Dear Sue & All,
I am yet to experience sexism on Wikipedia however my reading of this list has only served to confuse me with regard to the gender gap issue. I am hoping that someone can clarify the following points with some kind of authority.
Is there any consensus in the Wikipedia/Wikimedia heirarchy that the Gender gap on Wikipedia is a problem that Wikipedia is trying to solve (apparently with the help of this list)?
Is there any consensus in the Wikipedia/Wikimedia heirarchy that women who attempt to contribute to Wikipedia are likely to be subject to chronic sexist remarks and that this is presumed to factor into the lower participation rates of women?
What is the responsibility of Wikipedia/Wikimedia in protecting individuals from harrassment and in particular, any systemic abuse which is believed to be endemic to Wikipedia?
How does Wikipedia take responsibility to ensure that when people come to Wikipedia to edit for the first time they are made aware of problems they may encounter (both due to their gender and more generally) and the actions they can take to address these issues?
What are the roles of the Wikimedia/Wikipedia hierarchy here on the list and do official representatives of these organisations have rights to determine the debate here that go beyond the power of other list members?
What, if any quality assaurance guidelines, structure or policy is behind this list and the goal of reducing the gender gap on Wikipedia and the relationship between the two?
thankyou for your time
Rosie Williams http://women4wikipedia.net http://collectiveaction.com.au @collectiveact
Message: 4 Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 22:14:24 -0700 From: Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org Subject: [Gendergap] This list To: gendergap Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: AANLkTimoLEv9O9cLNPhxoh7LGr+bUegrO1bR=9d+qBEd@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hi folks,
Wow! I was absent for two days and this list caught fire! The newer mails feel like we've been nearer a resolution, but still: there was lots of heat :-(
I'm going to take a minute to try to summarize and reflect back a little. Bear with me: I'm on my phone, so I'm not going to be able to quote individuals or respond inline to earlier mails. But I have read everything.
To recap: Laura originally made a proposal to ask the men on this list to leave. Her rationale was that men have been inappropriately dominating the discussion here, which had the effect of silencing and/or frustrating women who expect and want this to be a safe, constructive space. I believe that in making that proposal, she was acting out of frustration not just on her own behalf, but on behalf of other women here who've been feeling silenced, whether they've spoken up or not.
If Laura's proposal had gotten significant support from women on this list, personally I would take that very seriously. It would make me sad to think that women here couldn't see a workable option that includes both women and men ----- but if there had seemed to be a consensus among women that a women-only list is desirable or better, I would buy that as a regrettable-but-accurate expression of where we're at.
But, although some people expressed agreement with the basics of what Laura said, there wasn't much support for the idea of kicking men off the list. So on that basis, we won't do it.
(To recap for anyone who doesn't know: Erik Moeller started this list at my request. That makes me the de facto owner, although I'm totally willing to share that responsibility with others, and I think we all have a responsibility to help self-govern.)
So. Having said that, personally I think the issues Laura raised are real, and the discussion they prompted was useful. I think some helpful stuff has gotten said, particularly when some of the quieter people started to speak up, and I'd like to now say a few things too.
Essentially: since the list started, a number of people (including me) have observed that i) there are a lot of men here, maybe more than women, and ii) the men have talked quite a bit. Certainly there have been times on this list when I felt like a small number of men were dominating the conversation, and occasionally also seeming to me to deny women's experiences, and/or to tell them how to feel about them. (Lots of men were also asking questions or just listening or offering support of various kinds.)
That didn't surprise me: I think it's "normal." If you're a man, and you've been trained that your opinion is valuable and wanted: well, then you are fairly likely to believe that, and to act accordingly. Similarly, a couple of women here have talked about how they've been socialized to stay quiet and to defer, and that therefore that's what they tend to do. In general, I think it would be hard to fault people too much for their cultural conditioning. And honestly, women here are likelier to be more aware of (and thoughtful about) our conditioning than men are, because as the non-dominant group we've had to think about it more. So I am not surprised that some men here haven't been (IMO) super self-reflective and self-moderating. And I am also, honestly, not surprised to see a few women get really, really angry about that, because my guess is this is not their first time at that rodeo ;-)
I think that everyone here has a responsibility to try to be self-aware about how their behaviour is affecting other people. The Quakers have a really nice principle for their meetings, that in general, quiet people should aim to talk more, and talkative people should aim to restrain themselves. I think that's a really good rule. I would like to hear more from the people here who've been holding back. And I believe we would hear more, if the talkative people were a little more restrained.
