I'm happy to announce that a new Wikimedia LGBT mailing list has been setup. For the time being, it is being hosted on lists.wikiqueer.org.
http://lists.wikiqueer.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lgbt
The list is for discussion of possible future LGBT outreach and partnership work, increasing the coverage of LGBT history, issues and culture, and any other issues that specifically affect LGBT editors.
You don't have to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to join.
Hi Tom,
thanks, why has the name been limited to LGBT? in my opinion (and I see this nicely done in Spanish-speaking communities) we need LGBTIQ which means: plus intersexual plus queer
cheers Claudia
On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 22:30:02 +0100, Tom Morris wrote
I'm happy to announce that a new Wikimedia LGBT mailing list has been setup. For the time being, it is being hosted on lists.wikiqueer.org.
http://lists.wikiqueer.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lgbt
The list is for discussion of possible future LGBT outreach and partnership work, increasing the coverage of LGBT history, issues and culture, and any other issues that specifically affect LGBT editors.
You don't have to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to join.
-- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
thanks & cheers, Claudia koltzenburg@w4w.net
'Queer' fits quite nicely under the 'G' part, and I always despair a little when I see the 'I' and 'T' lumped in with the 'L', 'G' and 'B' as if they're the same thing.
Basically, with this alphabet soup, you're going to offend someone always no matter what you do.
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 8:05 AM, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
Hi Tom,
thanks, why has the name been limited to LGBT? in my opinion (and I see this nicely done in Spanish-speaking communities) we need LGBTIQ which means: plus intersexual plus queer
cheers Claudia
On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 22:30:02 +0100, Tom Morris wrote
I'm happy to announce that a new Wikimedia LGBT mailing list has been setup. For the time being, it is being hosted on lists.wikiqueer.org.
http://lists.wikiqueer.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lgbt
The list is for discussion of possible future LGBT outreach and partnership work, increasing the coverage of LGBT history, issues and culture, and any other issues that specifically affect LGBT editors.
You don't have to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to join.
-- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
thanks & cheers, Claudia koltzenburg@w4w.net
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
ah, thanks, Michelle,
so it seems you and me see different gaps in different places :-) interesting, let's see what might emerge in contributions by others: everyone sees different gender gaps, I guess,
so where is the gap for you @all? and where the possible bridges?
thanks Claudia
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 18:33:52 +1000, Michelle Gallaway wrote
'Queer' fits quite nicely under the 'G' part, and I always despair a little when I see the 'I' and 'T' lumped in with the 'L', 'G' and 'B' as if they're the same thing.
Basically, with this alphabet soup, you're going to offend someone always no matter what you do.
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 8:05 AM, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
Hi Tom,
thanks, why has the name been limited to LGBT? in my opinion (and I see this nicely done in Spanish-speaking communities) we need LGBTIQ which means: plus intersexual plus queer
cheers Claudia
On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 22:30:02 +0100, Tom Morris wrote
I'm happy to announce that a new Wikimedia LGBT mailing list has been setup. For the time being, it is being hosted on lists.wikiqueer.org.
http://lists.wikiqueer.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lgbt
The list is for discussion of possible future LGBT outreach and partnership work, increasing the coverage of LGBT history, issues and culture, and any other issues that specifically affect LGBT editors.
You don't have to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to join.
-- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
thanks & cheers, Claudia koltzenburg@w4w.net
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
thanks & cheers, Claudia koltzenburg@w4w.net
On Sunday, 1 July 2012 at 22:30, Tom Morris wrote:
I'm happy to announce that a new Wikimedia LGBT mailing list has been setup. For the time being, it is being hosted on lists.wikiqueer.org (http://lists.wikiqueer.org).
http://lists.wikiqueer.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lgbt
The list is for discussion of possible future LGBT outreach and partnership work, increasing the coverage of LGBT history, issues and culture, and any other issues that specifically affect LGBT editors.
You don't have to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to join.
A barely discernible amount of time after Gregory launched it on the WikiQueer servers, Wikimedia have decided to allow the list to be created on lists.wikimedia.org instead.
Please feel free to join here instead:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/lgbt
Sorry about the confusion.
Hi Tom, hi @all
Wikimedia have decided to allow the list to be created
since we are addressing not only one gender gap but, seemingly quite a few, including those that come alonf the lines of what has come to be called sexual orientarion, I have a question about the creation process of the new list. I recently heard elsewhere that
it was difficult to bring WF to "allow" the list to be created in the frame of lists.wikimedia.org? how come?
thanks Claudia
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 00:09:19 +0100, Tom Morris wrote
On Sunday, 1 July 2012 at 22:30, Tom Morris wrote:
I'm happy to announce that a new Wikimedia LGBT mailing list has been setup. For the time being, it is
being hosted on lists.wikiqueer.org (http://lists.wikiqueer.org).
http://lists.wikiqueer.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lgbt
The list is for discussion of possible future LGBT outreach and partnership work, increasing the coverage
of LGBT history, issues and culture, and any other issues that specifically affect LGBT editors.
You don't have to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to join.
A barely discernible amount of time after Gregory launched it on the WikiQueer servers, Wikimedia have decided to allow the list to be created on lists.wikimedia.org instead.
Please feel free to join here instead:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/lgbt
Sorry about the confusion.
-- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
thanks & cheers, Claudia koltzenburg@w4w.net
On Monday, 2 July 2012 at 06:24, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
Hi Tom, hi @all
Wikimedia have decided to allow the list to be created
since we are addressing not only one gender gap but, seemingly quite a few, including those that come alonf the lines of what has come to be called sexual orientarion, I have a question about the creation process of the new list. I recently heard elsewhere that
it was difficult to bring WF to "allow" the list to be created in the frame of lists.wikimedia.org (http://lists.wikimedia.org)? how come?
You can see the discussion that led to the creation of the mailing list here: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37888
I disagreed rather strongly with the suggestion made that two of the proposed list administrators (Varnent and Fae) would have a "POV"*, but agreed to be a list admin instead.
Eventually, there was not really any "difficulty", just confusion and miscommunication. All's well that ends well.
I'm not sure I agree that LGBT is another gender gap. The point of the list isn't that it's dealing with a clear need to increase participation like gendergap is. It's based on two things: dealing with problematic editor interaction issues if and when they occur and trying to increase outreach to LGBT communities and organisations – sort of like GLAM: there are historical and cultural organisations Wikimedians can work with to counter systemic bias etc. (As with women's history, LGBT history is often written out of the literature, and thus out of Wikipedia.)
There's obviously some overlap given that gender, gender identity and sexual orientation are all bound together, but I wouldn't otherwise want to draw comparisons with what gendergap is doing and what the LGBT list is doing.
* To quote Lady Gaga: if I have a POV or a COI, I was born that way.
-- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:47:58 +0100, Tom Morris wrote
I'm not sure I agree that LGBT is another gender gap.
my impression is that there certainly are gender gaps in LGBTIQA* communities - if ever non-heterosexual people are happy to be lumped together just because of not identifying non-heterosexual, that is ... -
irrespective of whether we define "gender" in two (female / male) or in many (like in LGBTIQA*, with * including heterosexuals of whatever gender)
and also, yes, I also think that there is a widespread gender gap between non-heterosexuals and heterosexuals, "widespread" meaning: in many cultures (and that bisexuals are the freest and hence could act as the bridge-builders for such a gender gap in a very nice way, it seems to me)
The point of the
[LGBT]
list isn't that it's dealing with a clear need to increase participation like gendergap is.
why is this not intended, Tom? see also the following:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 11:35:21 +0700, John Vandenberg wrote
I agree, mostly, but. . my understanding is that the surveys (ignoring the faults in them) indicate LGBT may actually be over-represented in wikimedia when compared to the distribution expected by real-world population studies; in both men and women. Im not saying this is bad, but that it does not appear that there is a LGBT systemic gap that needs a strategic approach to solving.
maybe there is another methodological issue here? why would you want to ignore the faults in wikimedia surveys but not in outcomes of any study that purports to "verify" (or whatever) "the distribution expected by real-world population studies"?
how can anyone who is doing "real-world population studies" expect to find out anything reliable about the size of a community who members are still facing systematic social and political attempts at silencing (about their way of life) by their adversaries of whatever inclination?
maybe, hence, it would be more realistic to compare non-real-world results to the wikimedia results? hypothesis: "over-represented" would start with 51% LGBTIQA* but not below :-)
anyway, I am not sure I agree with Tom's list of differences between the [gendergap] and [LGBT] lists and will come back to this later since I think it is more important to see what these two lists have in common :-) so I like John's argument that we might learn from each other!
cheers Claudia
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:47:58 +0100, Tom Morris wrote
On Monday, 2 July 2012 at 06:24, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
Hi Tom, hi @all
Wikimedia have decided to allow the list to be created
since we are addressing not only one gender gap but, seemingly quite a few, including those that come
alonf
the lines of what has come to be called sexual orientarion, I have a question about the creation process
of
the new list. I recently heard elsewhere that
it was difficult to bring WF to "allow" the list to be created in the frame of lists.wikimedia.org
how come?
You can see the discussion that led to the creation of the mailing list here: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37888
I disagreed rather strongly with the suggestion made that two of the proposed list administrators (Varnent and Fae) would have a "POV"*, but agreed to be a list admin instead.
Eventually, there was not really any "difficulty", just confusion and miscommunication. All's well that ends well.
I'm not sure I agree that LGBT is another gender gap. The point of the list isn't that it's dealing with a clear need to increase participation like gendergap is. It's based on two things: dealing with problematic editor interaction issues if and when they occur and trying to increase outreach to LGBT communities and organisations – sort of like GLAM: there are historical and cultural organisations Wikimedians can work with to counter systemic bias etc. (As with women's history, LGBT history is often written out of the literature, and thus out of Wikipedia.)
There's obviously some overlap given that gender, gender identity and sexual orientation are all bound together, but I wouldn't otherwise want to draw comparisons with what gendergap is doing and what the LGBT list is doing.
- To quote Lady Gaga: if I have a POV or a COI, I was born that way.
-- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
thanks & cheers, Claudia koltzenburg@w4w.net
Hi Claudia. There are good numbers for LGBT in real world populations, and the people doing the studies are all to aware of the problems with their numbers - there are journals dedicated to research in this discipline. i havent seen similar quality academic studies about LGBT within the wikimedia community - these studies tend to be very simplistic due to lack if understanding or inadequate funding, and/or riddled with bias without explanation. On Jul 6, 2012 1:11 PM, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:47:58 +0100, Tom Morris wrote
I'm not sure I agree that LGBT is another gender gap.
my impression is that there certainly are gender gaps in LGBTIQA* communities - if ever non-heterosexual people are happy to be lumped together just because of not identifying non-heterosexual, that is ... -
irrespective of whether we define "gender" in two (female / male) or in many (like in LGBTIQA*, with * including heterosexuals of whatever gender)
and also, yes, I also think that there is a widespread gender gap between non-heterosexuals and heterosexuals, "widespread" meaning: in many cultures (and that bisexuals are the freest and hence could act as the bridge-builders for such a gender gap in a very nice way, it seems to me)
The point of the
[LGBT]
list isn't that it's dealing with a clear need to increase participation like gendergap is.
why is this not intended, Tom? see also the following:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 11:35:21 +0700, John Vandenberg wrote
I agree, mostly, but. . my understanding is that the surveys (ignoring
the
faults in them) indicate LGBT may actually be over-represented in
wikimedia
when compared to the distribution expected by real-world population studies; in both men and women. Im not saying this is bad, but that it does not appear that there is a LGBT systemic gap that needs a strategic approach to solving.
maybe there is another methodological issue here? why would you want to ignore the faults in wikimedia surveys but not in outcomes of any study that purports to "verify" (or whatever) "the distribution expected by real-world population studies"?
how can anyone who is doing "real-world population studies" expect to find out anything reliable about the size of a community who members are still facing systematic social and political attempts at silencing (about their way of life) by their adversaries of whatever inclination?
maybe, hence, it would be more realistic to compare non-real-world results to the wikimedia results? hypothesis: "over-represented" would start with 51% LGBTIQA* but not below :-)
anyway, I am not sure I agree with Tom's list of differences between the [gendergap] and [LGBT] lists and will come back to this later since I think it is more important to see what these two lists have in common :-) so I like John's argument that we might learn from each other!
cheers Claudia
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:47:58 +0100, Tom Morris wrote
On Monday, 2 July 2012 at 06:24, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
Hi Tom, hi @all
Wikimedia have decided to allow the list to be created
since we are addressing not only one gender gap but, seemingly quite a
few, including those that come alonf
the lines of what has come to be called sexual orientarion, I have a
question about the creation process of
the new list. I recently heard elsewhere that
it was difficult to bring WF to "allow" the list to be created in the
frame of lists.wikimedia.org (http://lists.wikimedia.org)?
how come?
You can see the discussion that led to the creation of the mailing list
here:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37888
I disagreed rather strongly with the suggestion made that two of the proposed list administrators (Varnent and Fae) would have a "POV"*, but agreed to be a list admin instead.
Eventually, there was not really any "difficulty", just confusion and miscommunication. All's well that ends well.
I'm not sure I agree that LGBT is another gender gap. The point of the list isn't that it's dealing with a clear need to increase participation like gendergap is. It's based on two things: dealing with problematic editor interaction issues if and when they occur and trying to increase outreach to LGBT communities and organisations – sort of like GLAM: there are historical and cultural organisations Wikimedians can work with to counter systemic bias etc. (As with women's history, LGBT history is often written out of the literature, and thus out of Wikipedia.)
There's obviously some overlap given that gender, gender identity and sexual orientation are all bound together, but I wouldn't otherwise want to draw comparisons with what gendergap is doing and what the LGBT list
is
doing.
- To quote Lady Gaga: if I have a POV or a COI, I was born that way.
-- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
thanks & cheers, Claudia koltzenburg@w4w.net
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Hi John
havent seen similar quality academic studies about LGBT within the wikimedia community - these studies tend to be very simplistic due to lack if understanding or inadequate funding, and/or riddled with bias without explanation.
so here we can definitely point to a common concern (re the list focus of both gendergap and lgbt): see e.g. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2012-June/002905.html and earlier ones in the same thread
John / @all: do you have any suggestion as to what do about this?
cheers Claudia
On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 13:28:18 +0700, John Vandenberg wrote
Hi Claudia. There are good numbers for LGBT in real world populations, and the people doing the studies are all to aware of the problems with their numbers - there are journals dedicated to research in this discipline. i havent seen similar quality academic studies about LGBT within the wikimedia community - these studies tend to be very simplistic due to lack if understanding or inadequate funding, and/or riddled with bias without explanation. On Jul 6, 2012 1:11 PM, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:47:58 +0100, Tom Morris wrote
I'm not sure I agree that LGBT is another gender gap.
my impression is that there certainly are gender gaps in LGBTIQA* communities - if ever non-heterosexual people are happy to be lumped together just because of not identifying non-heterosexual, that is ... -
irrespective of whether we define "gender" in two (female / male) or in many (like in LGBTIQA*, with * including heterosexuals of whatever gender)
and also, yes, I also think that there is a widespread gender gap between non-heterosexuals and heterosexuals, "widespread" meaning: in many cultures (and that bisexuals are the freest and hence could act as the bridge-builders for such a gender gap in a very nice way, it seems to me)
The point of the
[LGBT]
list isn't that it's dealing with a clear need to increase participation like gendergap is.
why is this not intended, Tom? see also the following:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 11:35:21 +0700, John Vandenberg wrote
I agree, mostly, but. . my understanding is that the surveys (ignoring
the
faults in them) indicate LGBT may actually be over-represented in
wikimedia
when compared to the distribution expected by real-world population studies; in both men and women. Im not saying this is bad, but that it does not appear that there is a LGBT systemic gap that needs a strategic approach to solving.
maybe there is another methodological issue here? why would you want to ignore the faults in wikimedia surveys but not in outcomes of any study that purports to "verify" (or whatever) "the distribution expected by real-world population studies"?
how can anyone who is doing "real-world population studies" expect to find out anything reliable about the size of a community who members are still facing systematic social and political attempts at silencing (about their way of life) by their adversaries of whatever inclination?
maybe, hence, it would be more realistic to compare non-real-world results to the wikimedia results? hypothesis: "over-represented" would start with 51% LGBTIQA* but not below :-)
anyway, I am not sure I agree with Tom's list of differences between the [gendergap] and [LGBT] lists and will come back to this later since I think it is more important to see what these two lists have in common :-) so I like John's argument that we might learn from each other!
cheers Claudia
[...]
WMF could put up funding for research to be done by experts. On Jul 6, 2012 2:06 PM, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
Hi John
havent seen similar quality academic studies about LGBT within the wikimedia community - these studies tend to be very simplistic due to lack if understanding or inadequate funding, and/or riddled with bias without explanation.
so here we can definitely point to a common concern (re the list focus of both gendergap and lgbt): see e.g. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2012-June/002905.html and earlier ones in the same thread
John / @all: do you have any suggestion as to what do about this?
cheers Claudia
On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 13:28:18 +0700, John Vandenberg wrote
Hi Claudia. There are good numbers for LGBT in real world populations,
and
the people doing the studies are all to aware of the problems with their numbers - there are journals dedicated to research in this discipline. i havent seen similar quality academic studies about LGBT within the wikimedia community - these studies tend to be very simplistic due to
lack
if understanding or inadequate funding, and/or riddled with bias without explanation. On Jul 6, 2012 1:11 PM, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:47:58 +0100, Tom Morris wrote
I'm not sure I agree that LGBT is another gender gap.
my impression is that there certainly are gender gaps in LGBTIQA* communities - if ever non-heterosexual people are happy to be lumped together just because of not identifying non-heterosexual, that is ... -
irrespective of whether we define "gender" in two (female / male) or in many (like in LGBTIQA*, with * including heterosexuals of whatever gender)
and also, yes, I also think that there is a widespread gender gap
between
non-heterosexuals and heterosexuals, "widespread" meaning: in many cultures (and that
bisexuals
are the freest and hence could act as the bridge-builders for such a gender gap in a very nice way, it seems to me)
The point of the
[LGBT]
list isn't that it's dealing with a clear need to increase
participation
like gendergap is.
why is this not intended, Tom? see also the following:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 11:35:21 +0700, John Vandenberg wrote
I agree, mostly, but. . my understanding is that the surveys
(ignoring
the
faults in them) indicate LGBT may actually be over-represented in
wikimedia
when compared to the distribution expected by real-world population studies; in both men and women. Im not saying this is bad, but that
it
does not appear that there is a LGBT systemic gap that needs a
strategic
approach to solving.
maybe there is another methodological issue here? why would you want to ignore the faults in wikimedia surveys but not in outcomes of any study that purports to "verify" (or whatever) "the distribution expected by real-world population studies"?
how can anyone who is doing "real-world population studies" expect to
find
out anything reliable about the size of a community who members are still facing systematic social and political attempts at silencing (about their way of life) by their adversaries of whatever inclination?
maybe, hence, it would be more realistic to compare non-real-world
results
to the wikimedia results? hypothesis: "over-represented" would start with 51% LGBTIQA* but not
below
:-)
anyway, I am not sure I agree with Tom's list of differences between
the
[gendergap] and [LGBT] lists and will come back to this later since I think it is more important to see what these two lists have in common :-) so I like John's argument that we might learn from each other!
cheers Claudia
[...]
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Shouldn't this discussion be taking place *on* the LGBT list? ;-)
Sarah
Sent via iPhone - I apologize in advance for my shortness or errors! :)
On Jul 6, 2012, at 1:09 AM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
WMF could put up funding for research to be done by experts.
On Jul 6, 2012 2:06 PM, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote: Hi John
havent seen similar quality academic studies about LGBT within the wikimedia community - these studies tend to be very simplistic due to lack if understanding or inadequate funding, and/or riddled with bias without explanation.
so here we can definitely point to a common concern (re the list focus of both gendergap and lgbt): see e.g. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2012-June/002905.html and earlier ones in the same thread
John / @all: do you have any suggestion as to what do about this?
cheers Claudia
On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 13:28:18 +0700, John Vandenberg wrote
Hi Claudia. There are good numbers for LGBT in real world populations, and the people doing the studies are all to aware of the problems with their numbers - there are journals dedicated to research in this discipline. i havent seen similar quality academic studies about LGBT within the wikimedia community - these studies tend to be very simplistic due to lack if understanding or inadequate funding, and/or riddled with bias without explanation. On Jul 6, 2012 1:11 PM, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:47:58 +0100, Tom Morris wrote
I'm not sure I agree that LGBT is another gender gap.
my impression is that there certainly are gender gaps in LGBTIQA* communities - if ever non-heterosexual people are happy to be lumped together just because of not identifying non-heterosexual, that is ... -
irrespective of whether we define "gender" in two (female / male) or in many (like in LGBTIQA*, with * including heterosexuals of whatever gender)
and also, yes, I also think that there is a widespread gender gap between non-heterosexuals and heterosexuals, "widespread" meaning: in many cultures (and that bisexuals are the freest and hence could act as the bridge-builders for such a gender gap in a very nice way, it seems to me)
The point of the
[LGBT]
list isn't that it's dealing with a clear need to increase participation like gendergap is.
why is this not intended, Tom? see also the following:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 11:35:21 +0700, John Vandenberg wrote
I agree, mostly, but. . my understanding is that the surveys (ignoring
the
faults in them) indicate LGBT may actually be over-represented in
wikimedia
when compared to the distribution expected by real-world population studies; in both men and women. Im not saying this is bad, but that it does not appear that there is a LGBT systemic gap that needs a strategic approach to solving.
maybe there is another methodological issue here? why would you want to ignore the faults in wikimedia surveys but not in outcomes of any study that purports to "verify" (or whatever) "the distribution expected by real-world population studies"?
how can anyone who is doing "real-world population studies" expect to find out anything reliable about the size of a community who members are still facing systematic social and political attempts at silencing (about their way of life) by their adversaries of whatever inclination?
maybe, hence, it would be more realistic to compare non-real-world results to the wikimedia results? hypothesis: "over-represented" would start with 51% LGBTIQA* but not below :-)
anyway, I am not sure I agree with Tom's list of differences between the [gendergap] and [LGBT] lists and will come back to this later since I think it is more important to see what these two lists have in common :-) so I like John's argument that we might learn from each other!
cheers Claudia
[...]
