Yes, one can see easily how they move from topic to topic. Connected and ensuring their POV dominates.
The issue of feminism should not be defined by men whose motivation seems to be to create an environment where women are "free" to be what they (the men discussed here ) imagine to us to be.
I believe that Marie's statements about keeping these issues off one's main course are the result of continuous attacks.
Wikipedia needs a TAKE BACK THE NIGHT movement. In my days on campus women attacked were told they shouldn't be out at night.So marches began to TAKE BACK THE NIGHT.
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 2:16 AM, JJ Marr jjmarr@gmail.com wrote:
To quote you in the context of your dispute over a video, you say "I dispute that it "makes little sense" and why does it even need to add informational value? Why can't it just be to add aesthetics to the article as pictures and videos often are?” I ask why don't you take that dispute up with the editor in question?
Also, you need to be more clear in what you are saying. I have no context to this message, and I think it is a complaint about a content dispute.
Please explain why this is relevant to the gender gap, since you are sending it out to everyone on the gender gap mailing list, and secondly, why a minor content dispute on enwiki is relevant to the Wikimedia gender gap community as a whole. On Nov 30, 2014 1:47 AM, "Marie Earley" eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
Not sure if this will produce a new thread or attach to the existing one (I've checked my spam folder, there's nothing there) but anyway....
Tim: I just wondered whether you regard this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic...
...as a lack of civility or a gender gap issue?
In particular this comment: "...As has been indicated on the talk page of the proposed decision, *repeatedly,* there is some question as to exactly *which* women this group seems to be reaching out toward, specifically, whether it is more or less of a more or less radical feminist perspective...."
I thought it summed up in a nutshell what the GGTF was really up against. It's a kind of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
- Are you now or have you ever been a feminist who believes that sex work
is the opposite of feminism? Anyone who answers yes that question is judged to be a "radical", a subversive who wants to push POV and therefore they are fair game.
On WP's list of feminists there were a very odd mish-mash of categories of feminist https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=54413... and lots of names missing e.g. Gail Dines. I did a major rewrite to organize it chronologically and it meant that "anti-pornography feminists", "anti-prostitution feminists" and "socialist feminists" could go onto the list https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=54566...
The list has recently been changed to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feminists and I'm working with a couple of editors to see how we can improve it further.
I've largely avoided trouble by sticking to admin based work such as this, and similar work: Cleaning up bibliographies, e.g. Joseph Schumpeter, from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=63356... to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=63434...
Creating an article for the International Association for Feminist Economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_for_Feminist_Economi... and improving the article for the Human Development and Capability Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_and_Capability_Association then creating biographies for past presidents of IAFFE and fellows of the HDCA. Adding DOBs to notable scholars and then adding them to Wiki's calendar (births).
These organisations / individuals argues against sex work on the grounds of the perception of women that is generated (i.e. as a thing / object). The problem with the MRA, pro-porn, pro-sex work POV is they have no problem with anti-porn etc. POV provided it is in a box labelled "mad" or "religious" with a sub-text that the only people that could possibly support that POV are from the moral right and are probably racist and homophobic as well. The other problem that the MRA have is that, human development and capability, which includes feminist economics / inequality / care work etc. collectively constitutes a 'single broad topic' (WP:SPATG), so they are unable to stop editors, who wish to edit in this area, from doing so. The natural place for this work is within the Gender Studies project. Which is why they write nonsense like this: http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorshi... (if there were really the kind of censorship that they are talking about on WP then there would be no Pornography Project).
Any attempt to show 3 distinct POVs (a) Pro-sex work (b) Right-wing anti-sex work (on moral / judgemental grounds), and (c) Left-wing anti-sex work (on negative perception grounds) - the POV that dare not speak its name ... is met with a steel fist hammered onto the table.
I made a video for use in the article "sex wars", an article which is all about the separation between (b) and (c) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminist_sex_wars&oldid=54699... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Feminist_sex_wars.ogv It was deleted instantly on the grounds that the "Video makes little sense and does not add to informational value of article." I dispute that it "makes little sense" and why does it even need to add informational value? Why can't it just be to add aesthetics to the article as pictures and videos often are?
As soon as I step off the path of admin related tasks that the MRA-mob can't get me for, and stray into article content I am jumped on, obstensibly for technical reasons but they are almost exclusively by editors whose other edits are connected to porn and sex-positive feminism, who have pretty much hijacked the Feminism project and they are trying to do as much damage as possible to the Gender Studies project as they can as well.
It may be time for an article on "fourth-wave feminism" which is separate to the "history of feminism", but the article would have to say that the term is used by both (a) and (c), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism#Fourth_Wave . You're not supposed to mention (c), you're only supposed to mention (a) and (b) - and then arch your eyebrows at the moral and out-of-touch group that is (b). Anyone trying to create it would run into the MRA trying to lump (b) and (c) together. The talk page would be full of stuff like, "well the article should say that, 'group (b) have been called fourth-wave, but it is just a very, few number of places and the term is far more attributed to group (a) than any other group of feminists'.
This message is longer than I originally intended it to be but I do think that there are a lot of well meaning editors on WP who are either unaware or a bit *naïve* when it comes the antics of the people that we are talking about. It is also *naïve* to think that they are not co-ordinating their handiwork off-wiki.
Marie
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
What do you propose a "take back the night" would be like? On Nov 30, 2014 8:12 AM, "Kathleen McCook" klmccook@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, one can see easily how they move from topic to topic. Connected and ensuring their POV dominates.
The issue of feminism should not be defined by men whose motivation seems to be to create an environment where women are "free" to be what they (the men discussed here ) imagine to us to be.
I believe that Marie's statements about keeping these issues off one's main course are the result of continuous attacks.
Wikipedia needs a TAKE BACK THE NIGHT movement. In my days on campus women attacked were told they shouldn't be out at night.So marches began to TAKE BACK THE NIGHT.
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 2:16 AM, JJ Marr jjmarr@gmail.com wrote:
To quote you in the context of your dispute over a video, you say "I dispute that it "makes little sense" and why does it even need to add informational value? Why can't it just be to add aesthetics to the article as pictures and videos often are?" I ask why don't you take that dispute up with the editor in question?
Also, you need to be more clear in what you are saying. I have no context to this message, and I think it is a complaint about a content dispute.
Please explain why this is relevant to the gender gap, since you are sending it out to everyone on the gender gap mailing list, and secondly, why a minor content dispute on enwiki is relevant to the Wikimedia gender gap community as a whole. On Nov 30, 2014 1:47 AM, "Marie Earley" eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
Not sure if this will produce a new thread or attach to the existing one (I've checked my spam folder, there's nothing there) but anyway....
Tim: I just wondered whether you regard this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic...
...as a lack of civility or a gender gap issue?
In particular this comment: "...As has been indicated on the talk page of the proposed decision, *repeatedly,* there is some question as to exactly *which* women this group seems to be reaching out toward, specifically, whether it is more or less of a more or less radical feminist perspective...."
I thought it summed up in a nutshell what the GGTF was really up against. It's a kind of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
- Are you now or have you ever been a feminist who believes that sex
work is the opposite of feminism? Anyone who answers yes that question is judged to be a "radical", a subversive who wants to push POV and therefore they are fair game.
On WP's list of feminists there were a very odd mish-mash of categories of feminist https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=54413... and lots of names missing e.g. Gail Dines. I did a major rewrite to organize it chronologically and it meant that "anti-pornography feminists", "anti-prostitution feminists" and "socialist feminists" could go onto the list https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=54566...
The list has recently been changed to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feminists and I'm working with a couple of editors to see how we can improve it further.
I've largely avoided trouble by sticking to admin based work such as this, and similar work: Cleaning up bibliographies, e.g. Joseph Schumpeter, from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=63356... to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=63434...
Creating an article for the International Association for Feminist Economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_for_Feminist_Economi... and improving the article for the Human Development and Capability Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_and_Capability_Association then creating biographies for past presidents of IAFFE and fellows of the HDCA. Adding DOBs to notable scholars and then adding them to Wiki's calendar (births).
These organisations / individuals argues against sex work on the grounds of the perception of women that is generated (i.e. as a thing / object). The problem with the MRA, pro-porn, pro-sex work POV is they have no problem with anti-porn etc. POV provided it is in a box labelled "mad" or "religious" with a sub-text that the only people that could possibly support that POV are from the moral right and are probably racist and homophobic as well. The other problem that the MRA have is that, human development and capability, which includes feminist economics / inequality / care work etc. collectively constitutes a 'single broad topic' (WP:SPATG), so they are unable to stop editors, who wish to edit in this area, from doing so. The natural place for this work is within the Gender Studies project. Which is why they write nonsense like this: http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorshi... (if there were really the kind of censorship that they are talking about on WP then there would be no Pornography Project).
Any attempt to show 3 distinct POVs (a) Pro-sex work (b) Right-wing anti-sex work (on moral / judgemental grounds), and (c) Left-wing anti-sex work (on negative perception grounds) - the POV that dare not speak its name ... is met with a steel fist hammered onto the table.
I made a video for use in the article "sex wars", an article which is all about the separation between (b) and (c) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminist_sex_wars&oldid=54699... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Feminist_sex_wars.ogv It was deleted instantly on the grounds that the "Video makes little sense and does not add to informational value of article." I dispute that it "makes little sense" and why does it even need to add informational value? Why can't it just be to add aesthetics to the article as pictures and videos often are?
As soon as I step off the path of admin related tasks that the MRA-mob can't get me for, and stray into article content I am jumped on, obstensibly for technical reasons but they are almost exclusively by editors whose other edits are connected to porn and sex-positive feminism, who have pretty much hijacked the Feminism project and they are trying to do as much damage as possible to the Gender Studies project as they can as well.
It may be time for an article on "fourth-wave feminism" which is separate to the "history of feminism", but the article would have to say that the term is used by both (a) and (c), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism#Fourth_Wave . You're not supposed to mention (c), you're only supposed to mention (a) and (b) - and then arch your eyebrows at the moral and out-of-touch group that is (b). Anyone trying to create it would run into the MRA trying to lump (b) and (c) together. The talk page would be full of stuff like, "well the article should say that, 'group (b) have been called fourth-wave, but it is just a very, few number of places and the term is far more attributed to group (a) than any other group of feminists'.
This message is longer than I originally intended it to be but I do think that there are a lot of well meaning editors on WP who are either unaware or a bit *naïve* when it comes the antics of the people that we are talking about. It is also *naïve* to think that they are not co-ordinating their handiwork off-wiki.
Marie
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
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Well, hold on. The content dispute that is being described is one that rages within the feminist community (note the lack of gender there - it encompasses people of all genders), and is not a male vs female thing. Often as not, it is women disagreeing on the definitions amongst themselves. The same is true of many topics of interest to women: abortion, marriage, gender identity, etc. Let's not simply dump all of these in the "men vs women" drawer, please.
Risker/Anne
On 30 November 2014 at 08:12, Kathleen McCook klmccook@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, one can see easily how they move from topic to topic. Connected and ensuring their POV dominates.
The issue of feminism should not be defined by men whose motivation seems to be to create an environment where women are "free" to be what they (the men discussed here ) imagine to us to be.
I believe that Marie's statements about keeping these issues off one's main course are the result of continuous attacks.
Wikipedia needs a TAKE BACK THE NIGHT movement. In my days on campus women attacked were told they shouldn't be out at night.So marches began to TAKE BACK THE NIGHT.
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 2:16 AM, JJ Marr jjmarr@gmail.com wrote:
To quote you in the context of your dispute over a video, you say "I dispute that it "makes little sense" and why does it even need to add informational value? Why can't it just be to add aesthetics to the article as pictures and videos often are?” I ask why don't you take that dispute up with the editor in question?
Also, you need to be more clear in what you are saying. I have no context to this message, and I think it is a complaint about a content dispute.
Please explain why this is relevant to the gender gap, since you are sending it out to everyone on the gender gap mailing list, and secondly, why a minor content dispute on enwiki is relevant to the Wikimedia gender gap community as a whole. On Nov 30, 2014 1:47 AM, "Marie Earley" eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
Not sure if this will produce a new thread or attach to the existing one (I've checked my spam folder, there's nothing there) but anyway....
Tim: I just wondered whether you regard this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic...
...as a lack of civility or a gender gap issue?
In particular this comment: "...As has been indicated on the talk page of the proposed decision, *repeatedly,* there is some question as to exactly *which* women this group seems to be reaching out toward, specifically, whether it is more or less of a more or less radical feminist perspective...."
I thought it summed up in a nutshell what the GGTF was really up against. It's a kind of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
- Are you now or have you ever been a feminist who believes that sex
work is the opposite of feminism? Anyone who answers yes that question is judged to be a "radical", a subversive who wants to push POV and therefore they are fair game.
On WP's list of feminists there were a very odd mish-mash of categories of feminist https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=54413... and lots of names missing e.g. Gail Dines. I did a major rewrite to organize it chronologically and it meant that "anti-pornography feminists", "anti-prostitution feminists" and "socialist feminists" could go onto the list https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=54566...
The list has recently been changed to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feminists and I'm working with a couple of editors to see how we can improve it further.
I've largely avoided trouble by sticking to admin based work such as this, and similar work: Cleaning up bibliographies, e.g. Joseph Schumpeter, from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=63356... to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=63434...
Creating an article for the International Association for Feminist Economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_for_Feminist_Economi... and improving the article for the Human Development and Capability Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_and_Capability_Association then creating biographies for past presidents of IAFFE and fellows of the HDCA. Adding DOBs to notable scholars and then adding them to Wiki's calendar (births).
These organisations / individuals argues against sex work on the grounds of the perception of women that is generated (i.e. as a thing / object). The problem with the MRA, pro-porn, pro-sex work POV is they have no problem with anti-porn etc. POV provided it is in a box labelled "mad" or "religious" with a sub-text that the only people that could possibly support that POV are from the moral right and are probably racist and homophobic as well. The other problem that the MRA have is that, human development and capability, which includes feminist economics / inequality / care work etc. collectively constitutes a 'single broad topic' (WP:SPATG), so they are unable to stop editors, who wish to edit in this area, from doing so. The natural place for this work is within the Gender Studies project. Which is why they write nonsense like this: http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorshi... (if there were really the kind of censorship that they are talking about on WP then there would be no Pornography Project).
Any attempt to show 3 distinct POVs (a) Pro-sex work (b) Right-wing anti-sex work (on moral / judgemental grounds), and (c) Left-wing anti-sex work (on negative perception grounds) - the POV that dare not speak its name ... is met with a steel fist hammered onto the table.
I made a video for use in the article "sex wars", an article which is all about the separation between (b) and (c) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminist_sex_wars&oldid=54699... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Feminist_sex_wars.ogv It was deleted instantly on the grounds that the "Video makes little sense and does not add to informational value of article." I dispute that it "makes little sense" and why does it even need to add informational value? Why can't it just be to add aesthetics to the article as pictures and videos often are?
As soon as I step off the path of admin related tasks that the MRA-mob can't get me for, and stray into article content I am jumped on, obstensibly for technical reasons but they are almost exclusively by editors whose other edits are connected to porn and sex-positive feminism, who have pretty much hijacked the Feminism project and they are trying to do as much damage as possible to the Gender Studies project as they can as well.
It may be time for an article on "fourth-wave feminism" which is separate to the "history of feminism", but the article would have to say that the term is used by both (a) and (c), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism#Fourth_Wave . You're not supposed to mention (c), you're only supposed to mention (a) and (b) - and then arch your eyebrows at the moral and out-of-touch group that is (b). Anyone trying to create it would run into the MRA trying to lump (b) and (c) together. The talk page would be full of stuff like, "well the article should say that, 'group (b) have been called fourth-wave, but it is just a very, few number of places and the term is far more attributed to group (a) than any other group of feminists'.
This message is longer than I originally intended it to be but I do think that there are a lot of well meaning editors on WP who are either unaware or a bit *naïve* when it comes the antics of the people that we are talking about. It is also *naïve* to think that they are not co-ordinating their handiwork off-wiki.
Marie
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
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
This is just opinion. Thank you for ending the conversation.
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Well, hold on. The content dispute that is being described is one that rages within the feminist community (note the lack of gender there - it encompasses people of all genders), and is not a male vs female thing. Often as not, it is women disagreeing on the definitions amongst themselves. The same is true of many topics of interest to women: abortion, marriage, gender identity, etc. Let's not simply dump all of these in the "men vs women" drawer, please.
Risker/Anne
On 30 November 2014 at 08:12, Kathleen McCook klmccook@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, one can see easily how they move from topic to topic. Connected and ensuring their POV dominates.
The issue of feminism should not be defined by men whose motivation seems to be to create an environment where women are "free" to be what they (the men discussed here ) imagine to us to be.
I believe that Marie's statements about keeping these issues off one's main course are the result of continuous attacks.
Wikipedia needs a TAKE BACK THE NIGHT movement. In my days on campus women attacked were told they shouldn't be out at night.So marches began to TAKE BACK THE NIGHT.
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 2:16 AM, JJ Marr jjmarr@gmail.com wrote:
To quote you in the context of your dispute over a video, you say "I dispute that it "makes little sense" and why does it even need to add informational value? Why can't it just be to add aesthetics to the article as pictures and videos often are?” I ask why don't you take that dispute up with the editor in question?
Also, you need to be more clear in what you are saying. I have no context to this message, and I think it is a complaint about a content dispute.
Please explain why this is relevant to the gender gap, since you are sending it out to everyone on the gender gap mailing list, and secondly, why a minor content dispute on enwiki is relevant to the Wikimedia gender gap community as a whole. On Nov 30, 2014 1:47 AM, "Marie Earley" eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
Not sure if this will produce a new thread or attach to the existing one (I've checked my spam folder, there's nothing there) but anyway....
Tim: I just wondered whether you regard this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic...
...as a lack of civility or a gender gap issue?
In particular this comment: "...As has been indicated on the talk page of the proposed decision, *repeatedly,* there is some question as to exactly *which* women this group seems to be reaching out toward, specifically, whether it is more or less of a more or less radical feminist perspective...."
I thought it summed up in a nutshell what the GGTF was really up against. It's a kind of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
- Are you now or have you ever been a feminist who believes that sex
work is the opposite of feminism? Anyone who answers yes that question is judged to be a "radical", a subversive who wants to push POV and therefore they are fair game.
On WP's list of feminists there were a very odd mish-mash of categories of feminist https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=54413... and lots of names missing e.g. Gail Dines. I did a major rewrite to organize it chronologically and it meant that "anti-pornography feminists", "anti-prostitution feminists" and "socialist feminists" could go onto the list https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=54566...
The list has recently been changed to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feminists and I'm working with a couple of editors to see how we can improve it further.
I've largely avoided trouble by sticking to admin based work such as this, and similar work: Cleaning up bibliographies, e.g. Joseph Schumpeter, from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=63356... to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=63434...
Creating an article for the International Association for Feminist Economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_for_Feminist_Economi... and improving the article for the Human Development and Capability Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_and_Capability_Association then creating biographies for past presidents of IAFFE and fellows of the HDCA. Adding DOBs to notable scholars and then adding them to Wiki's calendar (births).
These organisations / individuals argues against sex work on the grounds of the perception of women that is generated (i.e. as a thing / object). The problem with the MRA, pro-porn, pro-sex work POV is they have no problem with anti-porn etc. POV provided it is in a box labelled "mad" or "religious" with a sub-text that the only people that could possibly support that POV are from the moral right and are probably racist and homophobic as well. The other problem that the MRA have is that, human development and capability, which includes feminist economics / inequality / care work etc. collectively constitutes a 'single broad topic' (WP:SPATG), so they are unable to stop editors, who wish to edit in this area, from doing so. The natural place for this work is within the Gender Studies project. Which is why they write nonsense like this: http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorshi... (if there were really the kind of censorship that they are talking about on WP then there would be no Pornography Project).
Any attempt to show 3 distinct POVs (a) Pro-sex work (b) Right-wing anti-sex work (on moral / judgemental grounds), and (c) Left-wing anti-sex work (on negative perception grounds) - the POV that dare not speak its name ... is met with a steel fist hammered onto the table.
I made a video for use in the article "sex wars", an article which is all about the separation between (b) and (c) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminist_sex_wars&oldid=54699... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Feminist_sex_wars.ogv It was deleted instantly on the grounds that the "Video makes little sense and does not add to informational value of article." I dispute that it "makes little sense" and why does it even need to add informational value? Why can't it just be to add aesthetics to the article as pictures and videos often are?
As soon as I step off the path of admin related tasks that the MRA-mob can't get me for, and stray into article content I am jumped on, obstensibly for technical reasons but they are almost exclusively by editors whose other edits are connected to porn and sex-positive feminism, who have pretty much hijacked the Feminism project and they are trying to do as much damage as possible to the Gender Studies project as they can as well.
It may be time for an article on "fourth-wave feminism" which is separate to the "history of feminism", but the article would have to say that the term is used by both (a) and (c), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism#Fourth_Wave . You're not supposed to mention (c), you're only supposed to mention (a) and (b) - and then arch your eyebrows at the moral and out-of-touch group that is (b). Anyone trying to create it would run into the MRA trying to lump (b) and (c) together. The talk page would be full of stuff like, "well the article should say that, 'group (b) have been called fourth-wave, but it is just a very, few number of places and the term is far more attributed to group (a) than any other group of feminists'.
This message is longer than I originally intended it to be but I do think that there are a lot of well meaning editors on WP who are either unaware or a bit *naïve* when it comes the antics of the people that we are talking about. It is also *naïve* to think that they are not co-ordinating their handiwork off-wiki.
Marie
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
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 11/30/2014 1:36 PM, Risker wrote:
Well, hold on. The content dispute that is being described is one that rages within the feminist community (note the lack of gender there - it encompasses people of all genders), and is not a male vs female thing. Often as not, it is women disagreeing on the definitions amongst themselves. The same is true of many topics of interest to women: abortion, marriage, gender identity, etc. Let's not simply dump all of these in the "men vs women" drawer, please.
Risker/Anne
I don't remember seeing much disagreement on any actual women's or feminist issues on GGTF. Only individuals calling themselves women coming to GGTF (or even more so the Arbitration) to say that Eric Corbett was a great guy and some of us were too uptight about the use of c*nt. And some individuals (like me) were told we posted too much, though the fact I was targeted for harassment over and over again does explain at least 20% of those edits. (When people see one editor targeted, they often will want to quickly distance themselves from that individual.)
Please explain what actual issues there was debate about among editors who said they were women??
Section titles would help.