I also want to say something about men on this list, in general. Personally, I believe we need to have, and want to have, and should have, men on this list. I say that because I want Wikipedia to have more female editors, and I think that the men here can and should be (and want to be!) part of the solution, working towards that.
Thirteen per cent of Wikipedia editors are women. I assume that many of those women have no interest in personally, themselves, working to increase the number of women editors on Wikipedia. Which is totally fine with me: why should they? If they didn't sign up to be gender warriors, then they shouldn't be gender warriors: they are in no way obligated to do it.
But somebody's got to make this happen, and I'm happy to have allies regardless of their gender. I consider everyone on this list an ally. Nobody here IMO is trolling, and I'm really happy that nobody here is contesting the basic premise: that we want to fix this problem. Everybody's acting in good faith: I truly believe that. Some of us are probably inadvertently offensive, and some of that offence comes out of unexamined privilege, for sure. And some of the women here have expressed lots of anger and frustration, some of which probably doesn't belong on this list, but spills out here because it's been brewing for years due to their experiences elsewhere, in addition to their experiences on Wikipedia and/or this list.
I think we all have a responsibility to try to be our best possible selves here --- by which I mean our most generous, constructive, helpful, collaborative, trusting, listening, understanding selves. Everybody's damaged; nobody's perfect; we're all going to make plenty of mistakes. But everybody here wants to solve this problem: that's why we're here. It's going to be a lot of work, and we're going to need all different types of people. A bunch of non-mutually-exclusive categories: we will need radical feminists, plus experienced editors, plus new editors, plus external observers, plus people who like to question and probe, plus staff people, plus men exploring their privilege and thinking about these issues for the first time, plus lurkers. Plus plus plus.
We've all got a role to play. And I hope we all want to continue the work we've started :-)
Thanks, Sue
-- ?Sue Gardner Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation
415 839 6885 office 415 816 9967 cell
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.? Help us make it a reality!
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
End of Gendergap Digest, Vol 2, Issue 27
Hi Rosie,
I will take a crack at answering your questions, in-line below :-)
On 17 March 2011 22:41, Collective Action collective_action@hotmail.com wrote:
Dear Sue & All,
I am yet to experience sexism on Wikipedia however my reading of this list has only served to confuse me with regard to the gender gap issue. I am hoping that someone can clarify the following points with some kind of authority.
Is there any consensus in the Wikipedia/Wikimedia heirarchy that the Gender gap on Wikipedia is a problem that Wikipedia is trying to solve (apparently with the help of this list)?
I can't speak for the Wikipedia editorial volunteer hierarchy. But I can speak for the Wikimedia Foundation, and yes, we believe the gender gap is a problem that needs to be solved. Currently, 13% of Wikimedia editors self-identify as female [1], and we've set ourselves a target to double that by 2015.
[1] 13% of respondents to the 2008 UNU-Merit Editor Survey said they are female. We believe that number is probably a little off, because although there was a healthy sample size, the methodology probably resulted in favouring of frequent editors. So the 13% may be a little skewed, but probably not too much.
Is there any consensus in the Wikipedia/Wikimedia heirarchy that women who attempt to contribute to Wikipedia are likely to be subject to chronic sexist remarks and that this is presumed to factor into the lower participation rates of women?
