http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2013-May/thread.html shows me that "Topless image retention -don't give up" has stretched on pretty long, and it seems to me like it might be better suited to onwiki discussion instead. Maybe the posters who are very interested in engaging in that conversation could hash this out on Commons or Meta and send this list an update when you have a solid proposal or conclusion?
A few things I'd love to see more of on the gendergap list: sharing useful or inspiring blog posts and best practice documentation, promoting the School of Open's Wikipedia-editing course https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/05/10/school-of-open-offers-free-wikipedia-c... and similar courses to women, and learning from case studies of Wikimedia projects (or other free culture/free software communities) that have improved gender equity.
-Sumana
I second your proposal.
On 5/13/2013 9:36 PM, Sumana Harihareswara wrote:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2013-May/thread.html shows me that "Topless image retention -don't give up" has stretched on pretty long, and it seems to me like it might be better suited to onwiki discussion instead. Maybe the posters who are very interested in engaging in that conversation could hash this out on Commons or Meta and send this list an update when you have a solid proposal or conclusion?
A few things I'd love to see more of on the gendergap list: sharing useful or inspiring blog posts and best practice documentation, promoting the School of Open's Wikipedia-editing course https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/05/10/school-of-open-offers-free-wikipedia-c... and similar courses to women, and learning from case studies of Wikimedia projects (or other free culture/free software communities) that have improved gender equity.
-Sumana
__
Sumana,
Yes, gladly. I feel that thread has served a good purpose, but it's true, it's been at the expense of flooding the list with a lot of noise, and I've contributed some of it. I do think that after a prolonged long dip into less productive discussion, in the last exchange we have arrived at a point where there is some consensus about what the problems are and how to attack them, and hopefully we can leverage that into some policy reform that moves the project forward. But you're right, it would be better at this point to move that activity onto a wiki. (Probably worthwhile to point out one avenue for that, a Commons discussion mentioned a couple times in the email thread, in which a number of people are trying to hash out a workable approach to swiftly dealing with extreme cases where illegal content gets uploaded, and how volunteers and paid staff can work together most effectively: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Making_it_easier_for_...)
Thank you for mentioning my class (starting in under 24 hours!) as the kind of thing you'd like to be hearing about on this list. I really appreciate that! It honestly hadn't occurred to me to announce it here; but since you have, it occurs to me that our most productive and active students in the first round were overwhelmingly female; also my co-instructor is a woman. So I suppose we are actually taking a little stab at the gender gap in that class. If anybody knows people looking to take a six week class to learn a bit about Wikipedia editing, please do point them our way!
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.netwrote:
I second your proposal.
On 5/13/2013 9:36 PM, Sumana Harihareswara wrote:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/**pipermail/gendergap/2013-May/**thread.htmlhttp://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2013-May/thread.html shows me that "Topless image retention -don't give up" has stretched on pretty long, and it seems to me like it might be better suited to onwiki discussion instead. Maybe the posters who are very interested in engaging in that conversation could hash this out on Commons or Meta and send this list an update when you have a solid proposal or conclusion?
A few things I'd love to see more of on the gendergap list: sharing useful or inspiring blog posts and best practice documentation, promoting the School of Open's Wikipedia-editing course https://blog.wikimedia.org/**2013/05/10/school-of-open-** offers-free-wikipedia-course/https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/05/10/school-of-open-offers-free-wikipedia-course/ and similar courses to women, and learning from case studies of Wikimedia projects (or other free culture/free software communities) that have improved gender equity.
-Sumana
__
______________________________**_________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/gendergaphttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.comwrote:
Sumana,
Yes, gladly. I feel that thread has served a good purpose, but it's true, it's been at the expense of flooding the list with a lot of noise, and I've contributed some of it. I do think that after a prolonged long dip into less productive discussion, in the last exchange we have arrived at a point where there is some consensus about what the problems are and how to attack them, and hopefully we can leverage that into some policy reform that moves the project forward. But you're right, it would be better at this point to move that activity onto a wiki.
Hi Sumana and Pete, I would object to closing any thread down. If people don't want to read the thread, that's fine, but if others are discussing it, please allow that.
The presence of this kind of material on Commons is directly related to the whole issue of sexism on Wikipedia and the lack of women editors, and that makes it a very valid topic for the gender-gap list. I can't imagine a more valid topic than women being represented sexually without their consent on Wikimedia projects. If discussing it on this list brings people together and edges us closer to a solution that would surely be a really good outcome for the list.
Sarah
Sarah, 14/05/2013 08:46:
Hi Sumana and Pete, I would object to closing any thread down. If people don't want to read the thread, that's fine, but if others are discussing it, please allow that.
You can as well continue with private email. A posting rate limit has also proved successful on foundation-l to avoid similar cases of signal:noise ratio drops. If you really want to use this list, the list admins could add a mailman "topic" to the list, then you'd be able to use a safeword in your emails on the topic to state they're on that topic and I could filter them in my list preferences, allowing me to look at the sub-directory currently hosting this list in my mail client with less repugnance.
[...] I can't imagine a more valid topic than women being represented sexually without their consent on Wikimedia projects. [...]
For the records, I can. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2013-May/003705.html
Nemo
I agree with Sarah: the thread should stay, tagged with [Commons] as Erik has suggested.
We are actually making progress – painful progress at times, but significant progress nevertheless.
Andreas
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.comwrote:
Sumana,
Yes, gladly. I feel that thread has served a good purpose, but it's true, it's been at the expense of flooding the list with a lot of noise, and I've contributed some of it. I do think that after a prolonged long dip into less productive discussion, in the last exchange we have arrived at a point where there is some consensus about what the problems are and how to attack them, and hopefully we can leverage that into some policy reform that moves the project forward. But you're right, it would be better at this point to move that activity onto a wiki.
Hi Sumana and Pete, I would object to closing any thread down. If people don't want to read the thread, that's fine, but if others are discussing it, please allow that.
The presence of this kind of material on Commons is directly related to the whole issue of sexism on Wikipedia and the lack of women editors, and that makes it a very valid topic for the gender-gap list. I can't imagine a more valid topic than women being represented sexually without their consent on Wikimedia projects. If discussing it on this list brings people together and edges us closer to a solution that would surely be a really good outcome for the list.
Sarah
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I'm not sure I see the pressing reason why this thread needs to go on-wiki. Commons doesn't have a venue for discussing problems this fundamental with it as far as I know, and people have spoken in this thread who either do not or will not participate on-wiki on Commons. Moving the thread on-wiki would mean scattering it to some random page, losing the voices of the people who aren't on Commons for whatever reasons, and subjecting everyone else to the defensiveness that's the reason this thread grew traction here instead of the dozens of times it's been brought up on various wikis.
This mailing list was never intended to be a "ooh happy!"-only venue where we only post announcements about courses and case studies - one-liners about positive steps are good, but so are tough discussions like this one, and given that this is one of the very, very few "safe" venues for that type of discussion, I'm saddened to see people trying to shove this off the list.
-Fluff
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Sarah: the thread should stay, tagged with [Commons] as Erik has suggested.
We are actually making progress – painful progress at times, but significant progress nevertheless.
Andreas
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.comwrote:
Sumana,
Yes, gladly. I feel that thread has served a good purpose, but it's true, it's been at the expense of flooding the list with a lot of noise, and I've contributed some of it. I do think that after a prolonged long dip into less productive discussion, in the last exchange we have arrived at a point where there is some consensus about what the problems are and how to attack them, and hopefully we can leverage that into some policy reform that moves the project forward. But you're right, it would be better at this point to move that activity onto a wiki.
Hi Sumana and Pete, I would object to closing any thread down. If people don't want to read the thread, that's fine, but if others are discussing it, please allow that.
The presence of this kind of material on Commons is directly related to the whole issue of sexism on Wikipedia and the lack of women editors, and that makes it a very valid topic for the gender-gap list. I can't imagine a more valid topic than women being represented sexually without their consent on Wikimedia projects. If discussing it on this list brings people together and edges us closer to a solution that would surely be a really good outcome for the list.
