pursuing the field. In fact, the women who perceived the environment as most masculine were consistently the least interested in joining it. \acite[1058]{CheryanEtal2009abh}
• What happened when these objects were replaced with less stereotypical ones? When sitting in a nonstereotypical computer science environment that signaled less masculinity, women expressed more interest in the field. This aversion to the stereotypical environments by women was the case even when the gender proportion, salaries, work hours, and job description were identical across the two environments, demonstrating the power of environments to signal to people whether or not they should enter a domain. \acite[1058]{CheryanEtal2009abh}
• Section: Increasing Female Participation in Computer Science
• Society has communicated to this young woman and countless others that they should dream in code, watch Star Trek, and read science fiction to be a computer scientist. Instead of changing the women who do not relate to this stereotype, our studies suggest that changing the field of computer science so that those who do not fit the present stereotypes feel that they have a place in the field will go a long way toward recruiting women. The present work shows that changing the stereotypes is possible and suggests a promising strategy. In our studies, a quickset up of a few objects in a computer science environment gave women the means by which to consider the field. The cost-benefit calculation is highly favorable; these are quickly and easily implementable adjustments with great potential for effecting desirable change. \acite[1058] {CheryanEtal2009abh}
• But is it wise to overhaul present computer science environments if women will simply enter the field to be greeted by stereotypical objects and people who embody the stereotype? Those actually in the field claim that present stereotypes of computer scientists are highly exaggerated and inaccurate (Borg,1999). However, the stereotype discourages those who do not relate to it from trying computer science, which in turn decreases the prevalence and salience of nonstereotypical environments. Breaking the cycle may therefore involve intentionally and overtly changing the stereotypes. Once women enter the field in greater numbers, the process will hopefully build on itself by further changing environments and stereotypes associated with computer scientists and subsequently attracting more women. \acite[1058]{CheryanEtal2009abh}
• Changing the stereotypes of computer science may also encourage more men to enter computer science. Indeed, in each of our studies, there were many men, albeit fewer than women, who also favored the nonstereotypical environment over the stereotypical environment. Although their gender might not be incompatible with the masculinity of the stereotypical environment, other aspects of the stereotype -- for instance, social awkwardness or an unhealthy obsession with computers (Cheryan & Plaut, 2009) -- may discourage some men (and women) from considering a future in computer science. Across all studies, the degree to which people (both men and women) felt they belonged in the environment strongly predicted whether they chose to join that group, under-scoring the importance of belonging in determining choices of members of underrepresented and overrepresented groups. Broadening the image of computer scientists to be inclusive of a greater variety of identities may therefore increase both women’s and men's sense of ambient belonging and participation in computer science. \acite[1058]{CheryanEtal2009abh}
• Section: Conclusion
• In four studies, we examined the role that stereotypical computer science environments play in communicating stereotypes and a sense of ambient belonging to potential majors. Our studies demonstrated that these environments broadcast a masculinity that made women feel like they do not belong in the field. However, when stereotypes of computer scientists were altered through the objects in the environment, women had the means and motivation with which to engage computer science as a possible future pursuit. Altering a group’s image by changing their environments can therefore inspire those who previously had little or no interest in pursuing the group to express a newfound interest in it. \acite[1058]{CheryanEtal2009abh}

]]

---

Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

I don't know whether it's possible to deal with unfortunate search terms. To extend the metaphor, sometimes one is changing the sheets and the playboys fall out.

I use the program LaTeX for creating math documents. Terrible terrible things have happened as a result of oblivious googling.

Nepenthe

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Brandon Harris bharris@wikimedia.orgwrote:

On 2/17/11 9:47 AM, Nepenthe wrote:

...

An important point to remember about images depicting sexual practices on Wikipedia: one has to look for them. In order to see the image stirring so much controversy, one actually has to visit "Bukkake". This isn't Playboy calendars on the wall, it's Playboys under the mattress in a different city.

    Not true.

   In fact, a friend of mine yelled at me about this just the other day

because she went searching for "Bukkake Udon", which is a noodle dish and had no idea what she was in for.

---

Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

It's absolutely possible to deal with this by simply following the principle of "least surprise".

In this specific case, the problem could easily have been avoided by:

a) Moving "Bukkake" to "Bukkake (Sexual Act)" b) Making the "Bukkake" page a disambiguation page with a pointer to "Udon" and one to the sexual activity.

Please do that.

Fred

While I had a problem with general discussion of the topic, once I got to Bukkake article, a term I never had heard of before, I could easily see the problem and that there are needed solutions both to make it inviting to women and to discourage any kind of sexism related to extensive editng of these articles. (After looking at a dozen of these articles in last couple days I noticed I've had run ins on other types of articles with a few of the editors that were uncomfortable.)