I don't think so, no. My personal belief (and my own experiences, and readings on-wiki) suggest to me that Wikimedians are significantly less overtly, explicitly sexist than non-Wikimedians. Many, many online cultures are blatantly misogynist: Wikimedia IMO is not. I'm not saying that sexist remarks never happen (and of course it depends what you define as sexist): I would expect that they do. But I don't think Wikimedia is a particularly sexualized culture; I don't think it's a culture that tends to stereotype and objectify, and I think most/many of the men on Wikipedia would recoil from overt sexism.
That doesn't mean we don't behave in ways that deter women's participation: I think it's obvious that we do [2]. But I don't think that direct personal aggressive sexism is particularly present on Wikipedia.
(It might be worth knowing that in about a month, we are going to put a new Editor Survey in the field, that includes a half-dozen questions about gender and sexism. That will be the first time we've surveyed editors, male and female, about their experiences and observations with regard to gender on the Wikimedia projects. So we'll see what gets reported.)
What is the responsibility of Wikipedia/Wikimedia in protecting individuals from harrassment and in particular, any systemic abuse which is believed to be endemic to Wikipedia?
The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't police editors' behaviour on Wikipedia. Policing editors' behaviour is a responsibility of the Wikimedia editorial community, through dispute resolution mechanisms, the Arbitration Committee, and other avenues. (There are some people here who can talk about Arb Comm, for example.) The Wikimedia Foundation just couldn't possibly police it: there are 100,000 editors here working in 270+ languages, and we would never have the ability to investigate problems, nor to enforce compliance with behavioural standards. And ultimately, editors are online volunteers, and if they are unhappy or feel unsafe, they always have the ability to exercise their option to stop editing. At the end of the day, they have alternatives. They are here by choice, and they can leave if they want.
Having said that, I do wish that the Wikimedia Foundation could do more to protect editors from harassment. I believe that only a very small number of editors has ever faced serious harassment, but I am aware of some instances in which it's occurred. We have, in a very small number of instances, offered advice and support of various kinds. But we can't be responsible for people's safety on Wikipedia, any more than Facebook, for example, can be responsible for people's safety there.
How does Wikipedia take responsibility to ensure that when people come to Wikipedia to edit for the first time they are made aware of problems they may encounter (both due to their gender and more generally) and the actions they can take to address these issues?
I think the usual advice to people joining online communities is that they should lurk for a while, read, and get the hang of things. I'm not aware of any special cautioning orientation materials for new people on Wikipedia. (Although as I write this, I do actually remember that when I first started editing, I stumbled across advice on how to remain anonymous, whether or not to use my real name, and some other bits and pieces. But I believe I found it by reading really widely and deeply; it wasn't collected together in one place.) It might actually be a really good project for this group: to aim to create a set of help materials for new female editors.
What are the roles of the Wikimedia/Wikipedia hierarchy here on the list and do official representatives of these organisations have rights to determine the debate here that go beyond the power of other list members?
No, I don't think so. The Wikimedia Foundation staff who are on this list are present by their own choice, because they want to help. No-one's been assigned to be here, and no-one has any special authority to control the debate here. I am the list owner, and I think there are a couple of moderators as well, but I expect everything here will happen via consensus. I don't consider this to be a list "for" the Wikimedia Foundation; I consider it to be a list for the people here.
I expect that the Wikimedia Foundation staff who are here joined because they want to know more about what female editors want and need. The people here from the staff are e.g., interface designers, community staff, product/strategy people, etc. who want to take women's views into consideration as they do their work. The women here aren't necessarily representative of people outside this list, but I expect staff here feel it's a good place to learn a little and maybe kick around ideas for feedback.
What, if any quality assaurance guidelines, structure or policy is behind this list and the goal of reducing the gender gap on Wikipedia and the relationship between the two?
I'm not sure exactly what that question means, but I'll take a crack at it, and you can tell me if I've misunderstood what you're asking. There are no formal guidelines/structure/policy behind the list. Wikimedia lists typically operate in accordance within a set of loose conventions: basically, informal 'folk wisdom' -- AFAIK they've never been documented anywhere, and I myself learned them through observation over time. Generally speaking, with some partial exceptions: most of our lists are open to the public, anyone can join or leave any time, people are asked to remain civil but there is wide latitude for disagreement and debate, and off-topic discussion is discouraged but not entirely verboten. Some lists have expectations of privacy, but the archives for this list are public, so there should be no expectation of privacy here.
