Hi, I'm Dan Jacobson, website manager for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_TG_Butterfly_Garden TG stands for Transgender, so that brings in "just how do you define gender? by ID card? by DNA?" etc.
But never mind that. Indeed, in the nerd-most caverns of computer science I too notice the developers are almost all currently (or formerly!) males.
I accept the fact and expect that in 100 years, brain anatomy science will tell us why that is.
"j" == jidanni jidanni@jidanni.org writes:
j> Hi, I'm Dan Jacobson, website manager for j> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_TG_Butterfly_Garden j> TG stands for Transgender Here's a more personal face to our group, http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=4540&id=100000400161692&l=2152...
Hello. I see that most people in this discussion have given what looks like real names, even the women, which surprises the heck out of me. Before registering to edit Wikipedia, I had participated on internet forums of professional organizations for fifteen years, always using my real name, and never thought a thing of it, never had any reason to consider not using my real name; it simply wouldn't have occurred to me not to use my real name. But when I registered on Wikipedia, something, maybe a suggestion in the instructions for registering, I don't remember what, made me use a fake name, and I'm so glad I did. Although I have hardly edited Wikipedia in the three years I've been observing the project, as I was put off immediately by the attitudes and culture, I have been harassed offwiki by two banned users ( I had nothing to do with their banning; it just seems to amuse them to harass people they perceive as unwilling to fight back) and as a result of this unpleasant experience, the thought of anyone connected with Wikipedia ever finding out my real name is quite aversive to me. I am sorry I ever connected myself with Wikipedia at all, even in the tangential way I have been connected, and if anyone I knew was considering editing Wikipedia, (woman or man) I would warn them against it.
When I entered Wikipedia, I discovered a side of the internet I had never encountered before, and intend never to encounter again; it's a menacing and combative atmosphere that is extremely aversive to me. I recently read somewhere that Wikipedia regulars, as a rule, come from usenet or from gaming, where that kind of atmosphere is apparently an integral and desired part of the experience (I wouldn't know, having no experience with either), and have brought that atmosphere to Wikipedia. As long as that atmosphere characterizes Wikipedia, it is going to drive away anyone who doesn't thrive on that kind of pugnacious taunting get-the-enemy-before-he-gets-you kind of attitude, and I suspect a lot of women would be included in those who don't thrive in that kind of environment.
There have been two recent threads on the topic of gender participation on Jimbo Wales' talk page; the first was more interesting and productive, I thought, and warrants some attention; several women, including myself, responded to say that the reason most people don't edit Wikipedia probably isn't gender-specific and relates more to the culture and environment than to unfamiliarity with the technical aspects of editing (which was the initial premise of the thread, that women don't edit Wikipedia because the tech-y nature of editing is offputting to them).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_70#Attracting_mor...
There was one comment from a woman which I found especially resonant with my own experience and which I think neatly sums up my problem: "IMHO, Female "techno-geeks" have the worst time of anyone here, I think! Competence combined with female character that asks instead of shoves seems to attract the harshest form of attack, even if we try to keep our gender unknown -- the style still comes through."
(link for context):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action...
To introduce myself: I am a 70-year old retired statistician. I encountered a few (very few) instances of veiled sexism here and there in my career in a male-dominated field, but on the whole my gender was never an issue; I was treated with professional respect and comraderie and colleagueship, and have many continuing friendships with male colleagues. Never in my career did I encounter anything remotely like the kind of outright hostility and bullying that I have experienced on and off Wikipedia as the result of my participation, and I can't begin to tell you how insulting and offensive I have found it.
I think the emphasis in this discussion is rather misguided; why encourage more women to come to Wikipedia and be turned off and tell their friends to stay away, thereby increasing the gender gap rather than narrowing it? It would seem more helpful, if you really want to do something about the problem, to change the environment first. Since that's obviously never going to happen, it seems rather counterproductive to think up strategies to lure more women into this bad situation.
In three years of observing Wikipedia, I had never encountered Wikipe-tan; it's just another reason to be unimpressed with Wikipedia. It's a kind of adolescent-male culture that many mature people of either gender, expecting a professional project building an encyclopedia, would not feel comfortable in.
Woonpton
on 2/3/11 11:02 AM, Ism Woonpton at woonpton@gmail.com wrote:
Hello. I see that most people in this discussion have given what looks like real names, even the women, which surprises the heck out of me. Before registering to edit Wikipedia, I had participated on internet forums of professional organizations for fifteen years, always using my real name, and never thought a thing of it, never had any reason to consider not using my real name; it simply wouldn't have occurred to me not to use my real name. But when I registered on Wikipedia, something, maybe a suggestion in the instructions for registering, I don't remember what, made me use a fake name, and I'm so glad I did. Although I have hardly edited Wikipedia in the three years I've been observing the project, as I was put off immediately by the attitudes and culture, I have been harassed offwiki by two banned users ( I had nothing to do with their banning; it just seems to amuse them to harass people they perceive as unwilling to fight back) and as a result of this unpleasant experience, the thought of anyone connected with Wikipedia ever finding out my real name is quite aversive to me. I am sorry I ever connected myself with Wikipedia at all, even in the tangential way I have been connected, and if anyone I knew was considering editing Wikipedia, (woman or man) I would warn them against it.
When I entered Wikipedia, I discovered a side of the internet I had never encountered before, and intend never to encounter again; it's a menacing and combative atmosphere that is extremely aversive to me. I recently read somewhere that Wikipedia regulars, as a rule, come from usenet or from gaming, where that kind of atmosphere is apparently an integral and desired part of the experience (I wouldn't know, having no experience with either), and have brought that atmosphere to Wikipedia. As long as that atmosphere characterizes Wikipedia, it is going to drive away anyone who doesn't thrive on that kind of pugnacious taunting get-the-enemy-before-he-gets-you kind of attitude, and I suspect a lot of women would be included in those who don't thrive in that kind of environment.
There have been two recent threads on the topic of gender participation on Jimbo Wales' talk page; the first was more interesting and productive, I thought, and warrants some attention; several women, including myself, responded to say that the reason most people don't edit Wikipedia probably isn't gender-specific and relates more to the culture and environment than to unfamiliarity with the technical aspects of editing (which was the initial premise of the thread, that women don't edit Wikipedia because the tech-y nature of editing is offputting to them).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_70#Attracting_mor... female_editors
There was one comment from a woman which I found especially resonant with my own experience and which I think neatly sums up my problem: "IMHO, Female "techno-geeks" have the worst time of anyone here, I think! Competence combined with female character that asks instead of shoves seems to attract the harshest form of attack, even if we try to keep our gender unknown -- the style still comes through."
(link for context):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action... rysubmit&diff=407753458&oldid=407753333
To introduce myself: I am a 70-year old retired statistician. I encountered a few (very few) instances of veiled sexism here and there in my career in a male-dominated field, but on the whole my gender was never an issue; I was treated with professional respect and comraderie and colleagueship, and have many continuing friendships with male colleagues. Never in my career did I encounter anything remotely like the kind of outright hostility and bullying that I have experienced on and off Wikipedia as the result of my participation, and I can't begin to tell you how insulting and offensive I have found it.