First, note that Bukkake is an example of the infamous "circle jerk" (a notable male only activity with lots of WP:RS) but not only is there *no article about it,* but the term forwarded to an article about people masturbating each other - not even accurate.

And of course Gay Bukkake which I just searched and has WP:RS isn't mentioned. So instead of two similar graphics of a woman being the object, they obviously need one with a man being the object. The "snowballing" article, something else new to me similarly showed two women doing it, even though overwhelmingly it is gay men and heterosexual couples doing it. All that just shows quite a bit of sexist and even homophobic POV.

Anyway, more females and gay males (another under-represented here?) willing to deal with these POVs would help. Plus two suggestions below.

Also, admin wise, maybe Sexual Content needs its own ANI do it doesn't freak out all the people who don't want to hear about it.

On 2/17/2011 1:15 PM, Brandon Harris wrote:

It's absolutely possible to deal with this by simply following the principle of "least surprise".

In this specific case, the problem could easily have been avoided by:

a) Moving "Bukkake" to "Bukkake (Sexual Act)" b) Making the "Bukkake" page a disambiguation page with a pointer to "Udon" and one to the sexual activity.

--- On *Thu, 17/2/11, Ryan Kaldari /rkaldari@wikimedia.org/*wrote: Yep, try http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:People_using_vacuum_cleaners

So do we all agree that the Principle of Least Astonishment needs to be encoded into some kind of policy or guideline? In other words, images with a sexual context should only appear in articles/categories that also have a sexual context. Otherwise, Wikipedia naturally tends towards an editorial policy dictated by 20-year-old single white males who see no problem with keeping pictures of naked women in every corner of Wikipedia and Commons.

Not true.

In fact the careless way that these images are categorized and linked to inappropriate articles is one of my main concerns.

Often sexually explicit or sexually titillating images placed in very mundane categories like electric fan, couch, or coca cola.

So when these topic are linked to Commons the sexual content appears without the person expecting it.

My attempts to fix this on a case by case basis are often reverted.

When I discuss it with the some of the people reverting, I'm told that I denying people the ability to find these images...censorship.

Sydney

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Nepenthe topazbutterfly@gmail.com wrote:

An important point to remember about images depicting sexual practices on Wikipedia: one has to look for them. In order to see the image stirring so much controversy, one actually has to visit "Bukkake". This isn't Playboy calendars on the wall, it's Playboys under the mattress in a different city.

Unless our missing female contributors are entering through the site through pornography and sexuality pages, it's relatively unlikely that they will see any of these images. Perhaps it is possible to exclude them from "Random page", in which case a person offended by the images would never see them unless they looked for them specifically.

Nepenthe

This is atrocious. Are you surprised if women don't bother turning up for these discussions? Andreas

Actually, I am. I don't know why a mob doesn't show up.

Fred

This seems reasonable to me, though I'm a little wary of drawing the line so firmly just in case there's a case I'm not thinking of where sexual image would best illustrate something on a non-sexual page.

-Fluff

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.orgwrote:

Yep, try http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:People_using_vacuum_cleaners

So do we all agree that the Principle of Least Astonishment needs to be encoded into some kind of policy or guideline? In other words, images with a sexual context should only appear in articles/categories that also have a sexual context.

Ryan Kaldari

--- On Thu, 17/2/11, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote: Yep, try http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:People_using_vacuum_cleaners

So do we all agree that the Principle of Least Astonishment needs to be encoded into some kind of policy or guideline? In other words, images with a sexual context should only appear in articles/categories that also have a sexual context. Otherwise, Wikipedia naturally tends towards an editorial policy dictated by 20-year-old single white males who see no problem with keeping pictures of naked women in every corner of Wikipedia and Commons.

Yes.

Yes, this. Oliver's done a better job phrasing what I wanted to communicate. The necessity test is really what needs to be in play.

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Oliver Keyes scire.facias@gmail.comwrote:

I think that's too strict in some ways; it depends. If we're talking about commons, certainly. If we're talking about wikipedia, I'd prefer a necessity test. In other words, would a non-sexual image do a worse job at illustrating the article? If so, include a sexual image. If not, don't. _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.comwrote:

Can you give an example of what you are considering when you want to give a sexually explicit image preference out of necessity.

For example if the only image uploaded of a United States State Park was a nude female laying on a blanket in tent and masturbating in the the state park, would you say that it should be included so we have an image of the State Park?

Sydney

I think it's valuable that we seem to have reached consensus that sexualized media is one factor in this whole effort to attract and retain women editors.

But rather than continuing a general discussion about what degree of sexual content is okay, how about we take what we've discussed and add it to a list of issues that affect the gender gap? I just want to make sure we stay focused on welcoming women editors here, rather than on controversial content at large.

--- On Thu, 17/2/11, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote:From: Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.com For example if the only image uploaded of a United States State Park was a nude female laying on a blanket in tent and masturbating in the the state park, would you say that it should be included so we have an image of the State Park?                                                                If this issue came up in Commons the argument that would win the day is:                  "Of course the image should be included in the State Park category. It shows a part of theState Park, adds educational value compared to having no image of the State Park at all,and we are NOTCENSORED."    Please do not think that I am joking.  Andreas

It's not a silly example if these are the attitudes and experiences women are encountering. It's actual a complete embarrassment that this is even the "norm" encounter.

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 18, 2011, at 6:19 AM, Oliver Keyes scire.facias@gmail.com wrote:

I think we may be getting away from the point slightly by posing such silly examples as possibilities.

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Thu, 17/2/11, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.com wrote: From: Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.com For example if the only image uploaded of a United States State Park was a nude female laying on a blanket in tent and masturbating in the the state park, would you say that it should be included so we have an image of the State Park?

If this issue came up in Commons the argument that would win the day is:

"Of course the image should be included in the State Park category. It shows a part of the State Park, adds educational value compared to having no image of the State Park at all, and we are NOTCENSORED."

Please do not think that I am joking.

Andreas

---

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 Tuesday, February 15, 2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote:

...

There are some excruciatingly naive arguments being made on the essay's talk page, e.g.:

Is this the sort of thing that would benefit from public pillory? For example, a posting on Geek Feminism blog or elsewhere? On one hand, I think such attitudes merit public critique, on the other, I wouldn't want such efforts to backfire and make Wikipedia even less appealing to possible contributors, particularly if this is just a rat hole.

A ham-handed approach is sure to set us back. Some quite "nasty" images are very informative; most images with sexual content are kind of like window-dressing, prosaic and repetitive. There are good arguments for including some explicit images, but not for endless cruft.

The "no-censorship" crowd will predictably take the position that any restrictions will involve removal of illustrations of explicit, but significant information.

Fred

The line breaks are fine. I see your point about like attracting like (obscure bits of LOTR trivia and Bollywood films are our other main import). I do a ton of new page patrol - a couple of days ago I cleared the entire 30 page buffer, actually - and thinking about it, I tend to encounter the same thing.

I think the standard we need to set isn't "are proper images found in reliable sources" but "are proper images *necessary*". In other words - could, for example, a line drawing, provide the same quality of informative content as a photograph? If so, we go for the line drawing. If not, we go for the photograph.

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:19 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:

Oliver Keyes wrote:

...

This is true, but doesn't help with many projects. Some projects don't

have

...

WP;V as a core principle - what do we do with them? "inappropriate"

images

...

on Commons would not be bound by such standards.

I see Commons as different in nature from Wikipedia. Pages like this one

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Jean_shorts

are in many ways an embarrassment for an educational project.

On the other hand, that page is pretty much the same as what you get when you do a Google image search for jean shorts:

http://www.google.co.uk/images?q=%22jean+shorts%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&...

Commons is just what it is. But I would like to retain the idea that Wikipedia is an educational resource. Wikipedia can link to Commons, including its collection of pornographic images, in articles on these topics.

...

Frequently viewed articles do not tell readers what we're about, they

tell

...

us what readers are about. Do you think people go to the Creampie

articles

...

for an image of line drawings? :P. I'm not saying that soft or hard porn

on

...

Wikipedia is appropriate, simply that you can't judge *us* by what our * readers* look at.

What I was getting at is that the kind of material we host attracts both a particular kind of readership and a particular type of new editor. The fact that we have extensive coverage of Pokémon and professional wrestling for example (have you ever done recent changes patrol? it's amazing how many edits are about wrestling) attracts editors that like these topics and join Wikipedia to contribute to them. This is what drives and shapes our community demographics (including the gender gap).

Like attracts like.

---o0o---

Earlier today there were these comments from a female editor at WikiProject Feminism:

"Disturbed and shocked by the presence of these images on Wikipedia. Nothing surprises me on Wikipedia now. In when images of pedophilia?"

When I encouraged her to express her views on the articles' talk pages, she replied:

"Thanks Jayen for your opinion but I already see the conflicts if I intervene. I have already made a similar intervention in the French Wikipedia and 2 or 3 men have me made a fool. Nobody of the French administration Wikipedia came to defend me. The men have the law of the number on Wikipedia: 13 % are women and 87 % are men. It is that the sad reality in Wikipedia."

I've invited her to join us.

Andreas

P.S. Sorry about the horrid line breaks in the previous post, at least as it displays on the list archive page. It didn't look like this when I sent it off.

---

Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap