Hi all, I guess it's my turn for an introduction. I'm Karen and yes, I too am both female and a Wikipedian. I leave near New York City and am active in the Wikimedia NYC chapter, where I sometimes refer to myself as the token female (though I'm not actually, but sometimes it feels like it). I've been worrying for a good while now about what exactly keeps women turned off from Wikipedia, and I think there's a couple of factors. To quote from a post I made on another website about this topic:
*The gender gap on Wikipedia is one of my pet peeves. It's real, it's undeniable, and it's only partially in our control, I think. Wikipedia can be a fighty place, no doubt. To stick around there can require you to be willing to do the virtual equivalent of stomping on someone's foot when they get in your face, which a lot of women, myself included, find difficult. Even more important to this issue, I think, though, is that it can require you to judge your own competence and decide it's high. If I might draw gross generalization here for a moment, imagine the following scenario:
You're wandering around Wikipedia, and you come across the Friendship Bracelet article. Shock! You actually know a lot about friendship bracelets, and you can fill in a lot of the obvious gaps in the article with what you know! Do you: a) Fill in those gaps. This isn't controversial information, after all! b) Think about it, then decide that probably if it were that easy, someone else would already have done it, and therefore you are likely to be missing something about how this whole thing works
Did you pick option A? You're a bit more likely to be male. B? Odds are on the side of you being female. No, this isn't across the board. I know plenty of people who cross those categories. But my sense is that this slight tendency of women to doubt their competence, coupled with the undeniable gatekeeping problem of experienced Wikipedians reverting just that sort of shouldn't-be-controversial-but-they-put-it-on-MY-article! edit, adds up to a repulsion factor.
Women I know on Wikipedia often fall into one of two groups: those who will take you on, any time any place; and those who grind away in behind-the-scenes areas, copyediting articles, populating maps, cleaning up licensing rationales, and doing other largely-uncontroversial things. There seem to be more men who cover that middle ground, the ground where there's no fear of doing something noticeable but also no fear of talking back to someone if necessary.
Again, I hasten to point out that this isn't true of everyone, by far. But as Kat Walsh wrote in an essay on the topic, it seems like it's less that Wikipedia isn't welcoming specifically to women and more that active, full-spectrum Wikipedianism is fitted best by certain personality types, and for some reason there seem to be more men who slot neatly into that type than women.*
Those are my logical thoughts, but those of you who know me might remember that there is one, more illogical, thing that gets under my skin more than almost anything else: Wikipe-tan and her short skirt and thigh-high stockings. Why, WHY is it ok that we even joke about that being our "mascot"? An overtly sexualized, large-breasted woman who people regularly draw in bikinis and maid costumes? I mean, I know Wikipe-tan is not actually The Problem. But she's the most egregious example I think we have of the sort of unconscious "boyzone" culture that permeates a lot of collaborative sites these days. It doesn't even occur to a lot of men that that could be off-putting. They certainly don't mean it to be off-putting. And they're a little wounded when someone points out that, well, it *is*.
Ok, I've ranted enough for now. I cede the floor.
-Karen User:Fluffernutter
"K" == KC fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com writes:
K> our "mascot"? An overtly sexualized, large-breasted woman who people K> regularly draw in bikinis and maid costumes? I mean, I know K> Wikipe-tan is not actually The Problem. But she's the most egregious K> example I think we have of the sort of unconscious "boyzone" culture
Ah, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan . Actually a lot of girls like such images too.
On 2 February 2011 23:16, jidanni@jidanni.org wrote:
"K" == KC fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com writes:
K> our "mascot"? An overtly sexualized, large-breasted woman who people K> regularly draw in bikinis and maid costumes? I mean, I know K> Wikipe-tan is not actually The Problem. But she's the most egregious K> example I think we have of the sort of unconscious "boyzone" culture
Ah, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan . Actually a lot of girls like such images too.
As a small note of irony here, I am viewing this email through Gmail, which of course runs "topic-related" advertisements along the right side of the page. The ones that are up right now are for a matchmaking service and a soft pornography photosite.
I think the segment of the female population who would actively seek out participation in a site where Wikipe-tan was a frequently-seen icon is very, very small. I'm particularly concerned about one of the "examples" at the bottom labeled "Gothic Lolita Wikipe-tan, which is entirely the wrong message.
Risker/Anne
Yeah, it's total boy zone material!!
As a woman who grew up in boys clubs - dabbling in the "gaming" culture as a teenager (yes, Dungeons and Dragons, Advanced, thanks!) etc, I've seen that stupid anime Sailor Moon wanna-be cartoon in a million different ways and I hated it as a teenager and I hate it as an adult. A teenage boys dream, that's what I always saw it as.
I was talking about my experience at the Wikipedia 10 event here in DC - I compared it to a "gaming convention." Not every guy is into anime and coding who is a Wikipedian, but, when the "mascot" came on the screen during a video most people (most = men) cheered, except, well, me, and the women from the Library of Congress who didn't seem to impressed.
:)
But, I also don't see that mascot used too frequently, perhaps I'm hanging out in the right circles.
It just doesn't show much "professionalism" but, if it brings people to Wikipedia and makes community members feel a part of something - right on, but, not all of us are "computer geeks" and "cos-players" or attracted to hot big boobed anime cartoon girls.
Ugh, now I'm just talking about the reputation of Wikipedians in general. Whenever people ask me about my projects and I explain to them what I do, I try to speak in a language that leads people to believe I'm "cool, I swear." (It's like saying you play World of Warcraft or whatever, seriously, there's a stigma!)
But, our logo for Wikipedia Public Art shows a pigeon sitting on a "W" and we often talk about the bird flying around pooping on sculptures. So screw professionalism? :D
OK! VENT DONE!
Sarah
On 2/2/2011 11:25 PM, Risker wrote:
On 2 February 2011 23:16, <jidanni@jidanni.org mailto:jidanni@jidanni.org> wrote:
>>>>> "K" == KC <fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com <mailto:fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com>> writes: K> our "mascot"? An overtly sexualized, large-breasted woman who people K> regularly draw in bikinis and maid costumes? I mean, I know K> Wikipe-tan is not actually The Problem. But she's the most egregious K> example I think we have of the sort of unconscious "boyzone" culture Ah, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan . Actually a lot of girls like such images too.As a small note of irony here, I am viewing this email through Gmail, which of course runs "topic-related" advertisements along the right side of the page. The ones that are up right now are for a matchmaking service and a soft pornography photosite.
I think the segment of the female population who would actively seek out participation in a site where Wikipe-tan was a frequently-seen icon is very, very small. I'm particularly concerned about one of the "examples" at the bottom labeled "Gothic Lolita Wikipe-tan, which is entirely the wrong message.
Risker/Anne
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
"R" == Risker risker.wp@gmail.com writes:
R> I think the segment of the female population who would actively seek R> out participation in a site where Wikipe-tan was a frequently-seen R> icon is very, very small. I'm particularly concerned about one of the R> "examples" at the bottom labeled "Gothic Lolita Wikipe-tan, which is R> entirely the wrong message.
Ah, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipe-tan_GothLoli.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_Lolita
Reminds me of http://www.wretch.cc/album/show.php?i=e0456789j&b=23&f=1100870981&am... from http://www.wretch.cc/album/album.php?id=e0456789j&book=23 who I used in http://www.couchsurfing.org/group.html?gid=32576
Time to go.
On Wednesday, February 02, 2011, jidanni@jidanni.org wrote:
K> our "mascot"? An overtly sexualized, large-breasted woman who people K> regularly draw in bikinis and maid costumes? I mean, I know K> Wikipe-tan is not actually The Problem. But she's the most egregious K> example I think we have of the sort of unconscious "boyzone" culture
I had never seen that, and now that I have I find it embarrassing for Wikipedia.
On Wednesday, February 02, 2011, jidanni@jidanni.org wrote:
K> our "mascot"? An overtly sexualized, large-breasted woman who people K> regularly draw in bikinis and maid costumes? I mean, I know K> Wikipe-tan is not actually The Problem. But she's the most egregious K> example I think we have of the sort of unconscious "boyzone" culture
I had never seen that, and now that I have I find it embarrassing for Wikipedia.
IIRC Wikipe-tan was only originally meant to be the mascot for WikiProject Anime and Manga; how she became the avatar for the project as a whole, I don't know. She's hardly an inclusive or representative figure (I'm not a anime/manga otaku, aside from the other issues) and we can certainly do better.
My own personal notes on signs of a "boyzone" culture at Wikipedia: the appearance of [[Lindsay Lohan]], [[Reese Witherspoon]] and [[Uma Thurman]] as Main Page FAs within a two-year timespan. And also the one FA that Raul quite sensibly (IMO) has decided will never be on the Main Page.
In the same category, there's also the discussion from the top of [[Talk:KaDee Strickland]] downwards, that ensued after that article was on the Main Page. It's hard for me not to see some of it as misogynistic ...
Daniel Case
On Feb 3, 2011, at 12:40 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case wrote:
On Wednesday, February 02, 2011, jidanni@jidanni.org wrote:
K> our "mascot"? An overtly sexualized, large-breasted woman who people K> regularly draw in bikinis and maid costumes? I mean, I know K> Wikipe-tan is not actually The Problem. But she's the most egregious K> example I think we have of the sort of unconscious "boyzone" culture
I had never seen that, and now that I have I find it embarrassing for Wikipedia.
IIRC Wikipe-tan was only originally meant to be the mascot for WikiProject Anime and Manga; how she became the avatar for the project as a whole, I don't know. She's hardly an inclusive or representative figure (I'm not a anime/manga otaku, aside from the other issues) and we can certainly do better.
My own personal notes on signs of a "boyzone" culture at Wikipedia: the appearance of [[Lindsay Lohan]], [[Reese Witherspoon]] and [[Uma Thurman]] as Main Page FAs within a two-year timespan. And also the one FA that Raul quite sensibly (IMO) has decided will never be on the Main Page.
In the same category, there's also the discussion from the top of [[Talk:KaDee Strickland]] downwards, that ensued after that article was on the Main Page. It's hard for me not to see some of it as misogynistic ...
Daniel Case
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
The whole Wikipe-tan issue isn't limited to Wikipedia itself either. I participate regularly in the Featured Picture process on Wikimedia Commons, and have lately been struggling against media in a similar vein.[1]
There is a substantial editorial debate around fan art like this that is in flux on Commons. On the one hand, it's relatively easy to make the argument that they're not educational media. However, you still get people who in all seriousness support promotion of media like this with comments such as, "I like her big tits." (That's one extreme example, but it's still a direct quote.)
Additional voices would be welcome, especially since Commons is a much smaller community. I think perhaps one of our first commitments should be to filling the informal leadership gap others have mentioned by stepping up and saying what we find to be unacceptable.[2]
1. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anime_Girl.svg 2. This talk was humorous, but I think there's some truth in the slide: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Steven_Walling_Wikipedia_mascots_-_Ig...
Steven Walling Fellow at the Wikimedia Foundation wikimediafoundation.org
I wonder if Wikipe-tan is more of a generational issue than a gender one. I'm pretty much as humorless feminist as they come, but being in my early 20s, I grew up with anime and Wikipe-tan is no more disturbing to me in the Wikipedia context than if we had come up with a Disney-style mascot not wearing pants. (Granted, that OS-tans are pretty universally female is undoubtedly a gender issue and the anime style is a legitimate concern as well, but I think it's part of culture at large, not one that Wikimedia can really address.)
I guess my point is that it might be a wash whether Wikipe-tan drives off more older editors who find her offensive than she attracts younger editors who find her friendly and familiar. It's really a side point though. It never occurred to me that Wikipe-tan might be considered embarrassing or inappropriate and I'm finding this conversation eye-opening.
Nepenthe
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Steven Walling swalling@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On Feb 3, 2011, at 12:40 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case wrote:
On Wednesday, February 02, 2011, jidanni@jidanni.org wrote:
K> our "mascot"? An overtly sexualized, large-breasted woman who people
K> regularly draw in bikinis and maid costumes? I mean, I know
K> Wikipe-tan is not actually The Problem. But she's the most egregious
K> example I think we have of the sort of unconscious "boyzone" culture
Ah, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan .
I had never seen that, and now that I have I find it embarrassing for
Wikipedia.
IIRC Wikipe-tan was only originally meant to be the mascot for WikiProject Anime and Manga; how she became the avatar for the project as a whole, I don't know. She's hardly an inclusive or representative figure (I'm not a anime/manga otaku, aside from the other issues) and we can certainly do better.
My own personal notes on signs of a "boyzone" culture at Wikipedia: the appearance of [[Lindsay Lohan]], [[Reese Witherspoon]] and [[Uma Thurman]] as Main Page FAs within a two-year timespan. And also the one FA that Raul quite sensibly (IMO) has decided will never be on the Main Page.
In the same category, there's also the discussion from the top of [[Talk:KaDee Strickland]] downwards, that ensued after that article was on the Main Page. It's hard for me not to see some of it as misogynistic ...
Daniel Case
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
The whole Wikipe-tan issue isn't limited to Wikipedia itself either. I participate regularly in the Featured Picture process on Wikimedia Commons, and have lately been struggling against media in a similar vein.[1]
There is a substantial editorial debate around fan art like this that is in flux on Commons. On the one hand, it's relatively easy to make the argument that they're not educational media. However, you still get people who in all seriousness support promotion of media like this with comments such as, "I like her big tits." (That's one extreme example, but it's still a direct quote.)
Additional voices would be welcome, especially since Commons is a much smaller community. I think perhaps one of our first commitments should be to filling the informal leadership gap others have mentioned by stepping up and saying what we find to be unacceptable.[2]
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anime_Girl.svg
- This talk was humorous, but I think there's some truth in the slide:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Steven_Walling_Wikipedia_mascots_-_Ig...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Steven_Walling_Wikipedia_mascots_-_Ignite_Portland_8_-_Portland_Oregon.jpg Steven Walling Fellow at the Wikimedia Foundation wikimediafoundation.org
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I like that you brought up the age difference, I do think that is valid in many areas. As a 30 year old who knows more about Hentai film than I care to admit I think for me it's more of a professionalism and "quality" thing over offensive. I just think it's stupid and lends itself to the invalid-ness that Wikipedia is trying to shake off.
Other wiki's like Encyclopedia Dramatica thrive on cartoons and obnoxious tacky stuff (yeah ok, Pedobear is funny, but...) to represent it. I don't need my scholarly labor and research to be associated with that crap.
On 2/3/2011 4:57 PM, Nepenthe wrote:
I wonder if Wikipe-tan is more of a generational issue than a gender one. I'm pretty much as humorless feminist as they come, but being in my early 20s, I grew up with anime and Wikipe-tan is no more disturbing to me in the Wikipedia context than if we had come up with a Disney-style mascot not wearing pants. (Granted, that OS-tans are pretty universally female is undoubtedly a gender issue and the anime style is a legitimate concern as well, but I think it's part of culture at large, not one that Wikimedia can really address.)
I guess my point is that it might be a wash whether Wikipe-tan drives off more older editors who find her offensive than she attracts younger editors who find her friendly and familiar. It's really a side point though. It never occurred to me that Wikipe-tan might be considered embarrassing or inappropriate and I'm finding this conversation eye-opening.
Nepenthe
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Steven Walling <swalling@wikimedia.org mailto:swalling@wikimedia.org> wrote:
On Feb 3, 2011, at 12:40 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case wrote:On Wednesday, February 02, 2011, jidanni@jidanni.org <mailto:jidanni@jidanni.org> wrote:K> our "mascot"? An overtly sexualized, large-breasted woman who people K> regularly draw in bikinis and maid costumes? I mean, I know K> Wikipe-tan is not actually The Problem. But she's the most egregious K> example I think we have of the sort of unconscious "boyzone" culture Ah, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan .I had never seen that, and now that I have I find it embarrassing for Wikipedia.IIRC Wikipe-tan was only originally meant to be the mascot for WikiProject Anime and Manga; how she became the avatar for the project as a whole, I don't know. She's hardly an inclusive or representative figure (I'm not a anime/manga otaku, aside from the other issues) and we can certainly do better. My own personal notes on signs of a "boyzone" culture at Wikipedia: the appearance of [[Lindsay Lohan]], [[Reese Witherspoon]] and [[Uma Thurman]] as Main Page FAs within a two-year timespan. And also the one FA that Raul quite sensibly (IMO) has decided will never be on the Main Page. In the same category, there's also the discussion from the top of [[Talk:KaDee Strickland]] downwards, that ensued after that article was on the Main Page. It's hard for me not to see some of it as misogynistic ... Daniel Case _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergapThe whole Wikipe-tan issue isn't limited to Wikipedia itself either. I participate regularly in the Featured Picture process on Wikimedia Commons, and have lately been struggling against media in a similar vein.[1] There is a substantial editorial debate around fan art like this that is in flux on Commons. On the one hand, it's relatively easy to make the argument that they're not educational media. However, you still get people who in all seriousness support promotion of media like this with comments such as, "I like her big tits." (That's one extreme example, but it's still a direct quote.) Additional voices would be welcome, especially since Commons is a much smaller community. I think perhaps one of our first commitments should be to filling the informal leadership gap others have mentioned by stepping up and saying what we find to be unacceptable.[2] 1. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anime_Girl.svg 2. This talk was humorous, but I think there's some truth in the slide: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Steven_Walling_Wikipedia_mascots_-_Ignite_Portland_8_-_Portland_Oregon.jpg Steven Walling Fellow at the Wikimedia Foundation wikimediafoundation.org <http://wikimediafoundation.org/> _______________________________________________ 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 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Thursday, February 03, 2011, Sarah Stierch wrote:
Other wiki's like Encyclopedia Dramatica thrive on cartoons and obnoxious tacky stuff (yeah ok, Pedobear is funny, but...) to represent it. I don't need my scholarly labor and research to be associated with that crap.
First, I want to thank everyone for their contributions; it's been really interesting to read people's thoughts, but more so, to read of their experiences.
Second, I also don't think wiki-tan is at the heart of the gender gap, or a symbol of something ominous, but I share the sentiment you express -- even beyond "scholarly labor." I used to follow anime, think cosplayers are goofy/fun/interesting in the same way LARPers are, know that "lolita" is also an associated Japanese style/subculture, but I'm also cognizant of associated creepy, sexist, and/or "fan service" issues (that at the least facilitate the construction of the "boys room"); in the end, it simply seems "inappropriate" and embarrassing if presented as the WP mascot.
My partner has taken to kidding me for my recent fondness for the term "inappropriate" -- perhaps I feel it's sadly gone missing in society at large. However, I'm also very much aware that "inappropriate" is a subjective term and some would no doubt interpret my concern as feministic killjoy. Given that "killjoy" and "censorship" are typical rhetorical responses to critique, I am interested in how open communities (without the benefit of boundary mechanisms, strong/authoritative leadership, and/or very clear rules of conduct) deal with such issues. One way I've been thinking about recently -- given Bucholtz's notion of "geek feminists" [1] (who "acknowledges concerns of feminism but preserves commitment to geek identity"), my long time love of the magazine "Bitch: Feminist Response to Pop Culture", and newfound love of Geek Feminism [2] -- is critique that is super sharp and witty. And, it doesn't require itself to stoop to the assumptions of that which it critiques or even engage those who can not see beyond those assumptions. (You should see some of the crazy emails I've gotten this week!)
[1]: http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/bucholtz/articles/MB_Benor2002.pdf [2]: http://geekfeminism.org/
On 3 February 2011 16:57, Nepenthe topazbutterfly@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder if Wikipe-tan is more of a generational issue than a gender one. I'm pretty much as humorless feminist as they come, but being in my early 20s, I grew up with anime and Wikipe-tan is no more disturbing to me in the Wikipedia context than if we had come up with a Disney-style mascot not wearing pants. (Granted, that OS-tans are pretty universally female is undoubtedly a gender issue and the anime style is a legitimate concern as well, but I think it's part of culture at large, not one that Wikimedia can really address.)
I guess my point is that it might be a wash whether Wikipe-tan drives off more older editors who find her offensive than she attracts younger editors who find her friendly and familiar. It's really a side point though. It never occurred to me that Wikipe-tan might be considered embarrassing or inappropriate and I'm finding this conversation eye-opening.
Nepenthe
Well, I'm not thrilled about Wikipe-Tan, but the one that I identified specifically ("Gothic Lolita") is particularly troublesome because of the implications of the term "Lolita", which has a definite sexual meaning of the type that Wikipedia probably doesn't want itself associated, even indirectly. And no, I don't think that's age-specific; even young people know that's a loaded term.
Risker/Anne
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I'm not thrilled about Wikipe-Tan, but the one that I identified specifically ("Gothic Lolita") is particularly troublesome because of the implications of the term "Lolita", which has a definite sexual meaning of the type that Wikipedia probably doesn't want itself associated, even indirectly. And no, I don't think that's age-specific; even young people know that's a loaded term.
While I don't disagree that this may be perceived as having unfortunate implications, I'd like to point everyone toward
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Lolita_fashion
which may be enlightening. Whether a gothic lolita Wikipe-tan is a good thing for the project or not may be up for debate, but I hope that no one gets the impression that whoever created that image was intending it to be sexual--I sincerely doubt there was ever that sort of intention.
On Feb 3, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Nepenthe wrote:
I wonder if Wikipe-tan is more of a generational issue than a gender one. I'm pretty much as humorless feminist as they come, but being in my early 20s, I grew up with anime and Wikipe-tan is no more disturbing to me in the Wikipedia context than if we had come up with a Disney-style mascot not wearing pants. (Granted, that OS-tans are pretty universally female is undoubtedly a gender issue and the anime style is a legitimate concern as well, but I think it's part of culture at large, not one that Wikimedia can really address.)
I guess my point is that it might be a wash whether Wikipe-tan drives off more older editors who find her offensive than she attracts younger editors who find her friendly and familiar. It's really a side point though. It never occurred to me that Wikipe-tan might be considered embarrassing or inappropriate and I'm finding this conversation eye-opening.
Nepenthe
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Steven Walling swalling@wikimedia.org wrote: On Feb 3, 2011, at 12:40 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case wrote:
On Wednesday, February 02, 2011, jidanni@jidanni.org wrote:
K> our "mascot"? An overtly sexualized, large-breasted woman who people K> regularly draw in bikinis and maid costumes? I mean, I know K> Wikipe-tan is not actually The Problem. But she's the most egregious K> example I think we have of the sort of unconscious "boyzone" culture
I had never seen that, and now that I have I find it embarrassing for Wikipedia.
IIRC Wikipe-tan was only originally meant to be the mascot for WikiProject Anime and Manga; how she became the avatar for the project as a whole, I don't know. She's hardly an inclusive or representative figure (I'm not a anime/manga otaku, aside from the other issues) and we can certainly do better.
My own personal notes on signs of a "boyzone" culture at Wikipedia: the appearance of [[Lindsay Lohan]], [[Reese Witherspoon]] and [[Uma Thurman]] as Main Page FAs within a two-year timespan. And also the one FA that Raul quite sensibly (IMO) has decided will never be on the Main Page.
In the same category, there's also the discussion from the top of [[Talk:KaDee Strickland]] downwards, that ensued after that article was on the Main Page. It's hard for me not to see some of it as misogynistic ...
Daniel Case
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
The whole Wikipe-tan issue isn't limited to Wikipedia itself either. I participate regularly in the Featured Picture process on Wikimedia Commons, and have lately been struggling against media in a similar vein.[1]
There is a substantial editorial debate around fan art like this that is in flux on Commons. On the one hand, it's relatively easy to make the argument that they're not educational media. However, you still get people who in all seriousness support promotion of media like this with comments such as, "I like her big tits." (That's one extreme example, but it's still a direct quote.)
Additional voices would be welcome, especially since Commons is a much smaller community. I think perhaps one of our first commitments should be to filling the informal leadership gap others have mentioned by stepping up and saying what we find to be unacceptable.[2]
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anime_Girl.svg
- This talk was humorous, but I think there's some truth in the slide: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Steven_Walling_Wikipedia_mascots_-_Ig...
Steven Walling Fellow at the Wikimedia Foundation wikimediafoundation.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
I wouldn't say it's entirely a generational issue. I'm 23 and began editing in my teens, and I grew up with lots of friends who were anime fans. I also self-identify as a geek and I'm proud that Wikipedia is a safe haven for others of my ilk.
Steven Walling Fellow at the Wikimedia Foundation wikimediafoundation.org
- This talk was humorous, but I think there's some truth in the slide: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Steven_Walling_Wikipedia_mascots_-_Ig...
I was thinking about that in the context of the Wikipe-tan discussion over WikiXDC because ... later on we watched the video of that presentation.
Earlier, when someone showed the version of that picture without the bubbles, someone asked the crowd, pointing to Wikipe-tan: "Who's that?" "Larry Sanger", someone called out.
Maybe we're on to a better mascot idea there :-).
Daniel Case
I participate regularly in the Featured Picture process on Wikimedia Commons, and have lately been struggling against media in a similar vein.
It has been suggested that the Commons user community is a bit more stocked with some of the more, uh, socially challenged editors than other wikis are. I know David Gerard has complained about this in the past on other lists.
I attribute this to the nature of editing there, which is often less collaborative and parallel than solitary and serial.
It does seem, sometimes, like users who can and do do useful work but too frequently rub others the wrong way gravitate to working on Commons if they don't eventually leave altogether.
Daniel Case
Greetings,
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:57 PM, KC fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Those are my logical thoughts, but those of you who know me might remember that there is one, more illogical, thing that gets under my skin more than almost anything else: Wikipe-tan and her short skirt and thigh-high stockings. Why, WHY is it ok that we even joke about that being our "mascot"? An overtly sexualized, large-breasted woman who people regularly draw in bikinis and maid costumes?
FYI, Puzzly is an attempt to create a gender- and cultural-neutral mascot: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Puzzly
Now, I'm not pretending this will solve all problems, but if we manage to slowly get rid of Wikipe-tan and to replace her by Puzzly, it'll be a small step in the right direction :)