Sarah
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Well, I haven't read ANY of the emails in the thread, for the petty reason that the subject line makes me cringe every time I see it. And according to my gmail count there's something like 100 mails on the topic, so I'm probably not going to start now. So if indeed there is actual progress being made, if someone could post a 1-para summary of the discussion and what the conclusions are, that would be awesome!
(seriously. Refactoring is almost always a helpful exercise when it comes to long discussions on complicated issues -- for both the participants & those who haven't been following the discussion).
-- phoebe
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 6:24 AM, Katherine Casey < fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not sure I see the pressing reason why this thread needs to go on-wiki. Commons doesn't have a venue for discussing problems this fundamental with it as far as I know, and people have spoken in this thread who either do not or will not participate on-wiki on Commons. Moving the thread on-wiki would mean scattering it to some random page, losing the voices of the people who aren't on Commons for whatever reasons, and subjecting everyone else to the defensiveness that's the reason this thread grew traction here instead of the dozens of times it's been brought up on various wikis.
This mailing list was never intended to be a "ooh happy!"-only venue where we only post announcements about courses and case studies - one-liners about positive steps are good, but so are tough discussions like this one, and given that this is one of the very, very few "safe" venues for that type of discussion, I'm saddened to see people trying to shove this off the list.
-Fluff
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Sarah: the thread should stay, tagged with [Commons] as Erik has suggested.
We are actually making progress – painful progress at times, but significant progress nevertheless.
Andreas
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.comwrote:
Sumana,
Yes, gladly. I feel that thread has served a good purpose, but it's true, it's been at the expense of flooding the list with a lot of noise, and I've contributed some of it. I do think that after a prolonged long dip into less productive discussion, in the last exchange we have arrived at a point where there is some consensus about what the problems are and how to attack them, and hopefully we can leverage that into some policy reform that moves the project forward. But you're right, it would be better at this point to move that activity onto a wiki.
Hi Sumana and Pete, I would object to closing any thread down. If people don't want to read the thread, that's fine, but if others are discussing it, please allow that.
The presence of this kind of material on Commons is directly related to the whole issue of sexism on Wikipedia and the lack of women editors, and that makes it a very valid topic for the gender-gap list. I can't imagine a more valid topic than women being represented sexually without their consent on Wikimedia projects. If discussing it on this list brings people together and edges us closer to a solution that would surely be a really good outcome for the list.
Sarah
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
Phoebe, I would really suggest reading the emails if you're interested in the discussion (or, conversely, not asking for a summary if you're not), but here's a quick-and-dirty condensation off the top of my head:
I started the thread to discuss how disposition of topless photo of a woman on Commons (being used on enwp), and that woman's right to consent or not consent to the photo being used, was being discussed entirely by men. The conversation then veered to how sexual images on Commons are a nearly-intractable problem and how Commons can be unwelcoming to people who try to discuss them, then to discussion of the Board's resolution that we must be sensitive to people's identity rights when photos are from private places, then to how Commons does or doesn't adhere to that resolution, then to how to *make *Commons adhere (better) to that resolution. There is no final result; there is only a general feeling that Commons's common practice is in dispute with how some people interpret the Board's resolution, that other people feel Commons is already making huge concessions to the ideas in the resolution, and that some individual images and categories of images are rather blatant violations of Commons's and/or the Board's policies/resolutions.
Hope this helps.
-Fluff
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:51 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.comwrote:
Well, I haven't read ANY of the emails in the thread, for the petty reason that the subject line makes me cringe every time I see it. And according to my gmail count there's something like 100 mails on the topic, so I'm probably not going to start now. So if indeed there is actual progress being made, if someone could post a 1-para summary of the discussion and what the conclusions are, that would be awesome!
(seriously. Refactoring is almost always a helpful exercise when it comes to long discussions on complicated issues -- for both the participants & those who haven't been following the discussion).
-- phoebe
Thanks. That helps a lot, really, and I will skim the emails now. I really didn't know what the topic of this extensive discussion *was* before, and didn't have the stomach for another protracted censorship discussion.
thanks again, -- phoebe
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Katherine Casey < fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
Phoebe, I would really suggest reading the emails if you're interested in the discussion (or, conversely, not asking for a summary if you're not), but here's a quick-and-dirty condensation off the top of my head:
I started the thread to discuss how disposition of topless photo of a woman on Commons (being used on enwp), and that woman's right to consent or not consent to the photo being used, was being discussed entirely by men. The conversation then veered to how sexual images on Commons are a nearly-intractable problem and how Commons can be unwelcoming to people who try to discuss them, then to discussion of the Board's resolution that we must be sensitive to people's identity rights when photos are from private places, then to how Commons does or doesn't adhere to that resolution, then to how to *make *Commons adhere (better) to that resolution. There is no final result; there is only a general feeling that Commons's common practice is in dispute with how some people interpret the Board's resolution, that other people feel Commons is already making huge concessions to the ideas in the resolution, and that some individual images and categories of images are rather blatant violations of Commons's and/or the Board's policies/resolutions.
Hope this helps.
-Fluff
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:51 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.comwrote:
Well, I haven't read ANY of the emails in the thread, for the petty reason that the subject line makes me cringe every time I see it. And according to my gmail count there's something like 100 mails on the topic, so I'm probably not going to start now. So if indeed there is actual progress being made, if someone could post a 1-para summary of the discussion and what the conclusions are, that would be awesome!
(seriously. Refactoring is almost always a helpful exercise when it comes to long discussions on complicated issues -- for both the participants & those who haven't been following the discussion).
-- phoebe
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
How about starting a list just for these porno related discussions?
Most women won't find these photos to be turned off by them, so it is slightly off topic.
Just announce a new thread here and then people who want to discuss can join that list.
I'm seriously thinking of dropping off because it's just too much...
On May 18, 2013 2:14 AM, "Carol Moore DC" carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
How about starting a list just for these porno related discussions?
Most women won't find these photos to be turned off by them, so it is
slightly off topic.
Just announce a new thread here and then people who want to discuss can
join that list.
I'm seriously thinking of dropping off because it's just too much...
Looping in the mailman so he can remind us of the usual reasons for and against creating a new list. (or splitting a list)
I personally don't care much if it's split but OTOH I haven't read all the recent threads either.
-Jeremy
Yeah this list seems to have turned into the "porn on Commons" list again.
Perhaps someone can create a commons task force or something.
I'd rather not wake up every single morning to "naked women on Commons" subjects. I'd either fork it someplace else, take it to wiki, or..
I'm all about the conversation, but, it's basically getting overwhelming. I don't think I should have to 1) unsub 2) go to digest 3) file my Gmail so I don't get gender gap emails.
And if I do digest, file into my gmail, and unsub, then I'll well...just stop participating as a whole knowing my own participation style with those formats.
-Sarah
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.netwrote:
How about starting a list just for these porno related discussions?
Most women won't find these photos to be turned off by them, so it is slightly off topic.
Just announce a new thread here and then people who want to discuss can join that list.
I'm seriously thinking of dropping off because it's just too much...
______________________________**_________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/gendergaphttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I retract my suggestion. It seemed to me like the conversation in the thread wasn't making progress on the issue, and that it would be more productive to move the discussion to Meta or Commons; sounds like I was wrong. Also, I subscribe in digest mode to this as to most lists, so muting individual subject lines/topics doesn't work. I'll just skim more.
I certainly never meant to say that gendergap shouldn't be a place for discussion and collaboration over the difficult issues in our community. I just meant that I'd like MORE of the positive in addition -- both announcements and discussion! When we have outliers in the direction we want to go -- "positive deviants" as Atul Gawande calls them -- I find it valuable to take time to consider what causes their positive deviancy, so I can help replicate it elsewhere.
Sorry.