In my opinion there's a large and pervasive problem behind today's controversy: in striking contrast to our core value of openness, it is very difficult to even *perceive* how important decisions like this are made. Both the technical and the editorial processes are pretty opaque to the average main page visitor. I suspect there are ways the Commons pages relating to Picture of the Day could be improved to make it clearer to the reader how decisions are made, and how to meaningfully participate in those processes. For instance, main page content could have a link named something like "how did this get here?" that would permit the reader to view the discussion that led to its inclusion on the main page. (This is just an off-the-cuff idea, to illustrate the general kind of usability changes I would like to explore.) To put it another way, the issue behind today's controversy that interests me most is access. Increasing the ability of a large and diverse group to participate in important decisions (like what gets featured on the main Commons page) is something that would both honor the basic values of our project, and (I believe) support better content decisions in the future. Anybody interested in tackling this issue? -Pete

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:36, Sarah Stierch <sarah(a)sarahstierch.com> wrote: The breasts were indeed a factor, and one comment in favour was "i like her big tits". The old discussion is here -- http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_can… Sarah

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Sarah Stierch <sarah(a)sarahstierch.com>wrote;wrote: Hi Sarah, I'd be really happy to work on this with you! (And anyone else). My sense is that there's a lot of work to do in identifying the problem -- or rather, evaluating the collection of interrelated issues, and determining where it's best to focus. The things that seem significant to me are: (1) Picture of the Day on Commons often seems to be the source of unnecessary strife (moreso than, say, PotD on English Wikipedia); (2) It appears that there is not a clearly identified set of editorial values around what DOES constitute a worthwhile PotD on Commons; (3) The technical and social processes for setting a PotD are difficult to understand and poorly documented. How about if we collaborate a bit on documenting how things currently work? I think that process will point the way toward recommending a solution. I've set up a page for this project, if you're game! http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Peteforsyth/PotD -Pete

I'd also be interested in contributing-- the BLP experience of last week was incredibly enlightening, and got me thinking about access... having the right key unlocked a wealth of knowledge and aid. How to make that key more widely available, or second nature/common knowledge? I'm hoping to blog about it soon. In any case, I'd like to come at some of the HOW-TO issues in general from that noob perspective. cheers dz On May 16, 2011, at 9:23 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:

This response here is emblematic of the misogyny and ageism pervading Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk%3AOn_the_edge_-_fr… Coming up with "stuff old women like" would actually be a good idea, but I don't think thecontributor meant it that way. At this deletion request http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Paleis_lan… I pointed out that the creator of the manga image placed it on a photograph of the Escher museum, making it appear his image appeared there. This is deceptive, and against Commons image guidelines. The only response to the deletion request so far is a Keep. The request to remove featured status from the Edge of the World manga image, startedindependently of our discussions by a Russian Wikipedia editor, is heading for a Keep: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/remov… Here is the original nomination: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:… The image failed to achieve featured status in German Wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Kandidaten_f%C3%BCr_exzellente_Bilde… 7 for, 8 against, which based on objective criteria of artistic and educational merit is still kindto the image. I am thinking of writing a letter to the Commons Village Pump to ask the community to takea long hard look at its basic competence.  Sue, any ideas? Andreas --- On Tue, 17/5/11, Sarah Stierch <sarah(a)sarahstierch.com> wrote: From: Sarah Stierch <sarah(a)sarahstierch.com> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] [Commons-l] Fwd: Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons To: gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org Date: Tuesday, 17 May, 2011, 16:19 Hi dz, Great to hear you'd like to be involved. I've been really busy the past few weeks with finishing school, a trip to California, and GLAM related activities (oh and Regional Ambassadorness!) - so I haven't had time to sit down and get my "stuff together" for the HOW-TO. But, I'd love to add you to our HOW-TO gang if you like. =) Sarah On 5/17/2011 8:17 AM, Deanna Zandt wrote: I'd also be interested in contributing-- the BLP experience of last week was incredibly enlightening, and got me thinking about access... having the right key unlocked a wealth of knowledge and aid. How to make that key more widely available, or second nature/common knowledge? I'm hoping to blog about it soon. In any case, I'd like to come at some of the HOW-TO issues in general from that noob perspective. cheers dz On May 16, 2011, at 9:23 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote: On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Sarah Stierch <sarah(a)sarahstierch.com> wrote: On 5/16/2011 11:49 AM, Pete Forsyth wrote: Anybody interested in tackling this issue? -Pete I'm working on diving into the HOW-TO this summer for Wiki. I do want to see all of these topics covered - and I'll contribute in anyway I can. Where do we start? ;-)  Hi Sarah, I'd be really happy to work on this with you! (And anyone else). My sense is that there's a lot of work to do in identifying the problem -- or rather, evaluating the collection of interrelated issues, and determining where it's best to focus. The things that seem significant to me are: (1) Picture of the Day on Commons often seems to be the source of unnecessary strife (moreso than, say, PotD on English Wikipedia); (2) It appears that there is not a clearly identified set of editorial values around what DOES constitute a worthwhile PotD on Commons; (3) The technical and social processes for setting a PotD are difficult to understand and poorly documented. How about if we collaborate a bit on documenting how things currently work? I think that process will point the way toward recommending a solution. I've set up a page for this project, if you're game! http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Peteforsyth/PotD -Pete _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- Wikipedia Regional Ambassador, The Nation's Capital Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Art -- Sarah Stierch Consulting Historical, cultural & artistic research, advising & event planning. ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.sarahstierch.com/ -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

--- On Wed, 18/5/11, Béria Lima <beria.lima(a)wikimedia.pt> wrote: From: Béria Lima <beria.lima(a)wikimedia.pt> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] [Commons-l] Fwd: Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons To: "Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects" <gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 12:54 Andreas, Again: Stop canvassing your POV!!! This list (and Commons-l) are not for that. That is my last warning This list was set up to discuss systemic issues in Foundation projects. In the opinion of several contributors here, this specific issue is profoundly symptomatic of the issue this list was set up to discuss. This includes Commons selecting images for featured status on the basis of comments like "I like her big tits", rather than artistic merit, and then featuring them on the main page. Or creating categories like "People using vacuum cleaners". http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:People_using_vacuum_cleaners In my view, it's a basic community competence issue. Andreas

--- On Wed, 18/5/11, Béria Lima <beria.lima(a)wikimedia.pt> wrote:From: Béria Lima <beria.lima(a)wikimedia.pt> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] [Commons-l] Fwd: Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons To: "Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects" <gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 14:19 The community is already discussing this matter Andreas.   What you are doing is, since your "vote" is not going the way you want (the picture, apparentely, will remain as a FP) you are canvassing votes here, so people can go there are vote to delist the image.   That, my dear, is pure canvass, and is not allowed in any project.   So, again, stop do that. Dear Beria, You would have a leg to stand on if anyone, at all, who had read my posts on this or any other mailing list, had voted in my favour in these communitydiscussions. I am not aware that anyone has. Of the 5 people who have voted to delist,I do not recognise a single name from the mailing lists. And I believe ifanyone here had decided to vote, they would be experienced enough, andhave enough integrity, to disclose along with their vote that they becameaware of the discussion through a mailing list post.   Further: If list members had commented, which they have not, and the vote were goingagainst you, which it is not, you would be well within your rights to contest the result, and ask the community to look into any undue effect mailing listdiscussions may have had on the discussion. However, nothing like this hashappened. As it is, you are out of line to threaten me on my Commons user page for participating in discussions on this list.  Regards,Andreas

I doubt women generally support censorship or benefit from it. You've been informed several times that such remarks are discounted when discussions are evaluated. Fred

It should not have been considered. That is our standard practice with inane "reasons". In the background is the question of whether something should have been "done". What would be appropriate? A private note, a note on the users talk page? A warning? Removal of the remark from the discussion? Deletion of the edit? Suppression of the edit? Perhaps a discussion of the remark at the Village Pump on Commons? We do have a deletion reason WP:RD2 Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value and/or violates our Biographies of living people policy. This includes slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value, but not mere factual statements, and not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations. When attack pages or pages with grossly improper titles are deleted, the page names may also be removed from the delete and page move logs. I think this falls within "ordinary incivility", but someone might have a different opinion. Fred

No, the image had political content, read policy for Commons, as an allegory of Liberty. Bare breasts, although usually somewhat smaller breasts, are standard in images of Liberty, at least French, or European ones, see File:1672 Gérard de Lairesse - Allegory of the Freedom of Trade.jpg You keep saying, "just because it has tits in it". That is specious. See the author's note on the description of the image, "Author: Niabot, because commons should stay free“ Fred

OK, Einstein, what is the psychological significance of a bare-breasted Liberty, as opposed to a modestly draped Liberty? It IS a revolutionary symbol. Fred

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 07:23, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote: How do you know the comments were discounted, Fred? And that's not really the point anyway. The comments were made. People felt it was okay to make them. That's the culture we're trying to change. Sarah

So where is that discussion? I found Commons:Sexual content and Help:Sexual content and its talk page. But what we're talking about here is not content, but behavior, a sexist remark. Is that being discussed anywhere? Fred

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 09:45, Béria Lima <beria.lima(a)wikimedia.pt> wrote: Hi Beria, My point is this: a significant number of women (current and potential editors) don't want to work in a "I like the big tits" atmosphere, whatever was meant by it. Others don't mind. Point is that some *do* mind. So they are an important five words. Behind them lies a long and sorry tale of sexism and objectification of women, and people thinking it's okay to write and behave that way. Some of us on this list would like to see that culture change, bit by bit. Hard to know how to do that, and I take your point that it's not going to change by singling out these five words. On the other hand, if not these five words, which words? Change comes in tiny steps, each one perhaps insignificant in itself. Sarah

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:16, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote: I see it as an inane remark that's symptomatic of the culture, in the sense that the poster thought it appropriate to post it. Moving away from discussing this image now, to the broader issue, we do see a fair number of comments like that on Wikipedia, and letting them pass without comment simply means they'll never stop. We had a situation recently where we were discussing a BLP, and part of the content was that the woman had experienced a serious sexual assault. In the course of discussing how to approach it, a couple of remarks were made that tended to downplay what had happened to her, and one person -- in a different section on the talk page -- commented on how attractive she was, and how he wanted to have her babies. I was so disgusted by this that I felt (and to some extent still feel) that I didn't want to be involved in the project anymore, because why am I wasting my time in that kind of atmosphere? I felt that it said something about me, rather than about them. I also had to decide whether to say something, or let it lie, and if I did say something, I had to make sure I was polite and circumspect, rather than screaming it from the rooftops, which is what I wanted to do. And it suddenly felt like nothing had changed in the last 40 years, that these remarks still appear, and that women are still made to feel bad if they challenge them. And if we do challenge them, must be extra polite about it. Not make a fuss. So that felt kind of depressing. Sarah

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:37, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote: asking that the remarks cease. And though he meant well, and I was and remain grateful to him for stepping in, he asked that they cease as a matter of courtesy to me. But I didn't want them to stop as a matter of courtesy. I wanted people to recognize that they were politically unacceptable. Then I had to explain why the remarks were offensive, when what I really wanted was for them to end, and the meta-discussion to end. Eventually it did die down and a couple of other editors stepped in, and one of the earlier ones apologized, so it was okay. But I would love to find a way to nip this kind of thing in the bud. I've thought of trying to write an essay or a guideline -- but then people will cry censorship, and will want to know what kind of comments are suddenly not permitted, and who is to judge whether they're offensive, and will argue that not all women agree on definitions of sexism anyway. So it felt like too much of an uphill struggle even to begin it. Sarah

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:52, Deanna Zandt <deanna(a)deannazandt.com> wrote: particular, were people I would regard as politically aware, even progressive. Yet they simply could not see why what they wrote was inappropriate, and seemed a little offended by the suggestion. So I ended up feeling extremely marginalized and awkward. Say nothing, and you feel as though you're being silenced, and worse than that you're silencing yourself. Say something, and have the tables turned on you -- you're accusing, you're trying to censor, you're being too sensitive, you're being offensive for pointing out the offence. I'm an experienced editor, yet it made me feel very unsure of myself. The worst thing is that I remember having discussions like this at university more than a couple of decades ago. So what happened? We thought we had sorted it all out! :) Sarah

You can be bold and write an essay Sarah. But to that became a policy the community will need to agree. And in fact there are in en.wiki guidelines about what not to write in a request for deletion, so you could create somenthing like "what not to write in a Featured Picture request". _____ *Béria Lima* Wikimedia Portugal <http://wikimedia.pt/> (351) 963 953 042 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer.* 2011/5/18 Sarah &lt;slimvirgin(a)gmail.com&gt;

One misinformed user is not a climate of misogyny; and I must say, other than one user, now banned, I've never encountered agism on our projects. Although sometimes things older people know about are not understood or appreciated by a crew of younger people. Fred

(del/undel) 15:12, April 7, 2011 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Migrantas" &#8206; (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: and WP:CSD#G12: copyright infringement of http://www.balsas.cc/project-migrantasorg-looking-dialogue-pictograms/) (view/restore) That's the English Wikipedia. Fred

Just for reference, the relevant guidelines are: Unambiguous use of a name or URL of a company, group or product as a username is generally not permitted, and users who adopt such a username may be blocked if their editing behavior appears to be promotional. However, users who adopt such usernames but who are not editing problematically should not be summarily blocked if their edits are otherwise constructive; instead, they should be gently but firmly encouraged to change their username. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attentio… Unambiguous use of a name or URL of a company, group or product as a username is generally not permitted. Users who adopt such a username and engage in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, are usually blocked. Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Username#Company.2Fgroup_names That blocking policy sometimes comes across as a bit harsh. It is always better to have a word with the editor first, rather than block them outright. Andreas --- On Fri, 20/5/11, Fred Bauder &lt;fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net&gt; wrote:

--- On Fri, 20/5/11, patricia morales &lt;mariadelcarmenpatricia(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: From: patricia morales &lt;mariadelcarmenpatricia(a)yahoo.com&gt; Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Please, a question on deleted article SP "Migrantas" on women´s empowermente To: "Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects" &lt;gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Cc: "Roberto Fiadone" &lt;ruperto61(a)yahoo.com.ar&gt; Date: Friday, 20 May, 2011, 13:19 Dear, I would like to draw your attention to the history of article "migrantas" an initiative in Berlin on the empowerment of migrant women, that was deleted by the concept autopromotion and later by the attribution of irrelevance.Men and women worked for improving it but it seems without results.It would be good to have some suggestions on that.best regards, Patricia Hi Patricia,  It looks like the article was deleted because it directly copied text from anexisting website, and because it appeared promotional.  You could try to recreate the article, but would have to write it from the pointof view of third-party sources writing about Migrantas.  The best sources I can find are: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/28/style/28iht-agerm.html http://www.morgenpost.de/printarchiv/berlin/article1608757/Kanzlerin-ueberp… I can't see all of that article, but it appears to mention that a "Kollektiv migrantas" won a prize: http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=migrantas… The German chancellor seems to have been involved. Winning a prominentaward usually helps to establish notability, justifying an article in Wikipedia. There is also a reference here:http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZyXnAAAAMAAJ&q=%22migrantas%22+berlin&dq=%22migrantas%22+berlin&hl=en&ei=0HPWTdekEsuo8AOu4IyFCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA However, this is not a third-party reference. It would help to have more sources. Two good third-party sources may notbe enough to pass notability. Perhaps others here can help research theorganisation; Spanish sources would be fine too. At any rate, if you do want to recreate the article, it would be best to create adraft in your user space first and then let some editors look at it to advise you as to whether it would survive a deletion request, before putting it inarticle space.  Best,Andreas

The captions were reverted as well. _____ *Béria Lima* <http://wikimedia.pt/>(351) 925 171 484 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer.*** 2011/5/16 Neil Kandalgaonkar &lt;neilk(a)wikimedia.org&gt;