Is that useful? It's funny: as I write all that I realize that of course none of it is obvious to people who haven't spent a lot of time in the Wikimedia community: you're reminding me of how frustrated I was three or four years ago, as I learned all those informal, unwritten, undocumented conventions. We really have a lot of work to do, if we want Wikimedia to become more porous, more penetrable :-)
Anyway Rosie, I hope this helps. Feel free to follow up if anything's unclear, or if you think we should adjust/adapt, feel free to say that too. Other people should elaborate/refine my answers too, if they want :-)
Thanks, Sue
[2] Oh, I wanted to add this. Although I don't believe explicit overt sexism is particularly present on Wikipedia, I do think women face particular impediments due to their gender.
The Wikimedia Foundation has identified a number of challenges that deter people from wanting to edit: the editing interface is too hard to use; deletions and reversions are climbing; the culture can be fighty; the culture isn't very welcoming/encouraging/supportive; and there are a lot of editorial policies and practices that people need to learn, in order to edit effectively. And, we speculate that there may be three issues particular to women, that explain their disproportionately low presence.
* Some studies say women self-report as less technically confident than men. And, some research suggests that women may generally be inclined to use technology as a tool for working, with men generally more inclined to use it for fun. To the extent that this is true, MediaWiki’s lack of usability may have a disproportionately deterring effect on women. To be clear: the problem is the same for everyone, but it may affect women, on the whole, more than men. Obviously this isn't the case for existing, experienced female editors.
* Research finds that women generally are more attuned to social cues than men: more damaged by disapproval, and more buoyed by support. We know that successful Wikimedians, whatever their gender, tend to be unusually insensitive to reproach. This suggests that in general women may tend to feel the lack of affirmation on Wikipedia more keenly than men do, and that warnings, reversions/deletions and a fighty culture may disproportionately deter women. This means that efforts to increase friendliness and a sense of warmth, and to reduce fightyness, will disproportionately increase retention of women. This problem is also the same for everyone, but may affect women somewhat more than it does men.
* Deletions and reversions are damaging to all new editors, and may disproportionately damage women due to their attunement to social cues. However, it’s also possible that women’s contributions are in fact likelier than men’s to be unfairly reverted/deleted, due to systemic bias. This is a theory: there’s no hard data to support it. But it seems reasonable to assume that when editorial decisions (e.g., determining notability, relevance, appropriate weight, neutrality, reliability of sources) are made primarily by men, women’s contributions may be likelier than men’s to be deemed non-notable, not relevant, inappropriately weighted, non-neutral or cited with unreliable sources. Certainly there is anecdotal evidence suggesting this is true: in the wake of the New York Times gender gap story, many women told stories online, in blog comments and discussion forums, saying this had happened to them.
Hi Sue,
I appreciate your thorough and quick responses:-)
It's Friday night here in Australia so I'll chew over the questions and answers over the weekend. I find sitting back and thinking things over helpful.
I'm interested in what other people have to say too.
regards
Rosie Williams http://women4wikipedia.net
http://collectiveaction.com.au
@collectiveact
From: sgardner@wikimedia.org Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 00:21:43 -0700 Subject: Re: [Gendergap] This list To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org CC: collective_action@hotmail.com
Hi Rosie,
I will take a crack at answering your questions, in-line below :-)
On 17 March 2011 22:41, Collective Action collective_action@hotmail.com wrote:
Dear Sue & All,
I am yet to experience sexism on Wikipedia however my reading of this list has only served to confuse me with regard to the gender gap issue. I am hoping that someone can clarify the following points with some kind of authority.
Is there any consensus in the Wikipedia/Wikimedia heirarchy that the Gender gap on Wikipedia is a problem that Wikipedia is trying to solve (apparently with the help of this list)?
I can't speak for the Wikipedia editorial volunteer hierarchy. But I can speak for the Wikimedia Foundation, and yes, we believe the gender gap is a problem that needs to be solved. Currently, 13% of Wikimedia editors self-identify as female [1], and we've set ourselves a target to double that by 2015.
[1] 13% of respondents to the 2008 UNU-Merit Editor Survey said they are female. We believe that number is probably a little off, because although there was a healthy sample size, the methodology probably resulted in favouring of frequent editors. So the 13% may be a little skewed, but probably not too much.
Is there any consensus in the Wikipedia/Wikimedia heirarchy that women who attempt to contribute to Wikipedia are likely to be subject to chronic sexist remarks and that this is presumed to factor into the lower participation rates of women?
I don't think so, no. My personal belief (and my own experiences, and readings on-wiki) suggest to me that Wikimedians are significantly less overtly, explicitly sexist than non-Wikimedians. Many, many online cultures are blatantly misogynist: Wikimedia IMO is not. I'm not saying that sexist remarks never happen (and of course it depends what you define as sexist): I would expect that they do. But I don't think Wikimedia is a particularly sexualized culture; I don't think it's a culture that tends to stereotype and objectify, and I think most/many of the men on Wikipedia would recoil from overt sexism.
That doesn't mean we don't behave in ways that deter women's participation: I think it's obvious that we do [2]. But I don't think that direct personal aggressive sexism is particularly present on Wikipedia.
(It might be worth knowing that in about a month, we are going to put a new Editor Survey in the field, that includes a half-dozen questions about gender and sexism. That will be the first time we've surveyed editors, male and female, about their experiences and observations with regard to gender on the Wikimedia projects. So we'll see what gets reported.)
What is the responsibility of Wikipedia/Wikimedia in protecting individuals from harrassment and in particular, any systemic abuse which is believed to be endemic to Wikipedia?
The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't police editors' behaviour on Wikipedia. Policing editors' behaviour is a responsibility of the Wikimedia editorial community, through dispute resolution mechanisms, the Arbitration Committee, and other avenues. (There are some people here who can talk about Arb Comm, for example.) The Wikimedia Foundation just couldn't possibly police it: there are 100,000 editors here working in 270+ languages, and we would never have the ability to investigate problems, nor to enforce compliance with behavioural standards. And ultimately, editors are online volunteers, and if they are unhappy or feel unsafe, they always have the ability to exercise their option to stop editing. At the end of the day, they have alternatives. They are here by choice, and they can leave if they want.
Having said that, I do wish that the Wikimedia Foundation could do more to protect editors from harassment. I believe that only a very small number of editors has ever faced serious harassment, but I am aware of some instances in which it's occurred. We have, in a very small number of instances, offered advice and support of various kinds. But we can't be responsible for people's safety on Wikipedia, any more than Facebook, for example, can be responsible for people's safety there.
How does Wikipedia take responsibility to ensure that when people come to Wikipedia to edit for the first time they are made aware of problems they may encounter (both due to their gender and more generally) and the actions they can take to address these issues?
I think the usual advice to people joining online communities is that they should lurk for a while, read, and get the hang of things. I'm not aware of any special cautioning orientation materials for new people on Wikipedia. (Although as I write this, I do actually remember that when I first started editing, I stumbled across advice on how to remain anonymous, whether or not to use my real name, and some other bits and pieces. But I believe I found it by reading really widely and deeply; it wasn't collected together in one place.) It might actually be a really good project for this group: to aim to create a set of help materials for new female editors.
What are the roles of the Wikimedia/Wikipedia hierarchy here on the list and do official representatives of these organisations have rights to determine the debate here that go beyond the power of other list members?
No, I don't think so. The Wikimedia Foundation staff who are on this list are present by their own choice, because they want to help. No-one's been assigned to be here, and no-one has any special authority to control the debate here. I am the list owner, and I think there are a couple of moderators as well, but I expect everything here will happen via consensus. I don't consider this to be a list "for" the Wikimedia Foundation; I consider it to be a list for the people here.
I expect that the Wikimedia Foundation staff who are here joined because they want to know more about what female editors want and need. The people here from the staff are e.g., interface designers, community staff, product/strategy people, etc. who want to take women's views into consideration as they do their work. The women here aren't necessarily representative of people outside this list, but I expect staff here feel it's a good place to learn a little and maybe kick around ideas for feedback.
What, if any quality assaurance guidelines, structure or policy is behind this list and the goal of reducing the gender gap on Wikipedia and the relationship between the two?
I'm not sure exactly what that question means, but I'll take a crack at it, and you can tell me if I've misunderstood what you're asking. There are no formal guidelines/structure/policy behind the list. Wikimedia lists typically operate in accordance within a set of loose conventions: basically, informal 'folk wisdom' -- AFAIK they've never been documented anywhere, and I myself learned them through observation over time. Generally speaking, with some partial exceptions: most of our lists are open to the public, anyone can join or leave any time, people are asked to remain civil but there is wide latitude for disagreement and debate, and off-topic discussion is discouraged but not entirely verboten. Some lists have expectations of privacy, but the archives for this list are public, so there should be no expectation of privacy here.
Is that useful? It's funny: as I write all that I realize that of course none of it is obvious to people who haven't spent a lot of time in the Wikimedia community: you're reminding me of how frustrated I was three or four years ago, as I learned all those informal, unwritten, undocumented conventions. We really have a lot of work to do, if we want Wikimedia to become more porous, more penetrable :-)
Anyway Rosie, I hope this helps. Feel free to follow up if anything's unclear, or if you think we should adjust/adapt, feel free to say that too. Other people should elaborate/refine my answers too, if they want :-)
Thanks, Sue
[2] Oh, I wanted to add this. Although I don't believe explicit overt sexism is particularly present on Wikipedia, I do think women face particular impediments due to their gender.
The Wikimedia Foundation has identified a number of challenges that deter people from wanting to edit: the editing interface is too hard to use; deletions and reversions are climbing; the culture can be fighty; the culture isn't very welcoming/encouraging/supportive; and there are a lot of editorial policies and practices that people need to learn, in order to edit effectively. And, we speculate that there may be three issues particular to women, that explain their disproportionately low presence.
- Some studies say women self-report as less technically confident
than men. And, some research suggests that women may generally be inclined to use technology as a tool for working, with men generally more inclined to use it for fun. To the extent that this is true, MediaWiki’s lack of usability may have a disproportionately deterring effect on women. To be clear: the problem is the same for everyone, but it may affect women, on the whole, more than men. Obviously this isn't the case for existing, experienced female editors.
- Research finds that women generally are more attuned to social cues
than men: more damaged by disapproval, and more buoyed by support. We know that successful Wikimedians, whatever their gender, tend to be unusually insensitive to reproach. This suggests that in general women may tend to feel the lack of affirmation on Wikipedia more keenly than men do, and that warnings, reversions/deletions and a fighty culture may disproportionately deter women. This means that efforts to increase friendliness and a sense of warmth, and to reduce fightyness, will disproportionately increase retention of women. This problem is also the same for everyone, but may affect women somewhat more than it does men.
- Deletions and reversions are damaging to all new editors, and may
disproportionately damage women due to their attunement to social cues. However, it’s also possible that women’s contributions are in fact likelier than men’s to be unfairly reverted/deleted, due to systemic bias. This is a theory: there’s no hard data to support it. But it seems reasonable to assume that when editorial decisions (e.g., determining notability, relevance, appropriate weight, neutrality, reliability of sources) are made primarily by men, women’s contributions may be likelier than men’s to be deemed non-notable, not relevant, inappropriately weighted, non-neutral or cited with unreliable sources. Certainly there is anecdotal evidence suggesting this is true: in the wake of the New York Times gender gap story, many women told stories online, in blog comments and discussion forums, saying this had happened to them.
On 18 March 2011 01:10, Collective Action collective_action@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Sue,
I appreciate your thorough and quick responses:-)
It's Friday night here in Australia so I'll chew over the questions and answers over the weekend. I find sitting back and thinking things over helpful.
I'm interested in what other people have to say too.
Me too. And you're welcome: I was happy to write it :-)
Dear Sue and all,
We can suffer under an entropic dispute on the multiple origins of the gendergap
Gender discrimination is the consequence of a long historic heritage in most of the peoples of the world (there are notable exceptions).
´
We are in a key moment of history where the gender balance is arriving and we can contribute to make the difference.
Let´s try in the most positively way we can together:
Emphasising the value of articles, categories, e.a. dedicated to female issues, such as the political process towards women´s rights, articles on UN documents on women, other legislations that facilitates the fully exercise of the potentiality of the female condition. Having some key interviews with prominent women (Michelle Bachelet, Mary Robinson, e.a.) on the WP`s role for helping women, such as the WP interview with Umberto Eco. Traducing articles of interesting cases, figures, e.a. related to the women, from a language to another Motivating young female researchers to write an article on her research (a global appeal to female PhD, for example) Having a small team for assisting editors that would be unsure or sensitive for the process of making articles on female issues and for suggesting topics.
WP is essentially a global project with a wonderful and powerful impact worldwide, promoting multicultural and interlingual exchange and cooperation. WP can make an extraordinary contribution to reducing the gendergap too. best regards,patricia
--- On Thu, 3/17/11, Collective Action collective_action@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Collective Action collective_action@hotmail.com Subject: [Gendergap] This list To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, March 17, 2011, 10:41 PM
Dear Sue & All,
I am yet to experience sexism on Wikipedia however my reading of this list has only served to confuse me with regard to the gender gap issue. I am hoping that someone can clarify the following points with some kind of authority.
Is there any consensus in the Wikipedia/Wikimedia heirarchy that the Gender gap on Wikipedia is a problem that Wikipedia is trying to solve (apparently with the help of this list)?
Is there any consensus in the Wikipedia/Wikimedia heirarchy that women who attempt to contribute to Wikipedia are likely to be subject to chronic sexist remarks and that this is presumed to factor into the lower participation rates of women?
What is the responsibility of Wikipedia/Wikimedia in protecting individuals from harrassment and in particular, any systemic abuse which is believed to be endemic to Wikipedia?
How does Wikipedia take responsibility to ensure that when people come to Wikipedia to edit for the first time they are made aware of problems they may encounter (both due to their gender and more generally) and the actions they can take to address these issues?
What are the roles of the Wikimedia/Wikipedia hierarchy here on the list and do official representatives of these organisations have rights to determine the debate here that go beyond the power of other list members?
What, if any quality assaurance guidelines, structure or policy is behind this list and the goal of reducing the gender gap on Wikipedia and the relationship between the two?
thankyou for your time
Rosie Williams http://women4wikipedia.net http://collectiveaction.com.au @collectiveact
Message: 4 Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 22:14:24 -0700 From: Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org Subject: [Gendergap] This list To: gendergap Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: AANLkTimoLEv9O9cLNPhxoh7LGr+bUegrO1bR=9d+qBEd@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hi folks,
Wow! I was absent for two days and this list caught fire! The newer mails feel like we've been nearer a resolution, but still: there was lots of heat :-(
I'm going to take a minute to try to summarize and reflect back a little. Bear with me: I'm on my phone, so I'm not going to be able to quote individuals or respond inline to earlier mails. But I have read everything.
To recap: Laura originally made a proposal to ask the men on this list to leave. Her rationale was that men have been inappropriately dominating the discussion here, which had the effect of silencing and/or frustrating women who expect and want this to be a safe, constructive space. I believe that in making that proposal, she was acting out of frustration not just on her own behalf, but on behalf of other women here who've been feeling silenced, whether they've spoken up or not.
If Laura's proposal had gotten significant support from women on this list, personally I would take that very seriously. It would make me sad to think that women here couldn't see a workable option that includes both women and men ----- but if there had seemed to be a consensus among women that a women-only list is desirable or better, I would buy that as a regrettable-but-accurate expression of where we're at.
