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(a)verizon.net>wrote;wrote:

Sarah, 14/05/2013 08:46: 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. For the records, I can. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2013-May/003705.html Nemo

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(a)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(a)gmail.com>wrote;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...

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(a)verizon.net>wrote;wrote: -- -- *Sarah Stierch* *Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian* *www.sarahstierch.com*