For whom they do not know it, El País is one of the most important newspapers of Spain.
In its blog an interesting post has been published, brings over of the problem that occupies us. It's in spanish, of course .... but it's not difificult of translating to the english (if someone wants it, it is possible to do an attempt). You can read in http://blogs.elpais.com/mujeres/2011/02/los-hombres-son-de-wikipedia-y-las-m...
hasta luego.
Marcos (aka Marctaltor)
Given the demographic imbalance in our community, and the resultant risk of systemic bias in our editorial decisions, it might make sense to create a Women's issues noticeboard in en:WP and other Wikipedias, where related matters can be brought up for review. Thoughts? Andreas
Given the demographic imbalance in our community, and the resultant risk of systemic bias in our editorial decisions, it might make sense to create a Women's issues noticeboard in en:WP and other Wikipedias, where related matters can be brought up for review. Thoughts? Andreas
Please create it and inform everyone.
Fred
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.netwrote:
Given the demographic imbalance in our community, and the resultant risk of systemic bias in our editorial decisions, it might make sense to create a Women's issues noticeboard in en:WP and other Wikipedias, where related matters can be brought up for review. Thoughts? Andreas
Please create it and inform everyone.
Fred
Noticeboards are huge magnets for drama.
There are longtime English Wikipedia editors already starting to grumble about this effort. If we're going to make progress by bringing the community along with this, rather than having them fight us, we should try to minimize the potential for drama, especially of the accusatory kind that gets performed on incident noticeboards.
I would suggest we not create not a noticeboard for this issue specifically.
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Given the demographic imbalance in our community, and the resultant risk of systemic bias in our editorial decisions, it might make sense to create a Women's issues noticeboard in en:WP and other Wikipedias, where related matters can be brought up for review. Thoughts? Andreas
Please create it and inform everyone.
Fred
on 2/22/11 1:52 PM, Steven Walling at swalling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Noticeboards are huge magnets for drama.
There are longtime English Wikipedia editors already starting to grumble about this effort. If we're going to make progress by bringing the community along with this, rather than having them fight us, we should try to minimize the potential for drama, especially of the accusatory kind that gets performed on incident noticeboards.
I would suggest we not create not a noticeboard for this issue specifically.
What's wrong with drama, Steven? If the issue is creating a dramatic situation for people, how would you have them express it, neutrally? Since passion is the temperature of emotion, shouldn't we get a measure of it?
Marc Riddell
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
What's wrong with drama, Steven? If the issue is creating a dramatic situation for people, how would you have them express it, neutrally? Since passion is the temperature of emotion, shouldn't we get a measure of it?
Marc Riddell
Constant drama and fighting is one of the big things driving many people,
including women, away from Wikipedia. That's what's wrong with it.
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
What's wrong with drama, Steven? If the issue is creating a dramatic situation for people, how would you have them express it, neutrally? Since passion is the temperature of emotion, shouldn't we get a measure of it?
Marc Riddell
Constant drama and fighting is one of the big things driving many people,
including women, away from Wikipedia. That's what's wrong with it.
-- Steven Walling Fellow at Wikimedia Foundation wikimediafoundation.org
And leaving the field to them is a solution? We need to candidly discuss issues on wiki.
Fred
If a woman may speak... :-)
The noticeboard IS too combative and won't have much positive effect *at this point. *
Already I'm finding it difficult to bring up in a neutral manner ideas like putting Wife selling in category: sexism or creating more appopriate categories, like Category: Male dominance on the Feminism Wikiproject without a minor brouhaha ensuing from men - with no female input at all. (And then there were two long and hot debates in sex practice articles by males offended by proposals to remove their favorite images.)
Just imagine a noticeboard where even more males would be watching... Oi!
I still think WIKIPROJECT:WOMEN'S CAFE would be a great education, social and support area, one which could have a section on articles of interest, in addition to wikiproject feminism. If it was too newbie or touchy-feely for some guys, so be it.
Unfortunately, though I've brought it up 2 or 3 times, I don't think any women have replied to that Idea.
if women on this list can't respond to what seems to me like *a natural* what hope is there?
How about all the guys control yourselves and not post your responses on this til Wednesday? :-)
Carol in dc
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Steven Walling swalling@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Noticeboards are huge magnets for drama.
There are longtime English Wikipedia editors already starting to grumble about this effort. If we're going to make progress by bringing the community along with this, rather than having them fight us, we should try to minimize the potential for drama, especially of the accusatory kind that gets performed on incident noticeboards.
I would suggest we not create not a noticeboard for this issue specifically.
I want to expand on Steven's point a little, as I think it's a good one.
It seems to me that there's pretty broad consensus among this group that many or most of the issues that keep women away, are not specifically gender-related; rather, they are departures from the policies or the ethos we are generally trying to establish, and likely impact most potential new contributors.
As a longtime Wikipedian, one of the things that has become clear to me is that calm and productive discussion is often hampered by extraneous accusations. So, here is a scenario that I think illustrates the concern that Steven brings up:
* Pat deletes a paragraph in the biography of a reasonably well-known female poet, which discusses her affiliation with a women's rights organization. * Blaine restores the paragraph, and a small edit war ensues.
Ideal result: Pat and Blaine, with the help of some others, discuss their disagreement about the paragraph. Maybe it turns out that Pat's concern was rooted in poor referencing; the only citation in the paragraph linked to a small blog with no known editorial policies and a history of several inaccuracies. Maybe, as this gets revealed, Blaine decides to go out and find a better source, and finds an article in a local newspaper or a literary journal. Maybe that article contains even has more detail than the blog post, allowing for substantive improvement to the article. Maybe Pat and Blaine develop mutual respect during the process, and go on to work together on other articles, in a more collaborative fashion.
Concern, if there were a Gender Issues Noticeboard: Blaine, or somebody trying to act on his/her behalf, takes the issue to the GIN, before making any substantial efforts on the article's talk page, or on a relevant WikiProject (like maybe "WikiProject Poetry"). This initial report frames the content dispute in terms of gender, building the assumption that Pat's initial action was based on a bias against women into the debate. Within a few days, somebody is preparing a case for ArbCom, which adds to the burden of our elected committee members; a local reporter has decided to write a news story about misogyny on Wikipedia, citing this dispute; and there's a Signpost article in the works.
I think the point is, the structures we establish have a strong effect on how people interact. When a noticeboard for a hot-button issue exists, contributors often feel compelled to use it, and may proceed under the mistaken impression that the most productive way to approach such an issue is to zero in on a controversial issue that may *or may not* have anything to do with what's going on.
So -- there may be benefits to establishing such a noticeboard, but my hope would be that we could find a way to work within the more dispassionately-titled structures that already exist.
-Pete
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Steven Walling swalling@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Noticeboards are huge magnets for drama.
There are longtime English Wikipedia editors already starting to grumble about this effort. If we're going to make progress by bringing the community along with this, rather than having them fight us, we should try to minimize the potential for drama, especially of the accusatory kind that gets performed on incident noticeboards.
I would suggest we not create not a noticeboard for this issue specifically.
I want to expand on Steven's point a little, as I think it's a good one.
It seems to me that there's pretty broad consensus among this group that many or most of the issues that keep women away, are not specifically gender-related; rather, they are departures from the policies or the ethos we are generally trying to establish, and likely impact most potential new contributors.
As a longtime Wikipedian, one of the things that has become clear to me is that calm and productive discussion is often hampered by extraneous accusations. So, here is a scenario that I think illustrates the concern that Steven brings up:
* Pat deletes a paragraph in the biography of a reasonably well-known female poet, which discusses her affiliation with a women's rights organization. * Blaine restores the paragraph, and a small edit war ensues.
Ideal result: Pat and Blaine, with the help of some others, discuss their disagreement about the paragraph. Maybe it turns out that Pat's concern was rooted in poor referencing; the only citation in the paragraph linked to a small blog with no known editorial policies and a history of several inaccuracies. Maybe, as this gets revealed, Blaine decides to go out and find a better source, and finds an article in a local newspaper or a literary journal. Maybe that article contains even has more detail than the blog post, allowing for substantive improvement to the article. Maybe Pat and Blaine develop mutual respect during the process, and go on to work together on other articles, in a more collaborative fashion.
Concern, if there were a Gender Issues Noticeboard: Blaine, or somebody trying to act on his/her behalf, takes the issue to the GIN, before making any substantial efforts on the article's talk page, or on a relevant WikiProject (like maybe "WikiProject Poetry"). This initial report frames the content dispute in terms of gender, building the assumption that Pat's initial action was based on a bias against women into the debate. Within a few days, somebody is preparing a case for ArbCom, which adds to the burden of our elected committee members; a local reporter has decided to write a news story about misogyny on Wikipedia, citing this dispute; and there's a Signpost article in the works.
I think the point is, the structures we establish have a strong effect on how people interact. When a noticeboard for a hot-button issue exists, contributors often feel compelled to use it, and may proceed under the mistaken impression that the most productive way to approach such an issue is to zero in on a controversial issue that may *or may not* have anything to do with what's going on.
So -- there may be benefits to establishing such a noticeboard, but my hope would be that we could find a way to work within the more dispassionately-titled structures that already exist.
-Pete
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Steven Walling swalling@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Noticeboards are huge magnets for drama.
There are longtime English Wikipedia editors already starting to grumble about this effort. If we're going to make progress by bringing the community along with this, rather than having them fight us, we should try to minimize the potential for drama, especially of the accusatory kind that gets performed on incident noticeboards.
I would suggest we not create not a noticeboard for this issue specifically.
I want to expand on Steven's point a little, as I think it's a good one.
It seems to me that there's pretty broad consensus among this group that many or most of the issues that keep women away, are not specifically gender-related; rather, they are departures from the policies or the ethos we are generally trying to establish, and likely impact most potential new contributors.
As a longtime Wikipedian, one of the things that has become clear to me is that calm and productive discussion is often hampered by extraneous accusations. So, here is a scenario that I think illustrates the concern that Steven brings up:
* Pat deletes a paragraph in the biography of a reasonably well-known female poet, which discusses her affiliation with a women's rights organization. * Blaine restores the paragraph, and a small edit war ensues.
Ideal result: Pat and Blaine, with the help of some others, discuss their disagreement about the paragraph. Maybe it turns out that Pat's concern was rooted in poor referencing; the only citation in the paragraph linked to a small blog with no known editorial policies and a history of several inaccuracies. Maybe, as this gets revealed, Blaine decides to go out and find a better source, and finds an article in a local newspaper or a literary journal. Maybe that article contains even has more detail than the blog post, allowing for substantive improvement to the article. Maybe Pat and Blaine develop mutual respect during the process, and go on to work together on other articles, in a more collaborative fashion.
Concern, if there were a Gender Issues Noticeboard: Blaine, or somebody trying to act on his/her behalf, takes the issue to the GIN, before making any substantial efforts on the article's talk page, or on a relevant WikiProject (like maybe "WikiProject Poetry"). This initial report frames the content dispute in terms of gender, building the assumption that Pat's initial action was based on a bias against women into the debate. Within a few days, somebody is preparing a case for ArbCom, which adds to the burden of our elected committee members; a local reporter has decided to write a news story about misogyny on Wikipedia, citing this dispute; and there's a Signpost article in the works.
I think the point is, the structures we establish have a strong effect on how people interact. When a noticeboard for a hot-button issue exists, contributors often feel compelled to use it, and may proceed under the mistaken impression that the most productive way to approach such an issue is to zero in on a controversial issue that may *or may not* have anything to do with what's going on.
So -- there may be benefits to establishing such a noticeboard, but my hope would be that we could find a way to work within the more dispassionately-titled structures that already exist.
-Pete
From: Steven Walling swalling@wikimedia.org To: fredbaud@fairpoint.net; Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, February 22, 2011 12:52:43 PM Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Women's issues noticeboard
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Given the demographic imbalance in our community, and the resultant risk
of systemic bias in our editorial decisions, it might make sense to create a Women's issues noticeboard in en:WP and other Wikipedias, where related matters can be brought up for review. Thoughts? Andreas
Please create it and inform everyone.
Fred
Noticeboards are huge magnets for drama.
There are longtime English Wikipedia editors already starting to grumble about this effort. If we're going to make progress by bringing the community along with this, rather than having them fight us, we should try to minimize the potential for drama, especially of the accusatory kind that gets performed on incident noticeboards.
I would suggest we not create not a noticeboard for this issue specifically. Noticeboards are the only way I am aware of for handling systematic problems in any sort of regular fashion. I would suggest that is systematic problems that are magnets for drama, not the fact that someone creates space name "Foo Noticeboard". And frankly drama is primarily caused by ego and speed. While we can hardly banish people who are controlled by their egos, we can make an effort to take things slowly. Make certain to get the full history of an issue is collected before posting personal judgments. Don't assume anyone who is brought to the noticeboard has any understanding of why women's issues are a systematic problem on Wikipedia. Focus on educating people and bringing their level of understanding up to speed rather than just condemning their thoughtless errors. That might cut the drama by half.
Of course, not allowing any space for the people who understand these concerns as a systematic issue to be available to review the everyday sorts of decisions that are made on an case-by-case basis without any particular context would be even less drama. But the goal of this whole effort, or even en.WP in particular, is not "avoid drama at all costs". The goal of Wikipedia is to create a free, neutral, verifiable encyclopedia. Drama is inevitable, the best we can strive for is that the drama is as cost-effective as possible.
I don't understand how you imagine the wikis will actually work on any kind of systematic problem without these kinds of spaces.
Birgitte SB
From: Steven Walling swalling@wikimedia.org To: fredbaud@fairpoint.net; Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, February 22, 2011 12:52:43 PM Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Women's issues noticeboard
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Given the demographic imbalance in our community, and the resultant risk
of systemic bias in our editorial decisions, it might make sense to create a Women's issues noticeboard in en:WP and other Wikipedias, where related matters can be brought up for review. Thoughts? Andreas
Please create it and inform everyone.
Fred
Noticeboards are huge magnets for drama.
There are longtime English Wikipedia editors already starting to grumble about this effort. If we're going to make progress by bringing the community along with this, rather than having them fight us, we should try to minimize the potential for drama, especially of the accusatory kind that gets performed on incident noticeboards.
I would suggest we not create not a noticeboard for this issue specifically. Noticeboards are the only way I am aware of for handling systematic problems in any sort of regular fashion. I would suggest that is systematic problems that are magnets for drama, not the fact that someone creates space name "Foo Noticeboard". And frankly drama is primarily caused by ego and speed. While we can hardly banish people who are controlled by their egos, we can make an effort to take things slowly. Make certain to get the full history of an issue is collected before posting personal judgments. Don't assume anyone who is brought to the noticeboard has any understanding of why women's issues are a systematic problem on Wikipedia. Focus on educating people and bringing their level of understanding up to speed rather than just condemning their thoughtless errors. That might cut the drama by half.
Of course, not allowing any space for the people who understand these concerns as a systematic issue to be available to review the everyday sorts of decisions that are made on an case-by-case basis without any particular context would be even less drama. But the goal of this whole effort, or even en.WP in particular, is not "avoid drama at all costs". The goal of Wikipedia is to create a free, neutral, verifiable encyclopedia. Drama is inevitable, the best we can strive for is that the drama is as cost-effective as possible.
I don't understand how you imagine the wikis will actually work on any kind of systematic problem without these kinds of spaces.
Birgitte SB
Focus on educating people and bringing their level of understanding up to speed rather than just condemning their thoughtless errors.
An application to this problem of the basic wiki policy assume good faith.
If the community cannot resolve such problems there is no authority we can term to without abandonment of the basic wiki paradigm.
Reports of feelings that are disassociated from the edits or other actions they arose from are very difficult to relate to as you don't have adequate information about what the editor was trying to do and how they went about it.
Fred
I would suggest we not create not a noticeboard for this issue specifically.
How about putting it in the form of a Systemic Bias Noticeboard? That way it could accomodate other such issues we may uncover, or already have (i.e., U.S- and U.K.-centrism, general English-speaking world-centrism).
Daniel Case
I would suggest we not create not a noticeboard for this issue
specifically.
How about putting it in the form of a Systemic Bias Noticeboard? That way it could accomodate other such issues we may uncover, or already have (i.e., U.S- and U.K.-centrism, general English-speaking world-centrism).
Daniel Case_______________________________________________
I looked at all the noticeboards to check out the structure. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard is relevant sometimes, but depending on the issue others might be.
Fred
--- On Tue, 22/2/11, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Given the demographic imbalance
in our community, and the resultant risk
of systemic bias in our editorial decisions, it might
make sense to
create a Women's issues noticeboard in en:WP and other
Wikipedias, where
related matters can be brought up for review. Thoughts? Andreas
Please create it and inform everyone.
Fred
Stephen Walling wrote:
Noticeboards are huge magnets for drama.
There are longtime English Wikipedia editors already starting to grumble about this effort. If we're going to make progress by bringing the community along with this, rather than having them fight us, we should try to minimize the potential for drama, especially of the accusatory kind that gets performed on incident noticeboards.
I would suggest we not create not a noticeboard for this issue specifically.
Women's views are too often drowned out on talk pages, simply because of their numerical inferiority. A noticeboard would help.
While I understand the concern about the potential for drama, I think any method used to make Wikipedia more gender-neutral will attract a share of drama. Having an institution to look at women's issues is a pretty mainstream idea.
The UK has a [[Minister for Women and Equalities]] (a poorly researched article at this time); there is a [[Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Canada)]]; a [[Minister for the Status of Women (Australia)]]; even Afghanistan has one: [[Ministry_of_Women's_Affairs_(Afghanistan)]].
Denmark has a [[Minister_for_Gender_Equality_(Denmark)]]; Sweden has a [[Ministry of Integration and Gender Equality (Sweden)]], etc.
The United States have affirmative action. We should not fear controversy, or grumbling; our democratically elected governments don't let that stop them either. If the Wikipedia community cannot support something that is standard in democratic society, then we do have a problem with our demographics, and whatever problem we have will become readily apparent.
I wouldn't mind calling it a gender issues noticeboard. (That would be [[WP:GIN]] as opposed to [[WP:WIN]].)
Andreas
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
Women's views are too often drowned out on talk pages, simply because of their numerical inferiority. A noticeboard would help.
While I understand the concern about the potential for drama, I think any method used to make Wikipedia more gender-neutral will attract a share of drama. Having an institution to look at women's issues is a pretty mainstream idea.
The UK has a [[Minister for Women and Equalities]] (a poorly researched article at this time); there is a [[Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Canada)]]; a [[Minister for the Status of Women (Australia)]]; even Afghanistan has one: [[Ministry_of_Women's_Affairs_(Afghanistan)]].
Denmark has a [[Minister_for_Gender_Equality_(Denmark)]]; Sweden has a [[Ministry of Integration and Gender Equality (Sweden)]], etc.
The United States have affirmative action. We should not fear controversy, or grumbling; our democratically elected governments don't let that stop them either. If the Wikipedia community cannot support something that is standard in democratic society, then we do have a problem with our demographics, and whatever problem we have will become readily apparent.
I wouldn't mind calling it a gender issues noticeboard. (That would be [[WP:GIN]] as opposed to [[WP:WIN]].)
Andreas
Go ahead and do it if you feel passionate about it (of course), but you asked for people's views, so I'm just saying that you should be prepared for an awful mess of drama and bickering, some of which is likely to drive out the very women we're trying to retain.
Go ahead and do it if you feel passionate about it (of course), but you asked for people's views, so I'm just saying that you should be prepared for an awful mess of drama and bickering, some of which is likely to drive out the very women we're trying to retain.
-- Steven Walling Fellow at Wikimedia Foundation wikimediafoundation.org
I'm counting on the [[Hawthorne effect]], and I don't think I'm wrong. In fact, some good rows and frank expression of sexist attitudes, if such are held, is sure to attract passionate involvement by women. We need to stake out a public position.
Fred
Fred,
I don't know about the Hawthorne effect, but institution a women's issues noticeboard certainly would put to rest the notion that there's no open sexism/misogyny on Wikipedia! Imagining the probable reaction to the creation of such a board, let alone the type of discourse on it, makes me want to go back to categorising for the rest of eternity. At least the open expressions of sexism I've encountered on Wikipedia are rare. I deal with that kind of bull enough in "real" life; I don't want to seek it out in my pastime.
Nepenthe
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Go ahead and do it if you feel passionate about it (of course), but you asked for people's views, so I'm just saying that you should be prepared for an awful mess of drama and bickering, some of which is likely to drive out the very women we're trying to retain.
-- Steven Walling Fellow at Wikimedia Foundation wikimediafoundation.org
I'm counting on the [[Hawthorne effect]], and I don't think I'm wrong. In fact, some good rows and frank expression of sexist attitudes, if such are held, is sure to attract passionate involvement by women. We need to stake out a public position.
Fred
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote: Women's views are too often drowned out on talk pages, simply because of their numerical inferiority. A noticeboard would help.
While I understand the concern about the potential for drama, I think any method used to make Wikipedia more gender-neutral will attract a share of drama. Having an institution to look at women's issues is a pretty mainstream idea.
The UK has a [[Minister for Women and Equalities]] (a poorly researched article at this time); there is a [[Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Canada)]]; a [[Minister for the Status of Women (Australia)]]; even Afghanistan has one: [[Ministry_of_Women's_Affairs_(Afghanistan)]].
Denmark has a [[Minister_for_Gender_Equality_(Denmark)]]; Sweden has a [[Ministry of Integration and Gender Equality (Sweden)]], etc.
The United States have affirmative action. We should not fear controversy, or grumbling; our democratically elected governments don't let that stop them either. If the Wikipedia community cannot support something that is standard in democratic society, then we do have a problem with our demographics, and whatever problem we have will become readily apparent.
I wouldn't mind calling it a gender issues noticeboard. (That would be [[WP:GIN]] as opposed to [[WP:WIN]].)
Andreas on 2/22/11 2:36 PM, Steven Walling at swalling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Go ahead and do it if you feel passionate about it (of course), but you asked for people's views, so I'm just saying that you should be prepared for an awful mess of drama and bickering, some of which is likely to drive out the very women we're trying to retain.
I don't want to see anyone leave who can make a positive contribution to the Project, Steven. But are we willing to sacrifice the integrity and honesty of the Project; have it become full of politically-correct pabulum in order to retain or attract people? A part of what has made the Project vital and unique has been its refusal to shy-away from controversial issues - both in its selection and presentation of its articles, and in the collaborative dialogue that takes place between and among its editors. Yes, the interpersonal dialogue does need some work, but I know this can be done without sacrificing its passion and honesty.
Marc
I've always been in this trouble; putting issues up for discussion by the community at large certainly does have the potential for "drama", and even serious trouble, but also for involvement by the entire community and an enlarged opportunity to wrestle with these issues and resolve them.
And, note, where such issues would go now is Wikipedia:Administrator's Noticeboard/incidents. Unless, of course, we adopt the posture that gender issues need to be delicately handled; that does not scale.
Also, I think that there needs to be some feedback from the general community regarding certain issues raised here, particularly those which are grounded in actual edits. A discussion of "They deleted my edits" has to grounded in an examination of the edits involved.
Fred
--- On Tue, 22/2/11, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Given the demographic imbalance
in our community, and the resultant risk
of systemic bias in our editorial decisions, it might
make sense to
create a Women's issues noticeboard in en:WP and other
Wikipedias, where
related matters can be brought up for review. Thoughts? Andreas
Please create it and inform everyone.
Fred
Stephen Walling wrote:
Noticeboards are huge magnets for drama.
There are longtime English Wikipedia editors already starting to grumble about this effort. If we're going to make progress by bringing the community along with this, rather than having them fight us, we should try to minimize the potential for drama, especially of the accusatory kind that gets performed on incident noticeboards.
I would suggest we not create not a noticeboard for this issue specifically.
Women's views are too often drowned out on talk pages, simply because of their numerical inferiority. A noticeboard would help.
While I understand the concern about the potential for drama, I think any method used to make Wikipedia more gender-neutral will attract a share of drama. Having an institution to look at women's issues is a pretty mainstream idea.
The UK has a [[Minister for Women and Equalities]] (a poorly researched article at this time); there is a [[Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Canada)]]; a [[Minister for the Status of Women (Australia)]]; even Afghanistan has one: [[Ministry_of_Women's_Affairs_(Afghanistan)]].
Denmark has a [[Minister_for_Gender_Equality_(Denmark)]]; Sweden has a [[Ministry of Integration and Gender Equality (Sweden)]], etc.
The United States have affirmative action. We should not fear controversy, or grumbling; our democratically elected governments don't let that stop them either. If the Wikipedia community cannot support something that is standard in democratic society, then we do have a problem with our demographics, and whatever problem we have will become readily apparent.
I wouldn't mind calling it a gender issues noticeboard. (That would be [[WP:GIN]] as opposed to [[WP:WIN]].)
Andreas