But, although some people expressed agreement with the basics of what Laura said, there wasn't much support for the idea of kicking men off the list. So on that basis, we won't do it.
(To recap for anyone who doesn't know: Erik Moeller started this list at my request. That makes me the de facto owner, although I'm totally willing to share that responsibility with others, and I think we all have a responsibility to help self-govern.)
So. Having said that, personally I think the issues Laura raised are real, and the discussion they prompted was useful. I think some helpful stuff has gotten said, particularly when some of the quieter people started to speak up, and I'd like to now say a few things too.
Essentially: since the list started, a number of people (including me) have observed that i) there are a lot of men here, maybe more than women, and ii) the men have talked quite a bit. Certainly there have been times on this list when I felt like a small number of men were dominating the conversation, and occasionally also seeming to me to deny women's experiences, and/or to tell them how to feel about them. (Lots of men were also asking questions or just listening or offering support of various kinds.)
That didn't surprise me: I think it's "normal." If you're a man, and you've been trained that your opinion is valuable and wanted: well, then you are fairly likely to believe that, and to act accordingly. Similarly, a couple of women here have talked about how they've been socialized to stay quiet and to defer, and that therefore that's what they tend to do. In general, I think it would be hard to fault people too much for their cultural conditioning. And honestly, women here are likelier to be more aware of (and thoughtful about) our conditioning than men are, because as the non-dominant group we've had to think about it more. So I am not surprised that some men here haven't been (IMO) super self-reflective and self-moderating. And I am also, honestly, not surprised to see a few women get really, really angry about that, because my guess is this is not their first time at that rodeo ;-)
I think that everyone here has a responsibility to try to be self-aware about how their behaviour is affecting other people. The Quakers have a really nice principle for their meetings, that in general, quiet people should aim to talk more, and talkative people should aim to restrain themselves. I think that's a really good rule. I would like to hear more from the people here who've been holding back. And I believe we would hear more, if the talkative people were a little more restrained.
I also want to say something about men on this list, in general. Personally, I believe we need to have, and want to have, and should have, men on this list. I say that because I want Wikipedia to have more female editors, and I think that the men here can and should be (and want to be!) part of the solution, working towards that.
Thirteen per cent of Wikipedia editors are women. I assume that many of those women have no interest in personally, themselves, working to increase the number of women editors on Wikipedia. Which is totally fine with me: why should they? If they didn't sign up to be gender warriors, then they shouldn't be gender warriors: they are in no way obligated to do it.
But somebody's got to make this happen, and I'm happy to have allies regardless of their gender. I consider everyone on this list an ally. Nobody here IMO is trolling, and I'm really happy that nobody here is contesting the basic premise: that we want to fix this problem. Everybody's acting in good faith: I truly believe that. Some of us are probably inadvertently offensive, and some of that offence comes out of unexamined privilege, for sure. And some of the women here have expressed lots of anger and frustration, some of which probably doesn't belong on this list, but spills out here because it's been brewing for years due to their experiences elsewhere, in addition to their experiences on Wikipedia and/or this list.
I think we all have a responsibility to try to be our best possible selves here --- by which I mean our most generous, constructive, helpful, collaborative, trusting, listening, understanding selves. Everybody's damaged; nobody's perfect; we're all going to make plenty of mistakes. But everybody here wants to solve this problem: that's why we're here. It's going to be a lot of work, and we're going to need all different types of people. A bunch of non-mutually-exclusive categories: we will need radical feminists, plus experienced editors, plus new editors, plus external observers, plus people who like to question and probe, plus staff people, plus men exploring their privilege and thinking about these issues for the first time, plus lurkers. Plus plus plus.
We've all got a role to play. And I hope we all want to continue the work we've started :-)
Thanks, Sue
-- ?Sue Gardner Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation
415 839 6885 office 415 816 9967 cell
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.? Help us make it a reality!
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
End of Gendergap Digest, Vol 2, Issue 27
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap