A study published in the journal New Ideas in Psychology, unfortunately behind a paywall, reviewed by Dr. NerdLove. [1]
Some highlights:
*"*So we’re not allowed to give women compliments? – *No, telling a woman how sexy she is isn’t a compliment, especially when you don’t have that level of intimacy with her."
*"One of the keys to what made someone creepy was the potential for ambiguity. The study’s authors suggest that because one’s creep-radar is keyed towards finding potential threats, the ambiguousness of somebody’s behavior could make people uncomfortable. After all, if you’re continually wondering if this person actually poses a threat to you, you’re left in a state of anxious paralysis; you’re continually on edge trying to determine just what the appropriate reaction to the situation is. Guessing wrong can have consequences, after all; misjudge a potential threat and now you’ve made yourself vulnerable to someone who means you harm."
*"One of the most common ways guys are creepy is by ignoring issues of boundaries and demonstrating that they have more information about somebody than they should." Example from Instagram: He: "So I take it you're staying at the Excalibur?" She: "Excuse me, do you not seriously realize how f*cking creepy it is for a stranger to message a woman out of the blue insinuating he knows where she is?"
*From the comments: "Someone who comes close to that line and manages not to cross it obviously knows where it is."
[1] http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2016/05/the-science-of-being-creepy/
It boils down to "people with aberrant behavior or bearing produce anxiety in women." This is drawn from a Facebook survey. It's interesting, even if the "study" doesn't really produce any more knowledge than most other Facebook surveys.
The link to the problem of addressing Wikipedia's gendergap seems tenuous; are you suggesting that Wikipedia editors display aberrant behavior which prospective female editors find creepy, making it less likely that they will contribute?
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
A study published in the journal New Ideas in Psychology, unfortunately behind a paywall, reviewed by Dr. NerdLove. [1]
Some highlights:
*"*So we’re not allowed to give women compliments? – *No, telling a woman how sexy she is isn’t a compliment, especially when you don’t have that level of intimacy with her."
*"One of the keys to what made someone creepy was the potential for ambiguity. The study’s authors suggest that because one’s creep-radar is keyed towards finding potential threats, the ambiguousness of somebody’s behavior could make people uncomfortable. After all, if you’re continually wondering if this person actually poses a threat to you, you’re left in a state of anxious paralysis; you’re continually on edge trying to determine just what the appropriate reaction to the situation is. Guessing wrong can have consequences, after all; misjudge a potential threat and now you’ve made yourself vulnerable to someone who means you harm."
*"One of the most common ways guys are creepy is by ignoring issues of boundaries and demonstrating that they have more information about somebody than they should." Example from Instagram: He: "So I take it you're staying at the Excalibur?" She: "Excuse me, do you not seriously realize how f*cking creepy it is for a stranger to message a woman out of the blue insinuating he knows where she is?"
*From the comments: "Someone who comes close to that line and manages not to cross it obviously knows where it is."
[1] http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2016/05/the-science-of-being-creepy/
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Other highlights:
From the list of "creepy" behavior
Laughing at inappropriate times
Talking too much about a topic
Displaying too much or too little emotion
Smiling peculiarly
Having excessively pale skin
Having bags under their eyes
and then
Here’s the thing: not being creepy *isn’t that hard*.
Many of the examples of creepy behavior listed in the Knox University
study could be avoided throughbasic social calibration http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2012/10/art-social-calibration/all/1/ and being aware of the other person’s signals.
Setting aside that a lot of Wikipedians don't have "basic social calibration", a lot of these behaviors are uncontrollable in general. If you're "suggesting that Wikipedia editors display aberrant behavior which prospective female editors find creepy, making it less likely that they will contribute?", as another has proposed, a lot (but not all) of these "creepy traits" that allegedly make women less likely to contribute are uncontrollable by those who have them. I need to stop smiling peculiarly? What does that mean? And if we want to attract women to Wikipedia by removing creepy people, does that mean I might get banned due to me talking "too much" about a certain topic? On May 10, 2016 12:25 PM, "Nathan" nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
It boils down to "people with aberrant behavior or bearing produce anxiety in women." This is drawn from a Facebook survey. It's interesting, even if the "study" doesn't really produce any more knowledge than most other Facebook surveys.
The link to the problem of addressing Wikipedia's gendergap seems tenuous; are you suggesting that Wikipedia editors display aberrant behavior which prospective female editors find creepy, making it less likely that they will contribute?
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
A study published in the journal New Ideas in Psychology, unfortunately behind a paywall, reviewed by Dr. NerdLove. [1]
Some highlights:
*"*So we’re not allowed to give women compliments? – *No, telling a woman how sexy she is isn’t a compliment, especially when you don’t have that level of intimacy with her."
*"One of the keys to what made someone creepy was the potential for ambiguity. The study’s authors suggest that because one’s creep-radar is keyed towards finding potential threats, the ambiguousness of somebody’s behavior could make people uncomfortable. After all, if you’re continually wondering if this person actually poses a threat to you, you’re left in a state of anxious paralysis; you’re continually on edge trying to determine just what the appropriate reaction to the situation is. Guessing wrong can have consequences, after all; misjudge a potential threat and now you’ve made yourself vulnerable to someone who means you harm."
*"One of the most common ways guys are creepy is by ignoring issues of boundaries and demonstrating that they have more information about somebody than they should." Example from Instagram: He: "So I take it you're staying at the Excalibur?" She: "Excuse me, do you not seriously realize how f*cking creepy it is for a stranger to message a woman out of the blue insinuating he knows where she is?"
*From the comments: "Someone who comes close to that line and manages not to cross it obviously knows where it is."
[1] http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2016/05/the-science-of-being-creepy/
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Knowing what these traits are, even if they are uncontrollable, may also be useful for educating others about them. If someone is creeped out by something and actually knows why it's creeping them out, it may be possible for them to realise that, oh, it's just blah, and not actually a threat. And if on-wiki we notice someone who might be put off by another user's behaviour, reaching out to them and explaining why that behaviour is happening (especially if it's fairly normal, which a lot of the things that may seem weird to outsiders often are) could do a lot to put them at ease.
Possibly.
-I
On 10/05/16 17:02, JJ Marr wrote:
Other highlights:
From the list of "creepy" behavior
Laughing at inappropriate times
Talking too much about a topic
Displaying too much or too little emotion
Smiling peculiarly
Having excessively pale skin
Having bags under their eyes
and then
Here’s the thing: not being creepy /isn’t that hard/.
Many of the examples of creepy behavior listed in the Knox University
study could be avoided throughbasic social calibration http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2012/10/art-social-calibration/all/1/ and being aware of the other person’s signals.
Setting aside that a lot of Wikipedians don't have "basic social calibration", a lot of these behaviors are uncontrollable in general. If you're "suggesting that Wikipedia editors display aberrant behavior which prospective female editors find creepy, making it less likely that they will contribute?", as another has proposed, a lot (but not all) of these "creepy traits" that allegedly make women less likely to contribute are uncontrollable by those who have them. I need to stop smiling peculiarly? What does that mean? And if we want to attract women to Wikipedia by removing creepy people, does that mean I might get banned due to me talking "too much" about a certain topic?
On May 10, 2016 12:25 PM, "Nathan" <nawrich@gmail.com mailto:nawrich@gmail.com> wrote:
It boils down to "people with aberrant behavior or bearing produce anxiety in women." This is drawn from a Facebook survey. It's interesting, even if the "study" doesn't really produce any more knowledge than most other Facebook surveys. The link to the problem of addressing Wikipedia's gendergap seems tenuous; are you suggesting that Wikipedia editors display aberrant behavior which prospective female editors find creepy, making it less likely that they will contribute? On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Neotarf <neotarf@gmail.com <mailto:neotarf@gmail.com>> wrote: A study published in the journal New Ideas in Psychology, unfortunately behind a paywall, reviewed by Dr. NerdLove. [1] Some highlights: *"*So we’re not allowed to give women compliments? – *No, telling a woman how sexy she is isn’t a compliment, especially when you don’t have that level of intimacy with her." *"One of the keys to what made someone creepy was the potential for ambiguity. The study’s authors suggest that because one’s creep-radar is keyed towards finding potential threats, the ambiguousness of somebody’s behavior could make people uncomfortable. After all, if you’re continually wondering if this person actually poses a threat to you, you’re left in a state of anxious paralysis; you’re continually on edge trying to determine just what the appropriate reaction to the situation is. Guessing wrong can have consequences, after all; misjudge a potential threat and now you’ve made yourself vulnerable to someone who means you harm." *"One of the most common ways guys are creepy is by ignoring issues of boundaries and demonstrating that they have more information about somebody than they should." Example from Instagram: He: "So I take it you're staying at the Excalibur?" She: "Excuse me, do you not seriously realize how f*cking creepy it is for a stranger to message a woman out of the blue insinuating he knows where she is?" *From the comments: "Someone who comes close to that line and manages not to cross it obviously knows where it is." [1] http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2016/05/the-science-of-being-creepy/ _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I'm not quite sure how to answer JJ Marr and Nathan, but if you watched the Berkman panel I posted about earlier [1], the conclusion of the WMF harassment survey is that the effect of harassment on women in Wikipedia, is that they leave.
And not to beat around the bush, for those who are not going to read the piece, the "certain topic" is sex, sex, and sex:
"...behaviors that were seen as being sexual or having a sexual edge to them were far more likely to be creepy than more innocuous ones. Women, especially, noted that behaviors like unwanted sexual advances, constantly turning the conversation towards sex, requests for photos, dates and invading their personal space were signs that a person was creepy."
So this goes back to defining harassment. How do you tell the difference between someone who genuinely does not want to appear creepy, as in the hotel example, and someone who is deliberately skirting the boundaries, in order to harass people while flying under the radar.
There is a long history of defining harassment and "hostile work environment" in employment situations. For in-person interactions, there is a whole set of non-verbal signals that tell you when to back slowly away, the "odd smile" for example. But obviously in online communications, you are not going to be able to see how someone smiles. Harassment on the internet is something new, the old HR harassment definitions can't just be copy-pasted.
And how far can you go in telling someone they have to adjust to something that creeps them out? On enwiki, we have seen women advised to "keep a low profile" if they don't want to be photoshopped onto porn. So the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is now "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit as long as they don't mind potential employers finding non-consensual pornographic images of them on the internet". Paradoxically, the WMF has gone the opposite direction from arbcom, particularly in their recent safe space event policy, although the means of enforcement are not very evident.
[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2016-April/006300.html
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:
Knowing what these traits are, even if they are uncontrollable, may also be useful for educating others about them. If someone is creeped out by something and actually knows why it's creeping them out, it may be possible for them to realise that, oh, it's just blah, and not actually a threat. And if on-wiki we notice someone who might be put off by another user's behaviour, reaching out to them and explaining why that behaviour is happening (especially if it's fairly normal, which a lot of the things that may seem weird to outsiders often are) could do a lot to put them at ease.
Possibly.
-I
On 10/05/16 17:02, JJ Marr wrote:
Other highlights:
From the list of "creepy" behavior
Laughing at inappropriate times
Talking too much about a topic
Displaying too much or too little emotion
Smiling peculiarly
Having excessively pale skin
Having bags under their eyes
and then
Here’s the thing: not being creepy *isn’t that hard*.
Many of the examples of creepy behavior listed in the Knox University
study could be avoided throughbasic social calibration http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2012/10/art-social-calibration/all/1/ and being aware of the other person’s signals.
Setting aside that a lot of Wikipedians don't have "basic social calibration", a lot of these behaviors are uncontrollable in general. If you're "suggesting that Wikipedia editors display aberrant behavior which prospective female editors find creepy, making it less likely that they will contribute?", as another has proposed, a lot (but not all) of these "creepy traits" that allegedly make women less likely to contribute are uncontrollable by those who have them. I need to stop smiling peculiarly? What does that mean? And if we want to attract women to Wikipedia by removing creepy people, does that mean I might get banned due to me talking "too much" about a certain topic? On May 10, 2016 12:25 PM, "Nathan" < nawrich@gmail.comnawrich@gmail.com> wrote:
It boils down to "people with aberrant behavior or bearing produce anxiety in women." This is drawn from a Facebook survey. It's interesting, even if the "study" doesn't really produce any more knowledge than most other Facebook surveys.
The link to the problem of addressing Wikipedia's gendergap seems tenuous; are you suggesting that Wikipedia editors display aberrant behavior which prospective female editors find creepy, making it less likely that they will contribute?
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
A study published in the journal New Ideas in Psychology, unfortunately behind a paywall, reviewed by Dr. NerdLove. [1]
Some highlights:
*"*So we’re not allowed to give women compliments? – *No, telling a woman how sexy she is isn’t a compliment, especially when you don’t have that level of intimacy with her."
*"One of the keys to what made someone creepy was the potential for ambiguity. The study’s authors suggest that because one’s creep-radar is keyed towards finding potential threats, the ambiguousness of somebody’s behavior could make people uncomfortable. After all, if you’re continually wondering if this person actually poses a threat to you, you’re left in a state of anxious paralysis; you’re continually on edge trying to determine just what the appropriate reaction to the situation is. Guessing wrong can have consequences, after all; misjudge a potential threat and now you’ve made yourself vulnerable to someone who means you harm."
*"One of the most common ways guys are creepy is by ignoring issues of boundaries and demonstrating that they have more information about somebody than they should." Example from Instagram: He: "So I take it you're staying at the Excalibur?" She: "Excuse me, do you not seriously realize how f*cking creepy it is for a stranger to message a woman out of the blue insinuating he knows where she is?"
*From the comments: "Someone who comes close to that line and manages not to cross it obviously knows where it is."
[1] http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2016/05/the-science-of-being-creepy/
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
dare i say it... so one can see why a lot of women (and their male relatives) are nervous about any guy who SAYS he's really a woman getting into the bathrooms, fitting rooms, lock rooms, showers, shelters and prisons with us...
ALSO, on another note, I'm putting wikipedia links on a small pro-choice site today but had to describe them as (quasi-accurate) though perhaps (quasi-credible) would be more accurate.
Cause who knows what guys have run what women off of the articles and put some weird spin on them and I just don't have time to go through every article and talk page to figure it out...
On 5/12/2016 12:25 PM, Neotarf wrote:
I'm not quite sure how to answer JJ Marr and Nathan, but if you watched the Berkman panel I posted about earlier [1], the conclusion of the WMF harassment survey is that the effect of harassment on women in Wikipedia, is that they leave.
And not to beat around the bush, for those who are not going to read the piece, the "certain topic" is sex, sex, and sex:
"...behaviors that were seen as being sexual or having a sexual edge to them were far more likely to be creepy than more innocuous ones. Women, especially, noted that behaviors like unwanted sexual advances, constantly turning the conversation towards sex, requests for photos, dates and invading their personal space were signs that a person was creepy."
So this goes back to defining harassment. How do you tell the difference between someone who genuinely does not want to appear creepy, as in the hotel example, and someone who is deliberately skirting the boundaries, in order to harass people while flying under the radar.
There is a long history of defining harassment and "hostile work environment" in employment situations. For in-person interactions, there is a whole set of non-verbal signals that tell you when to back slowly away, the "odd smile" for example. But obviously in online communications, you are not going to be able to see how someone smiles. Harassment on the internet is something new, the old HR harassment definitions can't just be copy-pasted.
And how far can you go in telling someone they have to adjust to something that creeps them out? On enwiki, we have seen women advised to "keep a low profile" if they don't want to be photoshopped onto porn. So the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is now "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit as long as they don't mind potential employers finding non-consensual pornographic images of them on the internet". Paradoxically, the WMF has gone the opposite direction from arbcom, particularly in their recent safe space event policy, although the means of enforcement are not very evident.
[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2016-April/006300.html
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Isarra Yos <zhorishna@gmail.com mailto:zhorishna@gmail.com> wrote:
Knowing what these traits are, even if they are uncontrollable, may also be useful for educating others about them. If someone is creeped out by something and actually knows why it's creeping them out, it may be possible for them to realise that, oh, it's just blah, and not actually a threat. And if on-wiki we notice someone who might be put off by another user's behaviour, reaching out to them and explaining why that behaviour is happening (especially if it's fairly normal, which a lot of the things that may seem weird to outsiders often are) could do a lot to put them at ease. Possibly. -I On 10/05/16 17:02, JJ Marr wrote:Other highlights: From the list of "creepy" behavior >Laughing at inappropriate times >Talking too much about a topic >Displaying too much or too little emotion >Smiling peculiarly >Having excessively pale skin >Having bags under their eyes and then >Here’s the thing: not being creepy /isn’t that hard/. >Many of the examples of creepy behavior listed in the Knox University study could be avoided throughbasic social calibration <http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2012/10/art-social-calibration/all/1/> and being aware of the other person’s signals. Setting aside that a lot of Wikipedians don't have "basic social calibration", a lot of these behaviors are uncontrollable in general. If you're "suggesting that Wikipedia editors display aberrant behavior which prospective female editors find creepy, making it less likely that they will contribute?", as another has proposed, a lot (but not all) of these "creepy traits" that allegedly make women less likely to contribute are uncontrollable by those who have them. I need to stop smiling peculiarly? What does that mean? And if we want to attract women to Wikipedia by removing creepy people, does that mean I might get banned due to me talking "too much" about a certain topic? On May 10, 2016 12:25 PM, "Nathan" <<mailto:nawrich@gmail.com>nawrich@gmail.com <mailto:nawrich@gmail.com>> wrote: It boils down to "people with aberrant behavior or bearing produce anxiety in women." This is drawn from a Facebook survey. It's interesting, even if the "study" doesn't really produce any more knowledge than most other Facebook surveys. The link to the problem of addressing Wikipedia's gendergap seems tenuous; are you suggesting that Wikipedia editors display aberrant behavior which prospective female editors find creepy, making it less likely that they will contribute? On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Neotarf <neotarf@gmail.com <mailto:neotarf@gmail.com>> wrote: A study published in the journal New Ideas in Psychology, unfortunately behind a paywall, reviewed by Dr. NerdLove. [1] Some highlights: *"*So we’re not allowed to give women compliments? – *No, telling a woman how sexy she is isn’t a compliment, especially when you don’t have that level of intimacy with her." *"One of the keys to what made someone creepy was the potential for ambiguity. The study’s authors suggest that because one’s creep-radar is keyed towards finding potential threats, the ambiguousness of somebody’s behavior could make people uncomfortable. After all, if you’re continually wondering if this person actually poses a threat to you, you’re left in a state of anxious paralysis; you’re continually on edge trying to determine just what the appropriate reaction to the situation is. Guessing wrong can have consequences, after all; misjudge a potential threat and now you’ve made yourself vulnerable to someone who means you harm." *"One of the most common ways guys are creepy is by ignoring issues of boundaries and demonstrating that they have more information about somebody than they should." Example from Instagram: He: "So I take it you're staying at the Excalibur?" She: "Excuse me, do you not seriously realize how f*cking creepy it is for a stranger to message a woman out of the blue insinuating he knows where she is?" *From the comments: "Someone who comes close to that line and manages not to cross it obviously knows where it is." [1] http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2016/05/the-science-of-being-creepy/ _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
@Carolmooredc, I don't see how that would be either an online harassment issue or a Wikipedia issue, since on the internet, no one knows when you're in the toilet. Events likewise would be in the hands of the event sponsor, although I did hear of one event where a man was accompanied into the ladies room by a staff member in order to change a baby diaper, as the men's room did not have the right facilities.
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
dare i say it... so one can see why a lot of women (and their male relatives) are nervous about any guy who SAYS he's really a woman getting into the bathrooms, fitting rooms, lock rooms, showers, shelters and prisons with us...
A known woman discussing any issue in real life anywhere at all may turn into an online harassment issue.
Shall I dig up 20 or 30 links to women who've been harassed online by creepy guys because they discussed or disagreed with guys on ANY issue in real life, be it men in bathrooms, or violent video games played in living rooms, or some sexual harassment or assault that happened to them or a friend in real life?
On 5/12/2016 1:57 PM, Neotarf wrote:
@Carolmooredc, I don't see how that would be either an online harassment issue or a Wikipedia issue, since on the internet, no one knows when you're in the toilet. Events likewise would be in the hands of the event sponsor, although I did hear of one event where a man was accompanied into the ladies room by a staff member in order to change a baby diaper, as the men's room did not have the right facilities.
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Carol Moore dc <carolmooredc@verizon.net mailto:carolmooredc@verizon.net> wrote:
dare i say it... so one can see why a lot of women (and their male relatives) are nervous about any guy who SAYS he's really a woman getting into the bathrooms, fitting rooms, lock rooms, showers, shelters and prisons with us...
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not quite sure how to answer JJ Marr and Nathan, but if you watched the Berkman panel I posted about earlier [1], the conclusion of the WMF harassment survey is that the effect of harassment on women in Wikipedia, is that they leave.
And not to beat around the bush, for those who are not going to read the piece, the "certain topic" is sex, sex, and sex:
"...behaviors that were seen as being sexual or having a sexual edge to them were far more likely to be creepy than more innocuous ones. Women, especially, noted that behaviors like unwanted sexual advances, constantly turning the conversation towards sex, requests for photos, dates and invading their personal space were signs that a person was creepy."
So this goes back to defining harassment. How do you tell the difference between someone who genuinely does not want to appear creepy, as in the hotel example, and someone who is deliberately skirting the boundaries, in order to harass people while flying under the radar.
There is a long history of defining harassment and "hostile work environment" in employment situations. For in-person interactions, there is a whole set of non-verbal signals that tell you when to back slowly away, the "odd smile" for example. But obviously in online communications, you are not going to be able to see how someone smiles. Harassment on the internet is something new, the old HR harassment definitions can't just be copy-pasted.
And how far can you go in telling someone they have to adjust to something that creeps them out? On enwiki, we have seen women advised to "keep a low profile" if they don't want to be photoshopped onto porn. So the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is now "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit as long as they don't mind potential employers finding non-consensual pornographic images of them on the internet". Paradoxically, the WMF has gone the opposite direction from arbcom, particularly in their recent safe space event policy, although the means of enforcement are not very evident.
Interestingly the WMF harassment survey didn't specifically call out sexual harassment as a type. Male and female respondents reported roughly similar levels of harassment experienced, although those who responded as "other gender" experienced significantly higher rates. Of the examples of harassment given, many (when they occur on-wiki) are of the "block on sight" type - assuming they are reported. Many were also not overtly sexual in nature, although some call out gender in a way that might not qualify as sexual harassment per se (one example is "Die CIS Scum!"). If harassment is indeed a significant factor in the gender gap - and I don't think that has been established - its not clear what strategies could result in real progress in preventing harassment or ameliorating its effects.