I think the emphasis in this discussion is rather misguided; why encourage more women to come to Wikipedia and be turned off and tell their friends to stay away, thereby increasing the gender gap rather than narrowing it? It would seem more helpful, if you really want to do something about the problem, to change the environment first. Since that's obviously never going to happen, it seems rather counterproductive to think up strategies to lure more women into this bad situation.
In three years of observing Wikipedia, I had never encountered Wikipe-tan; it's just another reason to be unimpressed with Wikipedia. It's a kind of adolescent-male culture that many mature people of either gender, expecting a professional project building an encyclopedia, would not feel comfortable in.
Woonpton
A great big thank you (with a standing ovation), Woonpton! I have been beating the Wikipedia culture reform drum for 4 year now. But the journey to the civil side has been like crossing a stream of slowly-drying concrete; with each step the going gets more difficult and resistant.
My work is in Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy. In late 2006, I accepted a referral of an adolescent who had attempted suicide on two different occasions; the second attempt was nearly successful. The referring therapist was the third who had tried to reach this person; all had been unsuccessful.
After working almost daily with the person, I was able to persuade them to engage with me. What I learned startled me. The person related to me a period of taunting and abuse they had suffered on a website. That website turned out to be Wikipedia. What startled me most is that I had been a minor editor of Wikipedia since early in 2006, but had no idea of the Lists and other conversation sites that existed as a part of it. This is where my passion for this issue comes from. This is also why I take it so seriously.
The person is doing very well now, by the way, and is able to handle pretty much anything that comes their way. I'm proud of them.
The problem of abusive, combative, counter-productive behavior between (and among) persons in the Project is not going to be solved with new rules or policies - but by example. Change in this case can only come one person at a time. If you give them the climate, they will give you the culture.
If you find yourself being taunted by another, this may be helpful:
Learn your vulnerable spots - we all have them. They are like bruises on the body; when touched - we react. Learn that reaction. When communicating with someone, if you feel that reaction: Stop - Know what it is - Acknowledge it to yourself - Take a breath - and Stay on subject. Or, simply, don't respond. Remember: We teach people how to treat us.
Someone who truly wants to communicate with you will deliberately try to avoid any spot they think might be a bruise - especially if they have a similar one of their own.
I believe if we all take a pledge to stay focused on the issue being discussed; to direct our emotions at the substance of the message, and not at the person delivering it, the Project might not be so painful at times to work on.
If we all pledge to follow this, it will ultimately become the culture of the Project; and anyone deliberately attacking another person will simply not be responded to - or, ultimately, not tolerated.
Marc Riddell
Marc
Just be.
When I entered Wikipedia, I discovered a side of the internet I had never encountered before, and intend never to encounter again; it's a menacing and combative atmosphere that is extremely aversive to me. I recently read somewhere that Wikipedia regulars, as a rule, come from usenet or from gaming, where that kind of atmosphere is apparently an integral and desired part of the experience (I wouldn't know, having no experience with either), and have brought that atmosphere to Wikipedia. As long as that atmosphere characterizes Wikipedia, it is going to drive away anyone who doesn't thrive on that kind of pugnacious taunting get-the-enemy-before-he-gets-you kind of attitude, and I suspect a lot of women would be included in those who don't thrive in that kind of environment.
I'm not singling your post out, Ism, but just quoting this as an example of a theme I've seen in other posts here and on the Times' discussions.
This is so *not* the Wikipedia I've been actively involved in for six years now. I allow that it exists for some people; I've never been one. I have had some intemperate moments in discussions and differences of opinion with other editors over article content or policy issues, but I have always kept our civility and no-personal-attacks policies in mind and have done my best to remain collegial. And by and large I've felt the same reciprocated by almost all the other editors involved.
I venture to suggest that perhaps this is because what I'm most interested in doing, and what I put a great deal of effort into, is creating, maintaining and improving content. When I hear (or rather, read) editors who complain about this, it's almost a given that you can look at their contrib histories and see very little in the way of recent edits to article namespace, and of those even fewer that aren't related to talk-page or policy-page discussions they were devoting most of their energy to.
Now, there are some people who are good at online conflict resolution, and they should not be discouraged from this type of editing. But there are plenty of other editors who let themselves get sucked into long discussions on AN/I or elsewhere that have little to do with them directly when they really ought to be doing what they came to Wikipedia to do. And I also grant that I don't regularly edit in any topic areas, such as those mirroring real-life ethnic or political conflicts, that have been notably rancorous.
That said, I recall at WikiXDC a couple of weekends ago one of my best Wikipedia moments ever. During the trivia contest at the end, one question was "This page, the largest one on the project, takes up an entire gigabyte when all of its archives are included." The answer, of course, is AN/I. When that was announced, someone near me, a longtime member of the community and active editor whom I'd not met or even known of before the event, asked "What's AN/I?"
I wish we had a hundred highly active editors who had to ask that question. A thousand, even.
And so to bring this back to the gendergap subject, I would pass along my observation that I have noticed in most of the female editors I am acquainted with who've been part of the project for a long time is that they, too, have concentrated primarily on the content areas they've been interested in and seem to keep the drama to a minimum.
Daniel Case
I asked what AN/I was!
:) And we still won a Barnstar, even if I didn't know anything about Wikipedia history. I think I was the most un-informed editor in that room.
I do get turned off by jerky editors. I've complained about run-ins with some people who seem like they are trying to make up for something, and yeah, most of them are guys. I hate fighting, I hate vicious arguments, and I really dislike when I ask people to explain things and they talk down to me like a child. It seems a common thing in the "computer tech" world, from my personal experience, and it seems to flow over into WP. I'm not on Wikipedia to fight about things, I'm here to learn things, explore, educate others and use the platform to utilize the research that I'm doing.
I totally empathize with those who believe Wikipedia is a combative environment. I ceased doing any edits until I was asked about working with the Public Art team, who continue to this day to work closely with myself and one another to work towards our common goals, even if it's often a bumpy road. I had no desire to be a part of a "Boys club" and knowing that I was working with two great women, and a really great man, made me want to dive back in.
Many organizations offer classes on tolerance and cultural differences, perhaps we need one about gender gaps! Ha!
On 2/3/2011 3:21 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case wrote:
When I entered Wikipedia, I discovered a side of the internet I had never encountered before, and intend never to encounter again; it's a menacing and combative atmosphere that is extremely aversive to me. I recently read somewhere that Wikipedia regulars, as a rule, come from usenet or from gaming, where that kind of atmosphere is apparently an integral and desired part of the experience (I wouldn't know, having no experience with either), and have brought that atmosphere to Wikipedia. As long as that atmosphere characterizes Wikipedia, it is going to drive away anyone who doesn't thrive on that kind of pugnacious taunting get-the-enemy-before-he-gets-you kind of attitude, and I suspect a lot of women would be included in those who don't thrive in that kind of environment.
I'm not singling your post out, Ism, but just quoting this as an example of a theme I've seen in other posts here and on the Times' discussions.
This is so *not* the Wikipedia I've been actively involved in for six years now. I allow that it exists for some people; I've never been one. I have had some intemperate moments in discussions and differences of opinion with other editors over article content or policy issues, but I have always kept our civility and no-personal-attacks policies in mind and have done my best to remain collegial. And by and large I've felt the same reciprocated by almost all the other editors involved.
I venture to suggest that perhaps this is because what I'm most interested in doing, and what I put a great deal of effort into, is creating, maintaining and improving content. When I hear (or rather, read) editors who complain about this, it's almost a given that you can look at their contrib histories and see very little in the way of recent edits to article namespace, and of those even fewer that aren't related to talk-page or policy-page discussions they were devoting most of their energy to.
Now, there are some people who are good at online conflict resolution, and they should not be discouraged from this type of editing. But there are plenty of other editors who let themselves get sucked into long discussions on AN/I or elsewhere that have little to do with them directly when they really ought to be doing what they came to Wikipedia to do. And I also grant that I don't regularly edit in any topic areas, such as those mirroring real-life ethnic or political conflicts, that have been notably rancorous.
That said, I recall at WikiXDC a couple of weekends ago one of my best Wikipedia moments ever. During the trivia contest at the end, one question was "This page, the largest one on the project, takes up an entire gigabyte when all of its archives are included." The answer, of course, is AN/I. When that was announced, someone near me, a longtime member of the community and active editor whom I'd not met or even known of before the event, asked "What's AN/I?"
I wish we had a hundred highly active editors who had to ask that question. A thousand, even.
And so to bring this back to the gendergap subject, I would pass along my observation that I have noticed in most of the female editors I am acquainted with who've been part of the project for a long time is that they, too, have concentrated primarily on the content areas they've been interested in and seem to keep the drama to a minimum.
Daniel Case
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I have both witnessed and experienced the aggressive "world" Elizabeth is referring to. At first I thought it was the only wiki "world that existed," but later on I also discovered other worlds that were the complete opposite. Ie, like little pockets that are hidden to any new person. The aggressive one I think is the first you see b/c people in it tend to be the loudest, right.
I tend to agree with Phoebe - your experience can be drastically different. I think this depends on "how" you get introduced. I know that for me, there were certain people that made it a point to always remind me that I was "not" a Wikipedian...Of course, there were plenty that embraced me AND were extra nice b/c they knew what was up. lolol. However, since I got paid (and desperate b/c I was in Florida lololol), I had no other choice but deal with it. If I was a random internet user my reaction would have been "Dude, can you give me a freakin chance? And, if its going to be this hard, then I'll find another place to volunteer in. Damn!"
To be frank, my nerves were so "shot" and I was so burnt out that for YEARS I never mentioned wiki, thought about it, nothing! It was only last year that I began informally reconnecting with some peeps I missed. In fact, this year I wrote my FIRST article about my experience there for PBS. Ofcourse, it attracted TONS of anti-wikipedia trolls who had literally setup a thread where they were discussing what information they found of me, who my family was, where were they. (insert NY accent) ARE YOU KIDDIN ME RIGHT NOW!! lololol My anxiety went back to "old skool" levels, and my reaction was "ofcourse...I should have known better. Serves me right for thinking that even on a professional space like PBS I would be safe." And my second thought was "I'm too f@#*! old to deal with this crap...I got like real life stuff to worry about." And forget explaining the editors why I wasn't responding.....I tried a bit, and I think they thought i was a bit off my rocker. LOLOL
Honestly, even being on this email list, I'm a bit on edge. LOL However, I think its a SHAME that a project as freakin awesome as this one should have this issue. And again, its not just women, its non-alpha men, its US latinos, its african-americans (i only know USA) that I feel are alienated as well. And I agree - Wikipedia is awesome in that when it does clearly see a problem, the community does bring change. I've seen it, and that is its charm, and why I am so enamored with it...b/c at the end of the day, the community as a whole does uphold what I consider very "progressive" ethics.
I've thought long and hard about responding to this; my usual tendency, when challenged personally (I'll fight for sources or for data, but never for myself) is to back off and let it go, but in this context, where the goal is ostensibly to understand why women don't choose to edit Wikipedia, it feels important to insist on being heard rather than having my experience dismissed and discredited.
Daniel's response suggests that maybe I wasn't completely clear as to what I meant by the "menacing and combative" atmosphere of Wikipedia, the take-out-the-other-guy-by-whatever-means-necessary aggression that I find so aversive. Aggression takes many forms, and it's not necessarily the most direct forms that are the most destructive and effective, in my experience. The goal of aggression is to take out, neutralize, discredit or drive off the other party by whatever means seems most likely to be successful, and passive aggression, rather than overt aggression, seems to be the preferred strategy on Wikipedia. So if you want to neutralize or diminish someone's point, instead of directly arguing the point, especially if you don't have a good counterargument to argue on the merits, you say things in such an indirect way as to insinuate and suggest something about the other person but also to give you plausible deniability; if the person reponds to the insinuations and suggestions with denials, you can say "oh, but that's not what I meant," or "But of course I didn't mean you." People who adopt this strategy are invariably polite, but every bit as destructive to the project and to the social environment as those who are outright rude, IMO, and this passive-aggressive indirect method of taking out anyone you don't want taken seriously prevails throughout the project and not particularly on pages like AN/I. It's the aggression and the "playing-to-win-at-all-costs" attitude that is aversive to me, whatever form it takes.
So just to take a hypothetical example, let's say "someone" wanted to discredit or diminish or discount my account of my experience on Wikipedia, and let's make clear from the beginning that I don't mean Daniel here; even though I've quoted his post below, I'll just repeat what he said when quoting me: "I'm not singling you out, just using your comments as an example."
That person could suggest that when people encounter aggression on Wikipedia it generally means that they seek out drama centers like AN/I and that if these people would devote themselves to content that they're interested in, they would find a more congenial atmosphere. No doubt that hypothetical person would look at my contributions and ascertain that I have few article edits before making this suggestion, and would ignore the fact that I have almost no edits to AN/I, because that would interfere with the suggestion he was trying to leave, that I (or at least people "like" me, who say the things I say) tend to hang around AN/I.
I had already explained why I have few article edits, because when I attempted to work in content areas of my interest I found that there were entrenched forces working against the insertion of neutral content, making it impossible for a neutral editor to work there, that if one tried to, it would just turn into an endless revert war, and there was no point; besides I wasn't interested in playing this battle game. I hate conflict, and if it takes fighting to insert neutral content, I won't edit. Banning, or topic-banning, those editors makes no difference, because of ideological, financial, or political interests that guarantee an endless supply of replacement editors to continue the effort. I mistakenly believed in the beginning that there was a governance structure in place that once aware of what was going on, would act to support and reinforce neutral editors, but I have since become completely disillusioned on that score.
But just to make myself absolutely clear, the only thing that has ever interested me on Wikipedia is content, trying to ensure that the content reflects the consensus of the best sources. I have no interest in drama whatever, and the only time I've ever been to AN/I in three years was when an editor, who not long after that was site-banned, moved my vote on an article-talk poll to an option I hadn't voted for and insisted that he knew better than I did which version I wanted the article reverted to, and in fact that no one could possibly be so stupid as to actually mean to vote for the version that I did in fact mean to vote for. It seemed important at the time to make that stand to try to ensure the integrity of the poll results, even though the effort wasn't terribly successful in the end.
This hypothetical person might also suggest in an indirect way that people who encounter drama or hostility may not be adhering to the rules against incivility and personal attack. Just so there's no mistake about it, my interactions with other editors have been civil and I don't make personal attacks. The person might also suggest that always remaining congenial toward others will result in a congenial atmosphere all around. Well, that's a lovely idea but simply not true when not everyone has the same goal. When half of the people working on an article are trying to write an encyclopedia and the other half are using Wikipedia as a platform to advance an agenda, there can never be a congenial atmosphere, and until/unless Wikipedia finds a way to effectively deal with advocacy toward non-neutral content, this situation of endless battle will continue unabated, and as I said before, I want no part of it. This IS about content, as far as I'm concerned. And please don't tell me to edit articles that should interest women, like fashion articles or articles about friendship bracelets or dolls, instead of the articles that actually interest me. This always fascinates me, the response when I mention the problem that confronts me where I want to edit, Wikipedians always say, "Well, just don't edit those articles." Well, can't you see that if no one who is interested in neutral content edits those articles, the result is that we abandon them to the interests who are determined to keep them non-neutral? Is that okay with the people who say "just don't edit those articles," or have they just not thought their argument through to its logical conclusion?
This is all a bit off the topic, as it has less to do with gender than with what happens to people who try to work for neutral content in areas where vested interests patrol articles, except that, as Sue says, women may be more averse to the "fighty" aspects of Wikipedia. But it's where I'm coming from, and I don't want my position to be misunderstood. No, I'm not being uncivil and inviting counterattack by my incivility; that's not my style. And no, I don't seek out drama, I hate it. I have spent some time in Wikipedia space trying to raise awareness about how much advocacy for vested interests compromises the integrity of our content, but have not made a dent, and have pretty much given it up. That I still care is evidenced by the fact that I still say "we" and "our" when referring to Wikipedia, but I don't see any way that I can be of use.
Woonpton
On 2/3/11, Daniel and Elizabeth Case dancase@frontiernet.net wrote:
When I entered Wikipedia, I discovered a side of the internet I had never encountered before, and intend never to encounter again; it's a menacing and combative atmosphere that is extremely aversive to me. I recently read somewhere that Wikipedia regulars, as a rule, come from usenet or from gaming, where that kind of atmosphere is apparently an integral and desired part of the experience (I wouldn't know, having no experience with either), and have brought that atmosphere to Wikipedia. As long as that atmosphere characterizes Wikipedia, it is going to drive away anyone who doesn't thrive on that kind of pugnacious taunting get-the-enemy-before-he-gets-you kind of attitude, and I suspect a lot of women would be included in those who don't thrive in that kind of environment.
I'm not singling your post out, Ism, but just quoting this as an example of a theme I've seen in other posts here and on the Times' discussions.
This is so *not* the Wikipedia I've been actively involved in for six years now. I allow that it exists for some people; I've never been one. I have had some intemperate moments in discussions and differences of opinion with other editors over article content or policy issues, but I have always kept our civility and no-personal-attacks policies in mind and have done my best to remain collegial. And by and large I've felt the same reciprocated by almost all the other editors involved.
I venture to suggest that perhaps this is because what I'm most interested in doing, and what I put a great deal of effort into, is creating, maintaining and improving content. When I hear (or rather, read) editors who complain about this, it's almost a given that you can look at their contrib histories and see very little in the way of recent edits to article namespace, and of those even fewer that aren't related to talk-page or policy-page discussions they were devoting most of their energy to.
Now, there are some people who are good at online conflict resolution, and they should not be discouraged from this type of editing. But there are plenty of other editors who let themselves get sucked into long discussions on AN/I or elsewhere that have little to do with them directly when they really ought to be doing what they came to Wikipedia to do. And I also grant that I don't regularly edit in any topic areas, such as those mirroring real-life ethnic or political conflicts, that have been notably rancorous.
That said, I recall at WikiXDC a couple of weekends ago one of my best Wikipedia moments ever. During the trivia contest at the end, one question was "This page, the largest one on the project, takes up an entire gigabyte when all of its archives are included." The answer, of course, is AN/I. When that was announced, someone near me, a longtime member of the community and active editor whom I'd not met or even known of before the event, asked "What's AN/I?"
I wish we had a hundred highly active editors who had to ask that question. A thousand, even.
And so to bring this back to the gendergap subject, I would pass along my observation that I have noticed in most of the female editors I am acquainted with who've been part of the project for a long time is that they, too, have concentrated primarily on the content areas they've been interested in and seem to keep the drama to a minimum.
Daniel Case
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I've thought long and hard about responding to this; my usual tendency, when challenged personally (I'll fight for sources or for data, but never for myself) is to back off and let it go, but in this context, where the goal is ostensibly to understand why women don't choose to edit Wikipedia, it feels important to insist on being heard rather than having my experience dismissed and discredited.
Daniel's response suggests that maybe I wasn't completely clear as to what I meant by the "menacing and combative" atmosphere of Wikipedia, the take-out-the-other-guy-by-whatever-means-necessary aggression that I find so aversive. Aggression takes many forms, and it's not necessarily the most direct forms that are the most destructive and effective, in my experience. The goal of aggression is to take out, neutralize, discredit or drive off the other party by whatever means seems most likely to be successful, and passive aggression, rather than overt aggression, seems to be the preferred strategy on Wikipedia. So if you want to neutralize or diminish someone's point, instead of directly arguing the point, especially if you don't have a good counterargument to argue on the merits, you say things in such an indirect way as to insinuate and suggest something about the other person but also to give you plausible deniability; if the person reponds to the insinuations and suggestions with denials, you can say "oh, but that's not what I meant," or "But of course I didn't mean you." People who adopt this strategy are invariably polite, but every bit as destructive to the project and to the social environment as those who are outright rude, IMO, and this passive-aggressive indirect method of taking out anyone you don't want taken seriously prevails throughout the project and not particularly on pages like AN/I. It's the aggression and the "playing-to-win-at-all-costs" attitude that is aversive to me, whatever form it takes.
So just to take a hypothetical example, let's say "someone" wanted to discredit or diminish or discount my account of my experience on Wikipedia, and let's make clear from the beginning that I don't mean Daniel here; even though I've quoted his post below, I'll just repeat what he said when quoting me: "I'm not singling you out, just using your comments as an example."
That person could suggest that when people encounter aggression on Wikipedia it generally means that they seek out drama centers like AN/I and that if these people would devote themselves to content that they're interested in, they would find a more congenial atmosphere. No doubt that hypothetical person would look at my contributions and ascertain that I have few article edits before making this suggestion, and would ignore the fact that I have almost no edits to AN/I, because that would interfere with the suggestion he was trying to leave, that I (or at least people "like" me, who say the things I say) tend to hang around AN/I.
I had already explained why I have few article edits, because when I attempted to work in content areas of my interest I found that there were entrenched forces working against the insertion of neutral content, making it impossible for a neutral editor to work there, that if one tried to, it would just turn into an endless revert war, and there was no point; besides I wasn't interested in playing this battle game. I hate conflict, and if it takes fighting to insert neutral content, I won't edit. Banning, or topic-banning, those editors makes no difference, because of ideological, financial, or political interests that guarantee an endless supply of replacement editors to continue the effort. I mistakenly believed in the beginning that there was a governance structure in place that once aware of what was going on, would act to support and reinforce neutral editors, but I have since become completely disillusioned on that score.
But just to make myself absolutely clear, the only thing that has ever interested me on Wikipedia is content, trying to ensure that the content reflects the consensus of the best sources. I have no interest in drama whatever, and the only time I've ever been to AN/I in three years was when an editor, who not long after that was site-banned, moved my vote on an article-talk poll to an option I hadn't voted for and insisted that he knew better than I did which version I wanted the article reverted to, and in fact that no one could possibly be so stupid as to actually mean to vote for the version that I did in fact mean to vote for. It seemed important at the time to make that stand to try to ensure the integrity of the poll results, even though the effort wasn't terribly successful in the end.
This hypothetical person might also suggest in an indirect way that people who encounter drama or hostility may not be adhering to the rules against incivility and personal attack. Just so there's no mistake about it, my interactions with other editors have been civil and I don't make personal attacks. The person might also suggest that always remaining congenial toward others will result in a congenial atmosphere all around. Well, that's a lovely idea but simply not true when not everyone has the same goal. When half of the people working on an article are trying to write an encyclopedia and the other half are using Wikipedia as a platform to advance an agenda, there can never be a congenial atmosphere, and until/unless Wikipedia finds a way to effectively deal with advocacy toward non-neutral content, this situation of endless battle will continue unabated, and as I said before, I want no part of it. This IS about content, as far as I'm concerned. And please don't tell me to edit articles that should interest women, like fashion articles or articles about friendship bracelets or dolls, instead of the articles that actually interest me. This always fascinates me, the response when I mention the problem that confronts me where I want to edit, Wikipedians always say, "Well, just don't edit those articles." Well, can't you see that if no one who is interested in neutral content edits those articles, the result is that we abandon them to the interests who are determined to keep them non-neutral? Is that okay with the people who say "just don't edit those articles," or have they just not thought their argument through to its logical conclusion?
This is all a bit off the topic, as it has less to do with gender than with what happens to people who try to work for neutral content in areas where vested interests patrol articles, except that, as Sue says, women may be more averse to the "fighty" aspects of Wikipedia. But it's where I'm coming from, and I don't want my position to be misunderstood. No, I'm not being uncivil and inviting counterattack by my incivility; that's not my style. And no, I don't seek out drama, I hate it. I have spent some time in Wikipedia space trying to raise awareness about how much advocacy for vested interests compromises the integrity of our content, but have not made a dent, and have pretty much given it up. That I still care is evidenced by the fact that I still say "we" and "our" when referring to Wikipedia, but I don't see any way that I can be of use.
Woonpton
I'd have to look at your edits in detail to make an authoritative comparison, but my experience has been similar when editing controversial subjects or engaging in controversial actions. I suspect our interpretation of neutral point of view may differ, but no matter. There are people who are very aggressive here who insist on their right to be aggressive and people with power who protect them. When a woman is their target they do things which harm or intimidate a woman; when a man is their target they do things which harm or intimidate a man.
Some simply want to dominate; some have political or public relations agendas. That's the way it is. There are High Noon moments. Nothing that women can't handle, but at times we face the mob.
When woman are targeted we do what we can but are practical limits. The man who described his repeated attacks on women as "vengeance by proxy" has been banned for years, but he continues to create new accounts.
To me the obvious answer is keep your head and support others, all the more so when the going gets rough.
Fred
On 2/4/11, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
To me the obvious answer is keep your head and support others, all the more so when the going gets rough.
Fred
That doesn't seem like the obvious answer to me; to me the obvious answer is to stay the (heck) away. Why would anyone deliberately stick around for this? I can't think of any remotely rational reason why any remotely rational person would do that. I think I've kept my head and supported others, all along, but that hasn't changed the situation; nothing I could do myself would change this situation one iota. If people are polite and congenial and supportive, as I have been, if people are rude and insulting, as some others have been who have fought this battle much longer than I and have grown weary and frustrated, the situation remains the same either way; it's not the behavior of neutral editors that is causing the problem I've encountered.
I came to this list to explain why I don't edit Wikipedia, because I (apparently mistakenly) thought someone here might honestly want to know why one woman has chosen not to edit Wikipedia, but so far mainly what I've got is responses that seem to be suggesting that I'm causing the problem myself somehow-- a problem that's caused, not by me, but by the failure of Wikipedia governance structures to address in any meaningful way the problem of tendentious editing in the service of an agenda-- and that if I would just (fill in the blank with random Wikipedia slogans about being a better Wikipedia editor) then all would be well. It's not true.
Woonpton
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 2/4/11, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
To me the obvious answer is keep your head and support others, all the more so when the going gets rough.
Fred
That doesn't seem like the obvious answer to me; to me the obvious answer is to stay the (heck) away. Why would anyone deliberately stick around for this? I can't think of any remotely rational reason why any remotely rational person would do that. I think I've kept my head and supported others, all along, but that hasn't changed the situation; nothing I could do myself would change this situation one iota. If people are polite and congenial and supportive, as I have been, if people are rude and insulting, as some others have been who have fought this battle much longer than I and have grown weary and frustrated, the situation remains the same either way; it's not the behavior of neutral editors that is causing the problem I've encountered.
I came to this list to explain why I don't edit Wikipedia, because I (apparently mistakenly) thought someone here might honestly want to know why one woman has chosen not to edit Wikipedia, but so far mainly what I've got is responses that seem to be suggesting that I'm causing the problem myself somehow-- a problem that's caused, not by me, but by the failure of Wikipedia governance structures to address in any meaningful way the problem of tendentious editing in the service of an agenda-- and that if I would just (fill in the blank with random Wikipedia slogans about being a better Wikipedia editor) then all would be well. It's not true.
Woonpton
Battling ignorance is rational. Raising a small army, as we have, to battle ignorance is also rational.
There is stereotype involved here, as demonstrated in the film High Noon: a brave man fighting evil, a woman who deserts him.
I don't think the stereotype is valid, but having experience with my mother, who was easily intimidated, I know there is some truth to it.
With respect to your experience, as I said, I share it, and have given up from time to time on Wikipedia when it seemed that the ignorant and aggressive were getting the upper hand.
Fred
?? I appreciate your understanding of and empathy with my experience, and thanks for that, but not sure what to make of the rest of it.
I don't think this has anything to do with being easily intimidated. I don't think anyone who knows me IRL would say I'm easily intimidated. I once faced down a man with a gun who was threatening to kill a friend of mine, and got him to put the gun away. I once, in a meeting room in Washington DC, faced down a panel of political appointees, appointed by the White House, who were intent on making me change the final report of a national study to reflect the agenda of the administration. They said "We want the report to say x." I said, "Our data don't support x." They said, "Have the courage to go beyond your data!" I stood my ground and the report was published as originally written. I once, when I was being pressured to misrepresent some data to serve an agenda in a different context, not only refused to do so but said I would not remain in the meeting. This presented a problem because the meeting was in a conference room that was too small (the table and the people sitting in chairs along the sides of the table filled the entire room); I was at the farthest end of the table from the door and the people along the sides wouldn't stand up to let me get out. So I took off my high heels, climbed up onto the table and walked the length of the table in my stocking feet and off the other end and out the door. I could tell 20 stories like this, but those should suffice to settle the question of how easily intimidated I am. So while I still don't quite understand what that comment about being easily intimidated was about or who it was directed at, I'm just saying it doesn't seem to have anything to do with me.
As for rationality, yes, battling ignorance is rational, but there are different ways and places to battle ignorance, and when considering which one is likely to be the most productive place to put one's time, one must consider (1) the likelihood of success, (2) the possible consequences and (3) one's level of personal and professional responsibility. For Wikipedia, the numbers don't look good, for me. The likelihood of my making a dent against ignorance by editing Wikipedia is 0%, at least that's the cumulative result from three years of trying. The likelihood of negative consequence in the form of personal harassment and offwiki smear campaign is obviously 100%, since it's already happened, and unlike situations I listed above where I was in a position where I had a clear responsibility to the public and to my reputation for professional integrity to be true to the data, in the case of Wikipedia there is no responsibility or necessity at all for me to edit, no reason to put up with the hassle, no possible gain, just a futile, useless, thankless effort.
I have spent my entire life battling ignorance, and will spend what's left doing the same. But editing Wikipedia does not strike me as a productive place to put my efforts. I keep hoping there won't be further responses requiring clarification, but this is starting to seem like an endless game, and I guess the best way to end it will be to unsubscribe and leave the field. Carry on,
Woonpton
On 2/5/11, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
On 2/4/11, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
To me the obvious answer is keep your head and support others, all the more so when the going gets rough.
Fred
That doesn't seem like the obvious answer to me; to me the obvious answer is to stay the (heck) away. Why would anyone deliberately stick around for this? I can't think of any remotely rational reason why any remotely rational person would do that. I think I've kept my head and supported others, all along, but that hasn't changed the situation; nothing I could do myself would change this situation one iota. If people are polite and congenial and supportive, as I have been, if people are rude and insulting, as some others have been who have fought this battle much longer than I and have grown weary and frustrated, the situation remains the same either way; it's not the behavior of neutral editors that is causing the problem I've encountered.
I came to this list to explain why I don't edit Wikipedia, because I (apparently mistakenly) thought someone here might honestly want to know why one woman has chosen not to edit Wikipedia, but so far mainly what I've got is responses that seem to be suggesting that I'm causing the problem myself somehow-- a problem that's caused, not by me, but by the failure of Wikipedia governance structures to address in any meaningful way the problem of tendentious editing in the service of an agenda-- and that if I would just (fill in the blank with random Wikipedia slogans about being a better Wikipedia editor) then all would be well. It's not true.
Woonpton
Battling ignorance is rational. Raising a small army, as we have, to battle ignorance is also rational.
There is stereotype involved here, as demonstrated in the film High Noon: a brave man fighting evil, a woman who deserts him.
I don't think the stereotype is valid, but having experience with my mother, who was easily intimidated, I know there is some truth to it.
With respect to your experience, as I said, I share it, and have given up from time to time on Wikipedia when it seemed that the ignorant and aggressive were getting the upper hand.
Fred
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
It has less to do with intimidation than having to endure negativity by choice. IMHO, women r much more community focused and communicative. (no surprise women tend to be active on social media) however I think a historical/societal context should also be observed. No matter what part of the world, women are subject many times to varies times of violence/bullying/ aggression on a daily basis. (yes, much of the world is still very sexist) If this is our experience as a gender, why would any woman volunteer to be subject to an aggressive environment on her free time? And I really think the anti-wikipedian movement is an indication it exists. No one hates that much unless they loved as strong. Have the time they remind me scorned of users who feel they have been really wronged. No one invest that much time in hating unless they feel they have been disillusioned.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2011, at 5:09 PM, Ism Woonpton woonpton@gmail.com wrote:
?? I appreciate your understanding of and empathy with my experience, and thanks for that, but not sure what to make of the rest of it.
I don't think this has anything to do with being easily intimidated. I don't think anyone who knows me IRL would say I'm easily intimidated. I once faced down a man with a gun who was threatening to kill a friend of mine, and got him to put the gun away. I once, in a meeting room in Washington DC, faced down a panel of political appointees, appointed by the White House, who were intent on making me change the final report of a national study to reflect the agenda of the administration. They said "We want the report to say x." I said, "Our data don't support x." They said, "Have the courage to go beyond your data!" I stood my ground and the report was published as originally written. I once, when I was being pressured to misrepresent some data to serve an agenda in a different context, not only refused to do so but said I would not remain in the meeting. This presented a problem because the meeting was in a conference room that was too small (the table and the people sitting in chairs along the sides of the table filled the entire room); I was at the farthest end of the table from the door and the people along the sides wouldn't stand up to let me get out. So I took off my high heels, climbed up onto the table and walked the length of the table in my stocking feet and off the other end and out the door. I could tell 20 stories like this, but those should suffice to settle the question of how easily intimidated I am. So while I still don't quite understand what that comment about being easily intimidated was about or who it was directed at, I'm just saying it doesn't seem to have anything to do with me.
As for rationality, yes, battling ignorance is rational, but there are different ways and places to battle ignorance, and when considering which one is likely to be the most productive place to put one's time, one must consider (1) the likelihood of success, (2) the possible consequences and (3) one's level of personal and professional responsibility. For Wikipedia, the numbers don't look good, for me. The likelihood of my making a dent against ignorance by editing Wikipedia is 0%, at least that's the cumulative result from three years of trying. The likelihood of negative consequence in the form of personal harassment and offwiki smear campaign is obviously 100%, since it's already happened, and unlike situations I listed above where I was in a position where I had a clear responsibility to the public and to my reputation for professional integrity to be true to the data, in the case of Wikipedia there is no responsibility or necessity at all for me to edit, no reason to put up with the hassle, no possible gain, just a futile, useless, thankless effort.
I have spent my entire life battling ignorance, and will spend what's left doing the same. But editing Wikipedia does not strike me as a productive place to put my efforts. I keep hoping there won't be further responses requiring clarification, but this is starting to seem like an endless game, and I guess the best way to end it will be to unsubscribe and leave the field. Carry on,
Woonpton
On 2/5/11, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
On 2/4/11, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
To me the obvious answer is keep your head and support others, all the more so when the going gets rough.
Fred
That doesn't seem like the obvious answer to me; to me the obvious answer is to stay the (heck) away. Why would anyone deliberately stick around for this? I can't think of any remotely rational reason why any remotely rational person would do that. I think I've kept my head and supported others, all along, but that hasn't changed the situation; nothing I could do myself would change this situation one iota. If people are polite and congenial and supportive, as I have been, if people are rude and insulting, as some others have been who have fought this battle much longer than I and have grown weary and frustrated, the situation remains the same either way; it's not the behavior of neutral editors that is causing the problem I've encountered.
I came to this list to explain why I don't edit Wikipedia, because I (apparently mistakenly) thought someone here might honestly want to know why one woman has chosen not to edit Wikipedia, but so far mainly what I've got is responses that seem to be suggesting that I'm causing the problem myself somehow-- a problem that's caused, not by me, but by the failure of Wikipedia governance structures to address in any meaningful way the problem of tendentious editing in the service of an agenda-- and that if I would just (fill in the blank with random Wikipedia slogans about being a better Wikipedia editor) then all would be well. It's not true.
Woonpton
Battling ignorance is rational. Raising a small army, as we have, to battle ignorance is also rational.
There is stereotype involved here, as demonstrated in the film High Noon: a brave man fighting evil, a woman who deserts him.
I don't think the stereotype is valid, but having experience with my mother, who was easily intimidated, I know there is some truth to it.
With respect to your experience, as I said, I share it, and have given up from time to time on Wikipedia when it seemed that the ignorant and aggressive were getting the upper hand.
Fred
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
Hi,
I also observed that women (including me) tend to avoid aggressive situations more than men do, although this of course can't and shouldn't be generalized and you should of course never expect anyone to act in a certain way because he or she is a woman or a man. (This is important to me since I'm actually a deconstructivist on sex and gender)
I think education and socialisation in general can be held responsible for this. Little girls are not expected to fight for something as boys are, they are more easily criticized for being aggressive, and they are generally required to behave more friendly. So you can easily imagine that if people educated this way are confronted with people socialized to act "manly", which is associated with being more militant, they have disadvantages.
Lena
On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Sandra sandratordonez@gmail.com wrote:
It has less to do with intimidation than having to endure negativity by choice. IMHO, women r much more community focused and communicative. (no surprise women tend to be active on social media) however I think a historical/societal context should also be observed. No matter what part of the world, women are subject many times to varies times of violence/bullying/ aggression on a daily basis. (yes, much of the world is still very sexist) If this is our experience as a gender, why would any woman volunteer to be subject to an aggressive environment on her free time? And I really think the anti-wikipedian movement is an indication it exists. No one hates that much unless they loved as strong. Have the time they remind me scorned of users who feel they have been really wronged. No one invest that much time in hating unless they feel they have been disillusioned.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2011, at 5:09 PM, Ism Woonpton woonpton@gmail.com wrote:
?? I appreciate your understanding of and empathy with my experience, and thanks for that, but not sure what to make of the rest of it.
I don't think this has anything to do with being easily intimidated. I don't think anyone who knows me IRL would say I'm easily intimidated. I once faced down a man with a gun who was threatening to kill a friend of mine, and got him to put the gun away. I once, in a meeting room in Washington DC, faced down a panel of political appointees, appointed by the White House, who were intent on making me change the final report of a national study to reflect the agenda of the administration. They said "We want the report to say x." I said, "Our data don't support x." They said, "Have the courage to go beyond your data!" I stood my ground and the report was published as originally written. I once, when I was being pressured to misrepresent some data to serve an agenda in a different context, not only refused to do so but said I would not remain in the meeting. This presented a problem because the meeting was in a conference room that was too small (the table and the people sitting in chairs along the sides of the table filled the entire room); I was at the farthest end of the table from the door and the people along the sides wouldn't stand up to let me get out. So I took off my high heels, climbed up onto the table and walked the length of the table in my stocking feet and off the other end and out the door. I could tell 20 stories like this, but those should suffice to settle the question of how easily intimidated I am. So while I still don't quite understand what that comment about being easily intimidated was about or who it was directed at, I'm just saying it doesn't seem to have anything to do with me.
As for rationality, yes, battling ignorance is rational, but there are different ways and places to battle ignorance, and when considering which one is likely to be the most productive place to put one's time, one must consider (1) the likelihood of success, (2) the possible consequences and (3) one's level of personal and professional responsibility. For Wikipedia, the numbers don't look good, for me. The likelihood of my making a dent against ignorance by editing Wikipedia is 0%, at least that's the cumulative result from three years of trying. The likelihood of negative consequence in the form of personal harassment and offwiki smear campaign is obviously 100%, since it's already happened, and unlike situations I listed above where I was in a position where I had a clear responsibility to the public and to my reputation for professional integrity to be true to the data, in the case of Wikipedia there is no responsibility or necessity at all for me to edit, no reason to put up with the hassle, no possible gain, just a futile, useless, thankless effort.
I have spent my entire life battling ignorance, and will spend what's left doing the same. But editing Wikipedia does not strike me as a productive place to put my efforts. I keep hoping there won't be further responses requiring clarification, but this is starting to seem like an endless game, and I guess the best way to end it will be to unsubscribe and leave the field. Carry on,
Woonpton
On 2/5/11, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
On 2/4/11, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
To me the obvious answer is keep your head and support others, all the more so when the going gets rough.
Fred
That doesn't seem like the obvious answer to me; to me the obvious answer is to stay the (heck) away. Why would anyone deliberately stick around for this? I can't think of any remotely rational reason why any remotely rational person would do that. I think I've kept my head and supported others, all along, but that hasn't changed the situation; nothing I could do myself would change this situation one iota. If people are polite and congenial and supportive, as I have been, if people are rude and insulting, as some others have been who have fought this battle much longer than I and have grown weary and frustrated, the situation remains the same either way; it's not the behavior of neutral editors that is causing the problem I've encountered.
I came to this list to explain why I don't edit Wikipedia, because I (apparently mistakenly) thought someone here might honestly want to know why one woman has chosen not to edit Wikipedia, but so far mainly what I've got is responses that seem to be suggesting that I'm causing the problem myself somehow-- a problem that's caused, not by me, but by the failure of Wikipedia governance structures to address in any meaningful way the problem of tendentious editing in the service of an agenda-- and that if I would just (fill in the blank with random Wikipedia slogans about being a better Wikipedia editor) then all would be well. It's not true.
Woonpton
Battling ignorance is rational. Raising a small army, as we have, to battle ignorance is also rational.
There is stereotype involved here, as demonstrated in the film High Noon: a brave man fighting evil, a woman who deserts him.
I don't think the stereotype is valid, but having experience with my mother, who was easily intimidated, I know there is some truth to it.
With respect to your experience, as I said, I share it, and have given up from time to time on Wikipedia when it seemed that the ignorant and aggressive were getting the upper hand.
Fred
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
I've lost Daniel's response, but need to correct one last important misunderstanding and then I hope I'll have done.
The response doesn't address the main point of my post, about passive agression being just as aggressive and offensive as active aggression, but I trust the point was taken, and I appreciate the more straightforward nature of this latest response.
But there seems to be a significant misunderstanding about what I mean by areas where vested interests work tirelessly to advance agendas. I'm not talking about areas of real life strife and controversy, goodness; I wouldn't think of editing in such areas. Areas like Israel-Palestine, climate change, intelligent design, abortion --- I wouldn't go near those political minefields. But I think it's worth noting that those areas differ materially from the areas I'm talking about, in that in those political areas there are reliable sources on both sides and the question is how to negotiate neutrality between contradictory sources.
What I'm talking about is areas where the consensus of research literature is unequivocal and clear but where vested interests continually remove scientific literature reviews and replace them with blogs or promotional literature or other less reliable sources, in the interest of promoting unscientific or pseudoscientific claims, most often to serve a financial interest. It's like trying to bail out the ocean with a teacup to keep those articles neutral, and there's little help from anyone on the project; when one of these topic areas goes to ArbCom it's most often someone on the side of the encyclopedia rather than on the side of the vested interests that is banned for becoming frustrated and losing their temper. Occasionally an editor that is seen as too close in a COI way to the interest that's being served by the POV edits is banned, but as I've said before, there are always more where those came from.
As I've said before, this is all somewhat off the topic of gender, except that it may be that women are less interested in getting into the mud and duking it out with people who are so invested in their cause that they will take the fight out into other parts of the internet and one finds oneself (thankfully identified only by a fake Wikipedia name, but still) vilified and misrepresented in odd corners of the web. I don't know about other women, but I know for sure I don't like it at all, and am very sorry that I opened myself to this kind of smear campaign by innocently trying to improve a couple of Wikipedia articles that were not accurately representing reliable sources. Knowing what I know now, I would never click on that "edit this page" button, and I urge everyone I know to stay far away. Now, I'm done. I appreciate the indulgence and patience of the list.
Woonpton
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
But there seems to be a significant misunderstanding about what I mean by areas where vested interests work tirelessly to advance agendas. I'm not talking about areas of real life strife and controversy, goodness; I wouldn't think of editing in such areas. Areas like Israel-Palestine, climate change, intelligent design, abortion --- I wouldn't go near those political minefields. But I think it's worth noting that those areas differ materially from the areas I'm talking about, in that in those political areas there are reliable sources on both sides and the question is how to negotiate neutrality between contradictory sources.
What I'm talking about is areas where the consensus of research literature is unequivocal and clear but where vested interests continually remove scientific literature reviews and replace them with blogs or promotional literature or other less reliable sources, in the interest of promoting unscientific or pseudoscientific claims, most often to serve a financial interest. It's like trying to bail out the ocean with a teacup to keep those articles neutral, and there's little help from anyone on the project; when one of these topic areas goes to ArbCom it's most often someone on the side of the encyclopedia rather than on the side of the vested interests that is banned for becoming frustrated and losing their temper. Occasionally an editor that is seen as too close in a COI way to the interest that's being served by the POV edits is banned, but as I've said before, there are always more where those came from.
OK, now I know what you're talking about - not in the sense that you're talking about any specific article or controversy, which I respect your decision not to name, but in the general sense you're talking about. At the anniversary celebrations in New York, after I gave my presentation (completely unrelated to this subject), someone mentioned this to me. He talked specifically about articles about certain drugs, where he felt that there were organized, possibly paid groups of editors, working hard to keep the articles consistent with the company line, and endlessly reverting anyone who even tried to add anything from a somewhat reputable journal that might suggest otherwise.
And the pseudoscience issue ... I know exactly what you mean; I've seen several editors who made it their business to keep those articles neutral and in accord with mainstream scientific consensus (often with little in the way of support from any other member of the community) succumb to the constant pressure and vitriol directed their way from off- and on-wiki, to the point of, as you noted, getting sanctioned by ArbCom. That phenomenon certainly existed online before Wikipedia, although it did acquire its own special volatility when "anyone could edit".
Daniel Case
Daniel's response suggests that maybe I wasn't completely clear as to what I meant by the "menacing and combative" atmosphere of Wikipedia, the take-out-the-other-guy-by-whatever-means-necessary aggression that I find so aversive.
And I am glad for yours because you clarified a bit better what you're talking about in a way that improves my understanding, or at least makes me feel that it has been improved.
When half of the people working on an article are trying to write an encyclopedia and the other half are using Wikipedia as a platform to advance an agenda, there can never be a congenial atmosphere, and until/unless Wikipedia finds a way to effectively deal with advocacy toward non-neutral content, this situation of endless battle will continue unabated, and as I said before, I want no part of it.
I *do* have some experience with this aspect of Wikipedia, where I have on occasion strayed. Specifically, those broad groups of articles that mirror real-life controversies, as I've noted elsewhere. Israel/Palestine seems to be the biggest minefield at the moment, though at times The Troubles have not been far behind. In those fields I do not deny there are editors who, being otherwise competent members of the community, have an agenda.
I tried, once, after the brief removal of a picture I had taken and added to the article because I thought it relevant, to involve myself in a dispute over wording that reached the RfC level. I had what I thought to be a great, neutral way of describing the political status of the Golan Heights, but none of the regulars in that arena seemed interested in giving an inch. It seemed on closer examination that this was just the latest round for some of these people.
I totally agree that we have not found an effective way to deal with these areas, where controversy is almost guaranteed to occur (our conduct policies are written with the presumption that people will be editing things like articles about architecture and movies where disagreements are likely to remain cordial as no one has a personally defining stake in the outcome). I have had some ideas but those are probably better left to another forum if we wish the present discussion to remain reasonably on-topic.
This IS about content, as far as I'm
concerned. And please don't tell me to edit articles that should interest women, like fashion articles or articles about friendship bracelets or dolls, instead of the articles that actually interest me.
I'm not *telling* anyone to edit that way. I was just noting mine and others' belief that the desultory state of those articles is probably a symptom (one of many) of Wikipedia's gender imbalance.
Daniel Case
Hi there,
Katie Krauss here from Philadelphia, PA. Am just joining the list.
Is there a similar online something-or-other (online community? really big wiki? :) that lacks women and has overcome? Perhaps we could talk to them.
Is there a concrete plan to make a plan? How will that work? What is the specific goal? (50% participation by women?)
Is there some consensus on a few good strategems for involving women that could be rolled out and tested?
Cheers,
Katie