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Friday, 6 July 2012 at 07:11, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:47:58 +0100, Tom Morris wrote
I'm not sure I agree that LGBT is another gender gap.
my impression is that there certainly are gender gaps in LGBTIQA* communities - if ever non-heterosexual people are happy to be lumped together just because of not identifying non-heterosexual, that is ... -
There may be gender gaps in LGBT communities, but that's not the issue at Wikimedia. This list is about what we can do on Wikimedia regarding LGBT issues: outreach, support and editor assistance.
As I have pointed out on gender gap, there isn't an "LGBT gap". It's not that we need more LGBT-identifying people to make up the numbers or to avoid some kind of heterosexist systemic bias. There's a gender gap within the LGBT wiki community, sure: in the #wikimedia-lgbt IRC channel, it tends to be dominated by a few men. On some areas of the wikis, non-male LGBT voices don't get heard for any number of reasons.
There are currently issues related to BLP, related to editor behaviour and civility: the way that Wikipedia handles transgender people's identities, transitions and so on that offends and annoys many transgender people. Personally, I think this is mostly down to ignorance. Take Lana Wachowski, formerly Larry Wachowski, one of the creators of The Matrix. The average person who is likely to want to write about The Matrix on Wikipedia probably doesn't spend a lot of time thinking about issues faced by transgender people or how to sensitively and maturely handle LGBT-related issues. To them, whether they are described on-wiki as Larry or as Lana doesn't matter too much compared to when the next movie comes out.
English Wikipedia's handling of BLP policy can often be very hasty and writes off any claim about sexual orientation as "irrelevant", and a crowd of "BLP warriors" often seem to think that anyone who attempts to say that a person is LGBT is 'defaming' them. English Wikipedia is sometimes behind the curve in switching over to using a transgender person's preferred name and pronouns. And finally some LGBT editors have reported problems of harassment and homophobia.
Those are the issues specific to LGBT as I see them.
The flip side is that a lot of people on-wiki who aren't LGBT see us as essentially "single-issue voters". That we are here to bang on about whether some celebrity is gay or not and probably infringe BLP while doing so. There have been LGBT-focussed editors in the past who have been disruptive and difficult to work with. There is some community mistrust here to overcome.
My personal interest is to work productively on outreach and editing, and handling issues maturely and calmly rather than this list becoming a social justice talking shop. Having a long and intricate argument about whether, say, asexuals are members of the LGBT community or whether to use the term "LGBT" (or an extended version thereof) or "queer" (although I have my opinions) and whether they get to join the club is far less way to spend one's time than actually improving and expanding what we cover on the wiki.
Just to clarify, Phillipe expressed concern that there were only 4 people listed as potential participants. The main objection was from MZMcBride (who is not associated with the WMF), who expressed concern that the list would be used for POV-pushing. Subsequently, Sébastien Santoro and two WMF staff members offered to help moderate the list to insure it would be neutral, and Varnent clarified that there were several other people interested in the list. Phillipe withdrew his objection and the list was created forthwith. Of course since this all transpired over Bugzilla, it took a week to play out, which is longer than normal, but I'm not sure it's fair to say that it was "difficult to bring WF to allow the list to be created".
Ryan Kaldari
On 7/1/12 10:24 PM, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
Hi Tom, hi @all
Wikimedia have decided to allow the list to be created
since we are addressing not only one gender gap but, seemingly quite a few, including those that come alonf the lines of what has come to be called sexual orientarion, I have a question about the creation process of the new list. I recently heard elsewhere that
it was difficult to bring WF to "allow" the list to be created in the frame of lists.wikimedia.org? how come?
thanks Claudia
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 00:09:19 +0100, Tom Morris wrote
On Sunday, 1 July 2012 at 22:30, Tom Morris wrote:
I'm happy to announce that a new Wikimedia LGBT mailing list has been setup. For the time being, it is
being hosted on lists.wikiqueer.org (http://lists.wikiqueer.org).
http://lists.wikiqueer.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lgbt
The list is for discussion of possible future LGBT outreach and partnership work, increasing the coverage
of LGBT history, issues and culture, and any other issues that specifically affect LGBT editors.
You don't have to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to join.
A barely discernible amount of time after Gregory launched it on the WikiQueer servers, Wikimedia have decided to allow the list to be created on lists.wikimedia.org instead.
Please feel free to join here instead:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/lgbt
Sorry about the confusion.
-- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
thanks & cheers, Claudia koltzenburg@w4w.net
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
thanks, Ryan
so this seems clear now: there may be different kinds of difficulties in a list creation process and all of these are now solved as regards the new lgbt list, is that it?
cheers Claudia
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:51:57 -0700, Ryan Kaldari wrote
Just to clarify, Phillipe expressed concern that there were only 4 people listed as potential participants. The main objection was from MZMcBride (who is not associated with the WMF), who expressed concern that the list would be used for POV-pushing. Subsequently, Sébastien Santoro and two WMF staff members offered to help moderate the list to insure it would be neutral, and Varnent clarified that there were several other people interested in the list. Phillipe withdrew his objection and the list was created forthwith. Of course since this all transpired over Bugzilla, it took a week to play out, which is longer than normal, but I'm not sure it's fair to say that it was "difficult to bring WF to allow the list to be created".
Ryan Kaldari
On 7/1/12 10:24 PM, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
Hi Tom, hi @all
Wikimedia have decided to allow the list to be created
since we are addressing not only one gender gap but, seemingly quite a few, including those that come
alonf
the lines of what has come to be called sexual orientarion, I have a question about the creation process
of
the new list. I recently heard elsewhere that
it was difficult to bring WF to "allow" the list to be created in the frame of lists.wikimedia.org? how come?
thanks Claudia
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 00:09:19 +0100, Tom Morris wrote
On Sunday, 1 July 2012 at 22:30, Tom Morris wrote:
I'm happy to announce that a new Wikimedia LGBT mailing list has been setup. For the time being,
it is
being hosted on lists.wikiqueer.org (http://lists.wikiqueer.org).
http://lists.wikiqueer.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lgbt
The list is for discussion of possible future LGBT outreach and partnership work, increasing the
coverage
of LGBT history, issues and culture, and any other issues that specifically affect LGBT editors.
You don't have to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to join.
A barely discernible amount of time after Gregory launched it on the WikiQueer servers, Wikimedia have decided to allow the list to be created on lists.wikimedia.org instead.
Please feel free to join here instead:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/lgbt
Sorry about the confusion.
-- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
thanks & cheers, Claudia koltzenburg@w4w.net
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
thanks & cheers, Claudia koltzenburg@w4w.net
Thanks for starting this list and for letting us know Tom.
Joining now,
Sarah
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 1:09 AM, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
On Sunday, 1 July 2012 at 22:30, Tom Morris wrote:
I'm happy to announce that a new Wikimedia LGBT mailing list has been
setup. For the time being, it is being hosted on lists.wikiqueer.org ( http://lists.wikiqueer.org).
http://lists.wikiqueer.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lgbt
The list is for discussion of possible future LGBT outreach and
partnership work, increasing the coverage of LGBT history, issues and culture, and any other issues that specifically affect LGBT editors.
You don't have to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to join.
A barely discernible amount of time after Gregory launched it on the WikiQueer servers, Wikimedia have decided to allow the list to be created on lists.wikimedia.org instead.
Please feel free to join here instead:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/lgbt
Sorry about the confusion.
-- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
The GenderGap list is about the gender gap - the gap in representation, involvement, participation, and acceptance of women on Wikipedia. We are concerned about it because of its impact on the encyclopaedia and on some people working in good faith on it. The sexual orientation and indeed, the sex life of those women and men is irrelevant. Individuals who are concerned to remedy the gender gap for the sake of the encyclopaedia might be male (gay or straight) or female (gay or straight) or anything else for that matter. To repeat, this gender gap list is about the gender gap. It is not about sub groups or sexual identification. It is about accessing the knowledge and talents of 50% of the population. It is about PEOPLE working together on a project and a problem with that project irrespective of who they choose or decline to have as sexual partners.
So it is good that there will be a separate list specifically for discussions of L, G, B,T, I, Q etc. I think we should ignore sexual orientation on THIS one as it is irrelevant for addressing the the lack of female participation in Wikmedia projects. Otherwise I want a list for people who identify as celibate.
Thanks for reading, Whiteghost.ink
On Jul 6, 2012 10:56 AM, "Gillian White" whiteghost.ink@gmail.com wrote:
... I think we should ignore sexual orientation on THIS one as it is irrelevant for addressing the the lack of female participation in Wikmedia projects.
I agree, mostly, but. . my understanding is that the surveys (ignoring the faults in them) indicate LGBT may actually be over-represented in wikimedia when compared to the distribution expected by real-world population studies; in both men and women. Im not saying this is bad, but that it does not appear that there is a LGBT systemic gap that needs a strategic approach to solving. I would love to hear of more research on this wrt women, as it could help steer our gender gap solution finding efforts.
Otherwise I want a list for people who identify as celibate.
