I was once warned for canvassing, because I told people offsite how to vote in a discussion about to keep certain page. These people were mostly of a female audience and interested in women's history, and the group who were wanting to delete were mostly anglo men.

Also, Peter, when a person is offended by something someone else has said and you don't understand it---it's probably best not to comment on it.

I actually *have* read it very closely due to that situation. But thanks for assuming that I am not capable of doing so.

--Maggie

Message: 1 Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 10:02:22 -0700 From: Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com Subject: [Gendergap] Canvassing To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: CEFD590F-2C51-468E-9274-2DCC9C7CAA3C@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Oct 1, 2011, at 6:55 AM, Maggie wrote:

...

Wikipedia is set up so that only people who look for these

articles/pictures will know about voting procedures. So of course if there is a vote, the majority would probably be overall positive unless serious canvassing went on to let people who care about the other side know about it so it evens out. Canvassing is set up to prevent this--I believe it's actually a way of biasing the community to serve only the community, and not the readers. Because the readers are--the world. Telling people about the topic is just like how any election goes. I guess unless you are in some sort of fake election where people are led to believe that their votes actually count.

Maggie, I can relate to the frustration you're expressing. But I'd like to draw a distinction between the Canvassing guideline itself (which I consider a helpful and insightful document, that illuminates important collaborative practices) and the way accusations of Canvassing may be made in certain contexts.

The Canvassing guideline is an important part of our world. If you haven't read it recently, I highly recommend it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CANVASS

It is often quoted by people who, I think, *haven't* read it closely, and used to criticize behavior that is actually constructive. That is a problem, but it's not a problem with the guideline itself.

-Pete