(changing the topic back)
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Sylvia Ventura slventura@gmail.com wrote:
Anne, you're absolutely right on the 'high profile'. The broader the reach, impact, exposure, the more likely you are to become the target of good and bad 'attention'. The question is, much like in real-life, the higher up you are in an organization the more 'support' and/or protection you will likely need/get, as a community should we be able to insure a similar mechanism. This community resilience won't be built on a MadMax fighting-your-way-through model (I know it's rather dramatic :)
From all the stories I've heard over the years, admins and arbitrators get
the worst of it -- being in a position where you delete articles or mediate disputes on the project (and let's face it, the folks who get into arbitration-type situations on wikipedia are often not the most stable or reasonable people on earth) seems to be the most direct way to potentially exposing yourself to lots of harassment. And if you're identified as female, it's way worse.
Conversely from my experiences being pretty visible on the *organizational* side of things (and talking to colleagues), there is a low level of harassment that comes with that gig, but *nothing* like the horror stories I've heard from some admins.
This is clearly untenable; the projects need to grow experienced contributors who can serve in positions of leadership and as mentors on the projects, and we can't expect everyone to just suck it up ("so sorry, you will have to work with crazy people"). I worry that folks often just find themselves unsupported. I don't know what the answer is.
-- phoebe
One of the things I talked to one of the female admins about is figuring out how to better support them in the stuff they have to deal with, and it's on my radar. That's just an FYI.
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:57 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
(changing the topic back)
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Sylvia Ventura slventura@gmail.comwrote:
Anne, you're absolutely right on the 'high profile'. The broader the reach, impact, exposure, the more likely you are to become the target of good and bad 'attention'. The question is, much like in real-life, the higher up you are in an organization the more 'support' and/or protection you will likely need/get, as a community should we be able to insure a similar mechanism. This community resilience won't be built on a MadMax fighting-your-way-through model (I know it's rather dramatic :)
From all the stories I've heard over the years, admins and arbitrators get the worst of it -- being in a position where you delete articles or mediate disputes on the project (and let's face it, the folks who get into arbitration-type situations on wikipedia are often not the most stable or reasonable people on earth) seems to be the most direct way to potentially exposing yourself to lots of harassment. And if you're identified as female, it's way worse.
Conversely from my experiences being pretty visible on the *organizational* side of things (and talking to colleagues), there is a low level of harassment that comes with that gig, but *nothing* like the horror stories I've heard from some admins.
This is clearly untenable; the projects need to grow experienced contributors who can serve in positions of leadership and as mentors on the projects, and we can't expect everyone to just suck it up ("so sorry, you will have to work with crazy people"). I worry that folks often just find themselves unsupported. I don't know what the answer is.
-- phoebe
--
- I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
<at> gmail.com *
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I'm glad to hear that Gayle.
But please remember - female admins get it bad, but, the "attention" I got, wasn't "upped" when I became an admin. Yes, i'm a bit more of a "known" person than perhaps other women in the community (right now) but...I know women (Cristamuse, Slim Virgin, just to name two) who deal with plenty of crap and *ARE NOT* admins.
Please remember..it's not just admins. The moment you become a highly active publicly identified female on Wikipedia, you are automatically prone to sexualized comments (friendly or not..."sweetie, lassie, etc." or "you're so pretty"))), harassment, and so forth.
Admins get it pretty damn bad, but non-admins get it bad too. And I don't want us to forget that, and that's why I think it's so important that women get support - any editor on that matter.
The moment you make edits to articles like "feminism" "mens rights" "pro-choice" "pro-life" "pregnancy" etc, you are in the minefield.
-Sarah
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Gayle Karen Young gyoung@wikimedia.orgwrote:
One of the things I talked to one of the female admins about is figuring out how to better support them in the stuff they have to deal with, and it's on my radar. That's just an FYI.
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:57 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.comwrote:
(changing the topic back)
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Sylvia Ventura slventura@gmail.comwrote:
Anne, you're absolutely right on the 'high profile'. The broader the reach, impact, exposure, the more likely you are to become the target of good and bad 'attention'. The question is, much like in real-life, the higher up you are in an organization the more 'support' and/or protection you will likely need/get, as a community should we be able to insure a similar mechanism. This community resilience won't be built on a MadMax fighting-your-way-through model (I know it's rather dramatic :)
From all the stories I've heard over the years, admins and arbitrators get the worst of it -- being in a position where you delete articles or mediate disputes on the project (and let's face it, the folks who get into arbitration-type situations on wikipedia are often not the most stable or reasonable people on earth) seems to be the most direct way to potentially exposing yourself to lots of harassment. And if you're identified as female, it's way worse.
Conversely from my experiences being pretty visible on the *organizational* side of things (and talking to colleagues), there is a low level of harassment that comes with that gig, but *nothing* like the horror stories I've heard from some admins.
This is clearly untenable; the projects need to grow experienced contributors who can serve in positions of leadership and as mentors on the projects, and we can't expect everyone to just suck it up ("so sorry, you will have to work with crazy people"). I worry that folks often just find themselves unsupported. I don't know what the answer is.
-- phoebe
--
- I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
<at> gmail.com *
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- Gayle Karen K. Young Chief Talent and Culture Officer Wikimedia Foundation 415.310.8416 www.wikimediafoundation.org
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I know women (Cristamuse, Slim Virgin, just to name two) who deal with plenty of crap and *ARE NOT* admins.
Actually, Sara, Slim Virgin is an admin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:UserRights/SlimVirgin
And are you sure you’ve got the other username right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cristamuse
Daniel Case
Presumably Sarah means Cindamusehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cindamuse .
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:12 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case < dancase@frontiernet.net> wrote:
I know women (Cristamuse, Slim Virgin, just to name two) who deal with
plenty of crap and *ARE NOT* admins.
Actually, Sara, Slim Virgin *is* an admin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:UserRights/SlimVirgin
And are you sure you’ve got the other username right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cristamuse
Daniel Case
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 5/9/2013 8:57 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
This is clearly untenable; the projects need to grow experienced contributors who can serve in positions of leadership and as mentors on the projects, and we can't expect everyone to just suck it up ("so sorry, you will have to work with crazy people"). I worry that folks often just find themselves unsupported. I don't know what the answer is.
1. A friendlier place to complain than WP:ANI (which Wikiquette assistance was til they got rid of it)
2. and MORE BLOCKS against jerks from there. I didn't get much help but was less afraid to complain there which at least makes some perps a little nervous.
It took me about 4 years before I had courage to go to ANI and I'm pretty assertive.
Even now I usually only go for pretty clear cases of abusive Sockpuppets - despite sometimes taking immense sh*t, snide comments and false accusations, blaring and bugling my occassional misstep/loss of temper. It's always nice when other editors stick up for you and tell the offenders to cut it out.)
If I had a male handle I'm sure I'd be treated better, and any ANIs about less obvious insults/harassment/ BLP violation/etc. problems would be taken more seriously. (I can't remember details but it seems my first few were not and I gave up. Of course I've been brought there 5-6 times for nonsense which was dismissed.)
On the other hand I like the more obnoxious and/or patriarchal male editors having to DEAL with the idea it's a FEMALE who often outsmarts them on more contentious pages and gets more support from other editors who may be assumed to be male.
Sometimes I wish I'd find a more lucrative addiction; like being addicted to making money :-)
CM
PS: I've said variations on the above 2 or 3 times before on this list, but what the heck...