Hehe. I can imagine that, like the gendergap list full of men(mea culpa; ora pro me) , list being dominated by sexually active people trying to 'help' the celibate.
On Friday, 6 July 2012 at 04:56, Gillian White wrote:
The GenderGap list is about the gender gap - the gap in representation, involvement, participation, and acceptance of women on Wikipedia. We are concerned about it because of its impact on the encyclopaedia and on some people working in good faith on it. The sexual orientation and indeed, the sex life of those women and men is irrelevant. Individuals who are concerned to remedy the gender gap for the sake of the encyclopaedia might be male (gay or straight) or female (gay or straight) or anything else for that matter. To repeat, this gender gap list is about the gender gap. It is not about sub groups or sexual identification.
I don't think anyone involved in this has suggested to the contrary.
The point of the lgbt list is to provide an opportunity to discuss potential LGBT-related outreach and cross-wiki projects, and to provide a space for discussion of issues affecting LGBT editors including harassment/abuse issues if and when they occur. There is no "orientation gap" that needs fixing: there's no evidence that there is a systemic bias here. Instead, it's simply a space for co-ordination and collaboration.
On the contrary, I think that this is the perfect list to discuss, at least, the "T" and "I" issues, that is, transgender and intersex gender gap issues. Again, it frustrates me that we throw "gender" issues in with "sexuality" issues as if they're the same thing.
Also agree with the bit that the LGBQ list should not just be "gender gap for gays", if only because no special outreach is really required there, but there are still many issues that can be discussed. Except that we're all talking about that list here, rather than posting on it over there!
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Gillian White whiteghost.ink@gmail.comwrote:
The GenderGap list is about the gender gap - the gap in representation, involvement, participation, and acceptance of women on Wikipedia. We are concerned about it because of its impact on the encyclopaedia and on some people working in good faith on it. The sexual orientation and indeed, the sex life of those women and men is irrelevant. Individuals who are concerned to remedy the gender gap for the sake of the encyclopaedia might be male (gay or straight) or female (gay or straight) or anything else for that matter. To repeat, this gender gap list is about the gender gap. It is not about sub groups or sexual identification. It is about accessing the knowledge and talents of 50% of the population. It is about PEOPLE working together on a project and a problem with that project irrespective of who they choose or decline to have as sexual partners.
So it is good that there will be a separate list specifically for discussions of L, G, B,T, I, Q etc. I think we should ignore sexual orientation on THIS one as it is irrelevant for addressing the the lack of female participation in Wikmedia projects. Otherwise I want a list for people who identify as celibate.
Thanks for reading, Whiteghost.ink
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Friday, 6 July 2012 at 09:20, Michelle Gallaway wrote:
Also agree with the bit that the LGBQ list should not just be "gender gap for gays", if only because no special outreach is really required there, but there are still many issues that can be discussed. Except that we're all talking about that list here, rather than posting on it over there!
Outreach can mean different things: gender-gap-style outreach of "increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects" (to quote the list title) and cultural outreach more like GLAM. There's definitely scope for people to work with LGBT cultural, historical and community organisations much like we work with GLAMs.
Not all outreach has to start from the position of "there's a problem that needs fixing"; outreach can start from "there's an opportunity to make the wiki better" too. (Not that those are mutually exclusive, obviously.)
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
Not all outreach has to start from the position of "there's a problem that needs fixing"; outreach can start from "there's an opportunity to make the wiki better" too. (Not that those are mutually exclusive, obviously.)
This. I do outreach to sport organisations, and there generally isn't an issue of systematic problems with Wikipedia covering sport poorly. Getting in touch with them just enables editors to do things better, to get better pictures, to provide opportunities for Wikimedians that might not be available otherwise, that help build credibility for Wikipedia.
Would be good to annouce it on a more general list like wikimedia-l On Jul 2, 2012 6:09 AM, "Tom Morris" tom@tommorris.org wrote:
On Sunday, 1 July 2012 at 22:30, Tom Morris wrote:
I'm happy to announce that a new Wikimedia LGBT mailing list has been
setup. For the time being, it is being hosted on lists.wikiqueer.org ( http://lists.wikiqueer.org).
http://lists.wikiqueer.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lgbt
The list is for discussion of possible future LGBT outreach and
partnership work, increasing the coverage of LGBT history, issues and culture, and any other issues that specifically affect LGBT editors.
You don't have to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to join.
A barely discernible amount of time after Gregory launched it on the WikiQueer servers, Wikimedia have decided to allow the list to be created on lists.wikimedia.org instead.
Please feel free to join here instead:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/lgbt
Sorry about the confusion.
-- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap