Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting double standard about profanity in the comment section.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed
Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by Keilana, would it have been published as is?
Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite the one some think it would be.
Risker/Anne
On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting double standard about profanity in the comment section.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community takes all of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of profanity in a positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia calls a female editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by Keilana, would it have been published as is?
Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite the one some think it would be.
Risker/Anne
On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting double standard about profanity in the comment section.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
+1 Ryan.
This was one article, and no Wikipedians, readers, or article subjects were injured as a result of its publication. I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other about whether using language in this way is OK. But the main lesson to me is how much the English Wikipedia community has come to value the Signpost as an institution. It's hard to imagine such any Signpost column inspiring so much passion, say, five years ago. Above all, I think this constitutes a strong endorsement of the general value of the Signpost.
-Pete
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community takes all of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of profanity in a positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia calls a female editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by Keilana, would it have been published as is?
Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite the one some think it would be.
Risker/Anne
On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting double standard about profanity in the comment section.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I feel very sad that you fellows don't see the problem in using this kind of language to describe women. "Badass" isn't a compliment. After the first two descriptions, I was fully expecting to see "brilliant motherf***er" to describe the third one. I'm surprised it wasn't used, in fact.
The subjects of our articles deserve to be treated much better than this.
Further, I'm incredibly disappointed that this got published in The Signpost. On Emily's own page...well, okay. But instead of drawing attention to the women who are the subjects of the articles, almost all of the discussion is about the language used to describe them....and pointing out that several of them already had articles about them that were improved, rather than that they'd not been written about at all.
All in all, it impressed me as an island of lovely flowers in a garden with a winter's worth of St. Bernard droppings.
Risker
On 21 February 2016 at 17:13, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
+1 Ryan.
This was one article, and no Wikipedians, readers, or article subjects were injured as a result of its publication. I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other about whether using language in this way is OK. But the main lesson to me is how much the English Wikipedia community has come to value the Signpost as an institution. It's hard to imagine such any Signpost column inspiring so much passion, say, five years ago. Above all, I think this constitutes a strong endorsement of the general value of the Signpost.
-Pete
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community takes all of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of profanity in a positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia calls a female editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by Keilana, would it have been published as is?
Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite the one some think it would be.
Risker/Anne
On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting double standard about profanity in the comment section.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
"Badass" isn't a compliment.
And "cunt" is a friendly term of camaraderie in British English. Apparently I just don't have a good command of the English language.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I feel very sad that you fellows don't see the problem in using this kind of language to describe women. "Badass" isn't a compliment. After the first two descriptions, I was fully expecting to see "brilliant motherf***er" to describe the third one. I'm surprised it wasn't used, in fact.
The subjects of our articles deserve to be treated much better than this.
Further, I'm incredibly disappointed that this got published in The Signpost. On Emily's own page...well, okay. But instead of drawing attention to the women who are the subjects of the articles, almost all of the discussion is about the language used to describe them....and pointing out that several of them already had articles about them that were improved, rather than that they'd not been written about at all.
All in all, it impressed me as an island of lovely flowers in a garden with a winter's worth of St. Bernard droppings.
Risker
On 21 February 2016 at 17:13, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
+1 Ryan.
This was one article, and no Wikipedians, readers, or article subjects were injured as a result of its publication. I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other about whether using language in this way is OK. But the main lesson to me is how much the English Wikipedia community has come to value the Signpost as an institution. It's hard to imagine such any Signpost column inspiring so much passion, say, five years ago. Above all, I think this constitutes a strong endorsement of the general value of the Signpost.
-Pete
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community takes all of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of profanity in a positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia calls a female editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by Keilana, would it have been published as is?
Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite the one some think it would be.
Risker/Anne
On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting double standard about profanity in the comment section.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Unless my vision has completely eroded, I do not see the word "cunt" anywhere in that article, Ryan. Nobody on this list has ever said that calling someone a cunt is a good thing. What I do not understand is why anyone on this list would think that calling someone a "badass" is a good thing.
Risker
On 21 February 2016 at 18:19, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
"Badass" isn't a compliment.
And "cunt" is a friendly term of camaraderie in British English. Apparently I just don't have a good command of the English language.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I feel very sad that you fellows don't see the problem in using this kind of language to describe women. "Badass" isn't a compliment. After the first two descriptions, I was fully expecting to see "brilliant motherf***er" to describe the third one. I'm surprised it wasn't used, in fact.
The subjects of our articles deserve to be treated much better than this.
Further, I'm incredibly disappointed that this got published in The Signpost. On Emily's own page...well, okay. But instead of drawing attention to the women who are the subjects of the articles, almost all of the discussion is about the language used to describe them....and pointing out that several of them already had articles about them that were improved, rather than that they'd not been written about at all.
All in all, it impressed me as an island of lovely flowers in a garden with a winter's worth of St. Bernard droppings.
Risker
On 21 February 2016 at 17:13, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
+1 Ryan.
This was one article, and no Wikipedians, readers, or article subjects were injured as a result of its publication. I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other about whether using language in this way is OK. But the main lesson to me is how much the English Wikipedia community has come to value the Signpost as an institution. It's hard to imagine such any Signpost column inspiring so much passion, say, five years ago. Above all, I think this constitutes a strong endorsement of the general value of the Signpost.
-Pete
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community takes all of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of profanity in a positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia calls a female editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by Keilana, would it have been published as is?
Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite the one some think it would be.
Risker/Anne
On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting double standard about profanity in the comment section.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I'm not sure that "badass" is a bad thing to call someone nowadays. It has been appropriated by feminists, according to the Atlantic. [1]
They describe it as "a term of acclamation and aspiration, both for women and for a culture that is finally giving them their due. It’s a recognition that women can 'radiate confidence in everything they do' just as readily as men can."
Sarah
[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/11/how-badass-became-f...
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Unless my vision has completely eroded, I do not see the word "cunt" anywhere in that article, Ryan. Nobody on this list has ever said that calling someone a cunt is a good thing. What I do not understand is why anyone on this list would think that calling someone a "badass" is a good thing.
Risker
On 21 February 2016 at 18:19, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
"Badass" isn't a compliment.
And "cunt" is a friendly term of camaraderie in British English. Apparently I just don't have a good command of the English language.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I feel very sad that you fellows don't see the problem in using this kind of language to describe women. "Badass" isn't a compliment. After the first two descriptions, I was fully expecting to see "brilliant motherf***er" to describe the third one. I'm surprised it wasn't used, in fact.
The subjects of our articles deserve to be treated much better than this.
Further, I'm incredibly disappointed that this got published in The Signpost. On Emily's own page...well, okay. But instead of drawing attention to the women who are the subjects of the articles, almost all of the discussion is about the language used to describe them....and pointing out that several of them already had articles about them that were improved, rather than that they'd not been written about at all.
All in all, it impressed me as an island of lovely flowers in a garden with a winter's worth of St. Bernard droppings.
Risker
On 21 February 2016 at 17:13, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
+1 Ryan.
This was one article, and no Wikipedians, readers, or article subjects were injured as a result of its publication. I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other about whether using language in this way is OK. But the main lesson to me is how much the English Wikipedia community has come to value the Signpost as an institution. It's hard to imagine such any Signpost column inspiring so much passion, say, five years ago. Above all, I think this constitutes a strong endorsement of the general value of the Signpost.
-Pete
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community takes all of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of profanity in a positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia calls a female editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by Keilana, would it have been published as is?
Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite the one some think it would be.
Risker/Anne
On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
> Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting double > standard about profanity in the comment section. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, > please visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Unless my vision has completely eroded, I do not see the word "cunt" anywhere in that article, Ryan. Nobody on this list has ever said that calling someone a cunt is a good thing.
I was referring to the common defense of that term on English Wikipedia (which I imagine you are familiar with). It's hard to notice the outcry against Keilana's Op-ed and the acceptance of other editors' use of the C-word (sorry, Fae)[1] without feeling like there is some kind of double-standard.
What I do not understand is why anyone on this list would think that
calling someone a "badass" is a good thing.
According to Wiktionary it means "Having extreme appearance, attitude, or behavior that is considered admirable." Synonyms are listed as "cool" and "awesome".[2] It's obviously slang, but still sounds like a compliment to me.
1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_fe... 2. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/badass#Adjective
I dunno, Ryan. The last time someone called me a badass, it was very definitely meant as an insult cloaked as a compliment. I would not subject any article subject to such an adjective.
RIsker/Anne
On 21 February 2016 at 19:12, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Unless my vision has completely eroded, I do not see the word "cunt" anywhere in that article, Ryan. Nobody on this list has ever said that calling someone a cunt is a good thing.
I was referring to the common defense of that term on English Wikipedia (which I imagine you are familiar with). It's hard to notice the outcry against Keilana's Op-ed and the acceptance of other editors' use of the C-word (sorry, Fae)[1] without feeling like there is some kind of double-standard.
What I do not understand is why anyone on this list would think that
calling someone a "badass" is a good thing.
According to Wiktionary it means "Having extreme appearance, attitude, or behavior that is considered admirable." Synonyms are listed as "cool" and "awesome".[2] It's obviously slang, but still sounds like a compliment to me.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_fe... 2. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/badass#Adjective
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 21 February 2016 at 23:19, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
"Badass" isn't a compliment.
And "cunt" is a friendly term of camaraderie in British English. Apparently I just don't have a good command of the English language.
Could you keep the unwelcome locker-room language to Jimmy Wales' talk page where it appears welcomed with high-fives, rather than forcing everywhere else where we might sometimes manage meaningful discussions down to the same level?
Thanks Fae
Risker, I want to be clear:
It's not that I don't see a problem. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to your view; but I think your point has been made very strongly already, and the important audience is the Signpost editorial staff. I am confident they have heard the message, and I don't see how further discussion moves us in a better direction. The past can't be changed. I suppose the Signpost could retract the op-ed, but I rather doubt you're seeking something so extreme...or am I wrong?
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I feel very sad that you fellows don't see the problem in using this kind of language to describe women. "Badass" isn't a compliment. After the first two descriptions, I was fully expecting to see "brilliant motherf***er" to describe the third one. I'm surprised it wasn't used, in fact.
The subjects of our articles deserve to be treated much better than this.
Further, I'm incredibly disappointed that this got published in The Signpost. On Emily's own page...well, okay. But instead of drawing attention to the women who are the subjects of the articles, almost all of the discussion is about the language used to describe them....and pointing out that several of them already had articles about them that were improved, rather than that they'd not been written about at all.
All in all, it impressed me as an island of lovely flowers in a garden with a winter's worth of St. Bernard droppings.
Risker
On 21 February 2016 at 17:13, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
+1 Ryan.
This was one article, and no Wikipedians, readers, or article subjects were injured as a result of its publication. I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other about whether using language in this way is OK. But the main lesson to me is how much the English Wikipedia community has come to value the Signpost as an institution. It's hard to imagine such any Signpost column inspiring so much passion, say, five years ago. Above all, I think this constitutes a strong endorsement of the general value of the Signpost.
-Pete
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community takes all of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of profanity in a positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia calls a female editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by Keilana, would it have been published as is?
Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite the one some think it would be.
Risker/Anne
On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting double standard about profanity in the comment section.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I think I've made myself clear, Pete. I don't think that anything I say will make a difference, any more than anything I have ever said has changed the sub-optimal behaviour of any editor who thinks it's acceptable professional behaviour to cuss all over the place. I'm just really disappointed that people who used to be in the "let's make this a more pleasant and positive place to do our work" have gone over to the other side.
Risker
On 21 February 2016 at 19:38, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Risker, I want to be clear:
It's not that I don't see a problem. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to your view; but I think your point has been made very strongly already, and the important audience is the Signpost editorial staff. I am confident they have heard the message, and I don't see how further discussion moves us in a better direction. The past can't be changed. I suppose the Signpost could retract the op-ed, but I rather doubt you're seeking something so extreme...or am I wrong?
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I feel very sad that you fellows don't see the problem in using this kind of language to describe women. "Badass" isn't a compliment. After the first two descriptions, I was fully expecting to see "brilliant motherf***er" to describe the third one. I'm surprised it wasn't used, in fact.
The subjects of our articles deserve to be treated much better than this.
Further, I'm incredibly disappointed that this got published in The Signpost. On Emily's own page...well, okay. But instead of drawing attention to the women who are the subjects of the articles, almost all of the discussion is about the language used to describe them....and pointing out that several of them already had articles about them that were improved, rather than that they'd not been written about at all.
All in all, it impressed me as an island of lovely flowers in a garden with a winter's worth of St. Bernard droppings.
Risker
On 21 February 2016 at 17:13, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
+1 Ryan.
This was one article, and no Wikipedians, readers, or article subjects were injured as a result of its publication. I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other about whether using language in this way is OK. But the main lesson to me is how much the English Wikipedia community has come to value the Signpost as an institution. It's hard to imagine such any Signpost column inspiring so much passion, say, five years ago. Above all, I think this constitutes a strong endorsement of the general value of the Signpost.
-Pete
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community takes all of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of profanity in a positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia calls a female editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by Keilana, would it have been published as is?
Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite the one some think it would be.
Risker/Anne
On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting double standard about profanity in the comment section.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Risker, can we just put that to the test, since at least one Signpost editor is a subscriber to this list, and has spoken up on this topic on-Wiki?
Rob, could you give us an indication of whether the commentary about the language in Emily's post (from Risker and others) has impacted your thinking on the topic, and whether you think you've learned anything from it? (Details welcome of course, but all I'm seeking is a quick/general comment.)
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I think I've made myself clear, Pete. I don't think that anything I say will make a difference, any more than anything I have ever said has changed the sub-optimal behaviour of any editor who thinks it's acceptable professional behaviour to cuss all over the place. I'm just really disappointed that people who used to be in the "let's make this a more pleasant and positive place to do our work" have gone over to the other side.
Risker
On 21 February 2016 at 19:38, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Risker, I want to be clear:
It's not that I don't see a problem. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to your view; but I think your point has been made very strongly already, and the important audience is the Signpost editorial staff. I am confident they have heard the message, and I don't see how further discussion moves us in a better direction. The past can't be changed. I suppose the Signpost could retract the op-ed, but I rather doubt you're seeking something so extreme...or am I wrong?
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I feel very sad that you fellows don't see the problem in using this kind of language to describe women. "Badass" isn't a compliment. After the first two descriptions, I was fully expecting to see "brilliant motherf***er" to describe the third one. I'm surprised it wasn't used, in fact.
The subjects of our articles deserve to be treated much better than this.
Further, I'm incredibly disappointed that this got published in The Signpost. On Emily's own page...well, okay. But instead of drawing attention to the women who are the subjects of the articles, almost all of the discussion is about the language used to describe them....and pointing out that several of them already had articles about them that were improved, rather than that they'd not been written about at all.
All in all, it impressed me as an island of lovely flowers in a garden with a winter's worth of St. Bernard droppings.
Risker
On 21 February 2016 at 17:13, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
+1 Ryan.
This was one article, and no Wikipedians, readers, or article subjects were injured as a result of its publication. I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other about whether using language in this way is OK. But the main lesson to me is how much the English Wikipedia community has come to value the Signpost as an institution. It's hard to imagine such any Signpost column inspiring so much passion, say, five years ago. Above all, I think this constitutes a strong endorsement of the general value of the Signpost.
-Pete
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community takes all of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of profanity in a positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia calls a female editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by Keilana, would it have been published as is?
Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite the one some think it would be.
Risker/Anne
On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
> Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting double > standard about profanity in the comment section. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, > please visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Thank you, Pete, for the reminder about this message. There's a lot going on this week.
The response to the op-ed has given us a lot to think about. We expected a strong response and some objections, but we did not anticipate anything like this. We do want a response, and sometimes we deliberately try to provoke a negative response if we think the issue is important, as we did in this case. We do want to take into account the responses and consider the reasonable ones respectfully, even if we disagree with them, while reserving the right to respond appropriately to the responses that are ridiculous or offensive. Many of the responses rest on premises with which I fundamentally disagree (which I'll get to in a bit), so I doubt I will be able to find common ground with those particular editors, unfortunately.
The biggest impression that was made on me by these responses was realizing how others see The Signpost. One commenter called Emily's column “an alternative weekly-style piece”. While I take our mission and specifically the news coverage quite seriously, I often see The Signpost as a cheeky alternative weekly whose mission is to be edgy and provocative. Until now, I did not realize how many people saw The Signpost not as an edgy outsider but as a Wikimedia institution and our newspaper of record, and feel that it has a responsibility to act more in the manner of The New York Times than The Village Voice. I don't want The Signpost to become stodgy or staid, but I wonder if I shouldn't take into account the views of those editors more often. It is heartening to see how important The Signpost is to so many editors, and I'd like to continue to be intellectually provocative while not needlessly offending those editors.
My main issue with the objections is that want The Signpost to be or perceive it as only one thing. I want The Signpost to reflect the vast diversity of people and viewpoints in Wikimedia. I want it to be able to be more than one thing. Risker complained that we “would rather be sensationalistic than informative”. I want it to be both. I want it to be serious and funny, professional and irreverent, a cheerleader for Wikimedia and a gadfly that points out its flaws. We publish anywhere from four to twelve sections each week, from a variety of authors and viewpoints. News is different from Traffic which is different from the Arbitration Report which is different from whatever person is presenting their opinion in the Op-Ed section that week. Different authors present different viewpoints and different tones, in different ways in different pieces in different weeks. I want to experiment with new viewpoints and new formats to supplement what we're already doing. Perhaps this column was a failed experiment, but I don't regret trying it because if we don't risk failure we won't be able to improve The Signpost.
This diversity of views and tones also applies to the issue of systemic bias and the author herself. This was one expression, it was never intended to be the final word on the issue of systemic bias, and there should be room in The Signpost and in the minds of its readers for multiple ways of dealing with that topic. This particular expression should not be expected to reflect the entire issue or all of its advocates, and the idea that an irreverent online column would prevent someone from attending an in person event related to this issue or reflects on all the people participating in the event is, frankly, baffling.
Likewise, the author of that piece should not be limited in expressing herself in one particular way about Wikimedia issues. There are many ways we should be able to express how we feel about this thing that we love and that is so important to our lives. She can be professional with her professional dealings and also express herself in a bawdy, irreverent way in a different context. The idea that she cannot or should not be a multifaceted person and be able to express that is a limitation of the imaginations of some readers, but those limitations should not be imposed on the author herself.
One objection we did not anticipate is the idea that this particular expression would be seen as offensive towards the scientists discussed in the piece. We thought it was fairly clear that this was a celebration of the lives and work of female scientists by a feminist author. While perhaps in some contexts “badass” might be intended as a pejorative, in the column it is obviously used in the more widely used positive sense of that word and no offense was intended. This is a fairly common and accepted usage. For example, a forthcoming book from the major publisher Simon and Schuster is called “The Bad-Ass Librarians of Timbuktu”, about saving ancient manuscripts from Al Qaeda. As a librarian, I am not offended by this description and I recognize it as celebratory. However, I do realize now that some people many not wish to be described in a certain manner, and we will discuss this internally when considering future columns describing living individuals.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Risker, can we just put that to the test, since at least one Signpost editor is a subscriber to this list, and has spoken up on this topic on-Wiki?
Rob, could you give us an indication of whether the commentary about the language in Emily's post (from Risker and others) has impacted your thinking on the topic, and whether you think you've learned anything from it? (Details welcome of course, but all I'm seeking is a quick/general comment.)
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I think I've made myself clear, Pete. I don't think that anything I say will make a difference, any more than anything I have ever said has changed the sub-optimal behaviour of any editor who thinks it's acceptable professional behaviour to cuss all over the place. I'm just really disappointed that people who used to be in the "let's make this a more pleasant and positive place to do our work" have gone over to the other side.
Risker
On 21 February 2016 at 19:38, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Risker, I want to be clear:
It's not that I don't see a problem. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to your view; but I think your point has been made very strongly already, and the important audience is the Signpost editorial staff. I am confident they have heard the message, and I don't see how further discussion moves us in a better direction. The past can't be changed. I suppose the Signpost could retract the op-ed, but I rather doubt you're seeking something so extreme...or am I wrong?
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I feel very sad that you fellows don't see the problem in using this kind of language to describe women. "Badass" isn't a compliment. After the first two descriptions, I was fully expecting to see "brilliant motherf***er" to describe the third one. I'm surprised it wasn't used, in fact.
The subjects of our articles deserve to be treated much better than this.
Further, I'm incredibly disappointed that this got published in The Signpost. On Emily's own page...well, okay. But instead of drawing attention to the women who are the subjects of the articles, almost all of the discussion is about the language used to describe them....and pointing out that several of them already had articles about them that were improved, rather than that they'd not been written about at all.
All in all, it impressed me as an island of lovely flowers in a garden with a winter's worth of St. Bernard droppings.
Risker
On 21 February 2016 at 17:13, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
+1 Ryan.
This was one article, and no Wikipedians, readers, or article subjects were injured as a result of its publication. I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other about whether using language in this way is OK. But the main lesson to me is how much the English Wikipedia community has come to value the Signpost as an institution. It's hard to imagine such any Signpost column inspiring so much passion, say, five years ago. Above all, I think this constitutes a strong endorsement of the general value of the Signpost.
-Pete
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community takes all of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of profanity in a positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia calls a female editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
> Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by > Keilana, would it have been published as is? > > Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite the > one some think it would be. > > Risker/Anne > > On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote: > >> Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting double >> standard about profanity in the comment section. >> >> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, >> please visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, > please visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Rob,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
I think it is a good recap of the situation and I support your overall thinking. Warm regards, Sydney
Sydney Poore User:FloNight Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane Collaboration
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you, Pete, for the reminder about this message. There's a lot going on this week.
The response to the op-ed has given us a lot to think about. We expected a strong response and some objections, but we did not anticipate anything like this. We do want a response, and sometimes we deliberately try to provoke a negative response if we think the issue is important, as we did in this case. We do want to take into account the responses and consider the reasonable ones respectfully, even if we disagree with them, while reserving the right to respond appropriately to the responses that are ridiculous or offensive. Many of the responses rest on premises with which I fundamentally disagree (which I'll get to in a bit), so I doubt I will be able to find common ground with those particular editors, unfortunately.
The biggest impression that was made on me by these responses was realizing how others see The Signpost. One commenter called Emily's column “an alternative weekly-style piece”. While I take our mission and specifically the news coverage quite seriously, I often see The Signpost as a cheeky alternative weekly whose mission is to be edgy and provocative. Until now, I did not realize how many people saw The Signpost not as an edgy outsider but as a Wikimedia institution and our newspaper of record, and feel that it has a responsibility to act more in the manner of The New York Times than The Village Voice. I don't want The Signpost to become stodgy or staid, but I wonder if I shouldn't take into account the views of those editors more often. It is heartening to see how important The Signpost is to so many editors, and I'd like to continue to be intellectually provocative while not needlessly offending those editors.
My main issue with the objections is that want The Signpost to be or perceive it as only one thing. I want The Signpost to reflect the vast diversity of people and viewpoints in Wikimedia. I want it to be able to be more than one thing. Risker complained that we “would rather be sensationalistic than informative”. I want it to be both. I want it to be serious and funny, professional and irreverent, a cheerleader for Wikimedia and a gadfly that points out its flaws. We publish anywhere from four to twelve sections each week, from a variety of authors and viewpoints. News is different from Traffic which is different from the Arbitration Report which is different from whatever person is presenting their opinion in the Op-Ed section that week. Different authors present different viewpoints and different tones, in different ways in different pieces in different weeks. I want to experiment with new viewpoints and new formats to supplement what we're already doing. Perhaps this column was a failed experiment, but I don't regret trying it because if we don't risk failure we won't be able to improve The Signpost.
This diversity of views and tones also applies to the issue of systemic bias and the author herself. This was one expression, it was never intended to be the final word on the issue of systemic bias, and there should be room in The Signpost and in the minds of its readers for multiple ways of dealing with that topic. This particular expression should not be expected to reflect the entire issue or all of its advocates, and the idea that an irreverent online column would prevent someone from attending an in person event related to this issue or reflects on all the people participating in the event is, frankly, baffling.
Likewise, the author of that piece should not be limited in expressing herself in one particular way about Wikimedia issues. There are many ways we should be able to express how we feel about this thing that we love and that is so important to our lives. She can be professional with her professional dealings and also express herself in a bawdy, irreverent way in a different context. The idea that she cannot or should not be a multifaceted person and be able to express that is a limitation of the imaginations of some readers, but those limitations should not be imposed on the author herself.
One objection we did not anticipate is the idea that this particular expression would be seen as offensive towards the scientists discussed in the piece. We thought it was fairly clear that this was a celebration of the lives and work of female scientists by a feminist author. While perhaps in some contexts “badass” might be intended as a pejorative, in the column it is obviously used in the more widely used positive sense of that word and no offense was intended. This is a fairly common and accepted usage. For example, a forthcoming book from the major publisher Simon and Schuster is called “The Bad-Ass Librarians of Timbuktu”, about saving ancient manuscripts from Al Qaeda. As a librarian, I am not offended by this description and I recognize it as celebratory. However, I do realize now that some people many not wish to be described in a certain manner, and we will discuss this internally when considering future columns describing living individuals.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Risker, can we just put that to the test, since at least one Signpost editor is a subscriber to this list, and has spoken up on this topic on-Wiki?
Rob, could you give us an indication of whether the commentary about the language in Emily's post (from Risker and others) has impacted your thinking on the topic, and whether you think you've learned anything from it? (Details welcome of course, but all I'm seeking is a quick/general comment.)
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I think I've made myself clear, Pete. I don't think that anything I say will make a difference, any more than anything I have ever said has changed the sub-optimal behaviour of any editor who thinks it's acceptable professional behaviour to cuss all over the place. I'm just really disappointed that people who used to be in the "let's make this a more pleasant and positive place to do our work" have gone over to the other side.
Risker
On 21 February 2016 at 19:38, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Risker, I want to be clear:
It's not that I don't see a problem. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to your view; but I think your point has been made very strongly already, and the important audience is the Signpost editorial staff. I am confident they have heard the message, and I don't see how further discussion moves us in a better direction. The past can't be changed. I suppose the Signpost could retract the op-ed, but I rather doubt you're seeking something so extreme...or am I wrong?
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I feel very sad that you fellows don't see the problem in using this kind of language to describe women. "Badass" isn't a compliment. After the first two descriptions, I was fully expecting to see "brilliant motherf***er" to describe the third one. I'm surprised it wasn't used, in fact.
The subjects of our articles deserve to be treated much better than this.
Further, I'm incredibly disappointed that this got published in The Signpost. On Emily's own page...well, okay. But instead of drawing attention to the women who are the subjects of the articles, almost all of the discussion is about the language used to describe them....and pointing out that several of them already had articles about them that were improved, rather than that they'd not been written about at all.
All in all, it impressed me as an island of lovely flowers in a garden with a winter's worth of St. Bernard droppings.
Risker
On 21 February 2016 at 17:13, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
+1 Ryan.
This was one article, and no Wikipedians, readers, or article subjects were injured as a result of its publication. I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other about whether using language in this way is OK. But the main lesson to me is how much the English Wikipedia community has come to value the Signpost as an institution. It's hard to imagine such any Signpost column inspiring so much passion, say, five years ago. Above all, I think this constitutes a strong endorsement of the general value of the Signpost.
-Pete
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari@wikimedia.org > wrote:
> The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community > takes all of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of > profanity in a positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia > calls a female editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye. > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote: > >> Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by >> Keilana, would it have been published as is? >> >> Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite >> the one some think it would be. >> >> Risker/Anne >> >> On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting >>> double standard about profanity in the comment section. >>> >>> >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gendergap mailing list >>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, >>> please visit: >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, >> please visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, > please visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 2/24/2016 12:02 AM, Rob wrote: Until now, I did not realize how many people saw The
Signpost not as an edgy outsider but as a Wikimedia institution and our newspaper of record, and feel that it has a responsibility to act more in the manner of The New York Times than The Village Voice. I don't want The Signpost to become stodgy or staid, but I wonder if I shouldn't take into account the views of those editors more often. It is heartening to see how important The Signpost is to so many editors, and I'd like to continue to be intellectually provocative while not needlessly offending those editors.
Some of us who are known to lose it under pressure (which is another reason why people harass us), DO appreciate seeing the official organs encourage us to keep working in a civil manner. So that we can deal with not only harassment against us, but our own bad reactions to it. Feeding the trolls as the intemperate/machismo language did does NOT encourage a civil and productive atmosphere.
More importantly, it discourages the greater number of editors who can understand and agree with Wikimedia 5 pillars and produce quality contributions, the kind of talented editors that Wikimedia wants to attract.
(By the way, I had a senior moment and forgot what the "5 pillars" are called and trying to find them from the main page, content page, etc. came up with zip. Looking here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Five_pillars
I only found one project page newbies might use linking to them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Menu
Are the trolls hiding them now? Maybe they have to be dropped back into a few general WP: project pages?
CM
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
risker: i'm kinda with you about defining deviancy down
it's just that things are so bad can't go lower article subjects are already dismayed by the opaque unfriendly culture they periodically ask for article deletion librarians are advised about the "cultural buzzsaw" having a safe environment on line is a lost cause but we can have a grim determination with much cursing
cheers
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I think I've made myself clear, Pete. I don't think that anything I say will make a difference, any more than anything I have ever said has changed the sub-optimal behaviour of any editor who thinks it's acceptable professional behaviour to cuss all over the place. I'm just really disappointed that people who used to be in the "let's make this a more pleasant and positive place to do our work" have gone over to the other side.
Risker
On 21 February 2016 at 19:38, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Risker, I want to be clear:
It's not that I don't see a problem. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to your view; but I think your point has been made very strongly already, and the important audience is the Signpost editorial staff. I am confident they have heard the message, and I don't see how further discussion moves us in a better direction. The past can't be changed. I suppose the Signpost could retract the op-ed, but I rather doubt you're seeking something so extreme...or am I wrong?
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I feel very sad that you fellows don't see the problem in using this kind of language to describe women. "Badass" isn't a compliment. After the first two descriptions, I was fully expecting to see "brilliant motherf***er" to describe the third one. I'm surprised it wasn't used, in fact.
The subjects of our articles deserve to be treated much better than this.
Further, I'm incredibly disappointed that this got published in The Signpost. On Emily's own page...well, okay. But instead of drawing attention to the women who are the subjects of the articles, almost all of the discussion is about the language used to describe them....and pointing out that several of them already had articles about them that were improved, rather than that they'd not been written about at all.
All in all, it impressed me as an island of lovely flowers in a garden with a winter's worth of St. Bernard droppings.
Risker
On 21 February 2016 at 17:13, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
+1 Ryan.
This was one article, and no Wikipedians, readers, or article subjects were injured as a result of its publication. I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other about whether using language in this way is OK. But the main lesson to me is how much the English Wikipedia community has come to value the Signpost as an institution. It's hard to imagine such any Signpost column inspiring so much passion, say, five years ago. Above all, I think this constitutes a strong endorsement of the general value of the Signpost.
-Pete
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community takes all of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of profanity in a positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia calls a female editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by Keilana, would it have been published as is?
Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite the one some think it would be.
Risker/Anne
On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
> Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting double > standard about profanity in the comment section. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, > please visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
@Risker, the double standard is that several individuals dropped f-bombs on the page, but only the woman got tsked. Talk pages of various users, not to mention the arbitration committee's pages, routinely contain f-bombs, which I have never seen anyone remark on. JimboTalk has occasionally seen some respectful and considerate pushback, but nothing like the strident comments on the Signpost piece. True, there was a former arbitrator who had an essay about the word deleted, but that was before my time. In the current climate, an individual can drop the c-bomb on a women's task force page with impunity, while someone who marks such a thread with a NSFW tag can be permabanned for doing so. Wikipedia has become f-Wikipedia; Keilana has claimed her place at the table.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 11:33 PM, J Hayes slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
risker: i'm kinda with you about defining deviancy down
it's just that things are so bad can't go lower article subjects are already dismayed by the opaque unfriendly culture they periodically ask for article deletion librarians are advised about the "cultural buzzsaw" having a safe environment on line is a lost cause but we can have a grim determination with much cursing
cheers
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I think I've made myself clear, Pete. I don't think that anything I say will make a difference, any more than anything I have ever said has changed the sub-optimal behaviour of any editor who thinks it's acceptable professional behaviour to cuss all over the place. I'm just really disappointed that people who used to be in the "let's make this a more pleasant and positive place to do our work" have gone over to the other side.
Risker
On 21 February 2016 at 19:38, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Risker, I want to be clear:
It's not that I don't see a problem. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to your view; but I think your point has been made very strongly already, and the important audience is the Signpost editorial staff. I am confident they have heard the message, and I don't see how further discussion moves us in a better direction. The past can't be changed. I suppose the Signpost could retract the op-ed, but I rather doubt you're seeking something so extreme...or am I wrong?
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I feel very sad that you fellows don't see the problem in using this kind of language to describe women. "Badass" isn't a compliment. After the first two descriptions, I was fully expecting to see "brilliant motherf***er" to describe the third one. I'm surprised it wasn't used, in fact.
The subjects of our articles deserve to be treated much better than this.
Further, I'm incredibly disappointed that this got published in The Signpost. On Emily's own page...well, okay. But instead of drawing attention to the women who are the subjects of the articles, almost all of the discussion is about the language used to describe them....and pointing out that several of them already had articles about them that were improved, rather than that they'd not been written about at all.
All in all, it impressed me as an island of lovely flowers in a garden with a winter's worth of St. Bernard droppings.
Risker
On 21 February 2016 at 17:13, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
+1 Ryan.
This was one article, and no Wikipedians, readers, or article subjects were injured as a result of its publication. I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other about whether using language in this way is OK. But the main lesson to me is how much the English Wikipedia community has come to value the Signpost as an institution. It's hard to imagine such any Signpost column inspiring so much passion, say, five years ago. Above all, I think this constitutes a strong endorsement of the general value of the Signpost.
-Pete
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community takes all of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of profanity in a positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia calls a female editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
> Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by > Keilana, would it have been published as is? > > Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite the > one some think it would be. > > Risker/Anne > > On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote: > >> Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting double >> standard about profanity in the comment section. >> >> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, >> please visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, > please visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Give me a break, Neotarf. I am critiquing the article and the decisions by its author and its publisher. It doesn't surprise me that having someone of Keilana's stature drop more f-bombs in a couple of paragraphs than I heard on a bus full of high school students this morning will change the climate to suggest that it is now perfectly acceptable to curse out people everywhere under every circumstance.
For some strange reason, it appears the people on this list are celebrating that fact. And it has nothing to do with gender, really, and everything to do with making Wikipedia a pleasant place to work. Keilana's actions have encouraged people to make it less so.
Risker/Anne
On 22 February 2016 at 12:46, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
@Risker, the double standard is that several individuals dropped f-bombs on the page, but only the woman got tsked. Talk pages of various users, not to mention the arbitration committee's pages, routinely contain f-bombs, which I have never seen anyone remark on. JimboTalk has occasionally seen some respectful and considerate pushback, but nothing like the strident comments on the Signpost piece. True, there was a former arbitrator who had an essay about the word deleted, but that was before my time. In the current climate, an individual can drop the c-bomb on a women's task force page with impunity, while someone who marks such a thread with a NSFW tag can be permabanned for doing so. Wikipedia has become f-Wikipedia; Keilana has claimed her place at the table.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 11:33 PM, J Hayes slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
risker: i'm kinda with you about defining deviancy down
it's just that things are so bad can't go lower article subjects are already dismayed by the opaque unfriendly culture they periodically ask for article deletion librarians are advised about the "cultural buzzsaw" having a safe environment on line is a lost cause but we can have a grim determination with much cursing
cheers
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I think I've made myself clear, Pete. I don't think that anything I say will make a difference, any more than anything I have ever said has changed the sub-optimal behaviour of any editor who thinks it's acceptable professional behaviour to cuss all over the place. I'm just really disappointed that people who used to be in the "let's make this a more pleasant and positive place to do our work" have gone over to the other side.
Risker
On 21 February 2016 at 19:38, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Risker, I want to be clear:
It's not that I don't see a problem. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to your view; but I think your point has been made very strongly already, and the important audience is the Signpost editorial staff. I am confident they have heard the message, and I don't see how further discussion moves us in a better direction. The past can't be changed. I suppose the Signpost could retract the op-ed, but I rather doubt you're seeking something so extreme...or am I wrong?
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I feel very sad that you fellows don't see the problem in using this kind of language to describe women. "Badass" isn't a compliment. After the first two descriptions, I was fully expecting to see "brilliant motherf***er" to describe the third one. I'm surprised it wasn't used, in fact.
The subjects of our articles deserve to be treated much better than this.
Further, I'm incredibly disappointed that this got published in The Signpost. On Emily's own page...well, okay. But instead of drawing attention to the women who are the subjects of the articles, almost all of the discussion is about the language used to describe them....and pointing out that several of them already had articles about them that were improved, rather than that they'd not been written about at all.
All in all, it impressed me as an island of lovely flowers in a garden with a winter's worth of St. Bernard droppings.
Risker
On 21 February 2016 at 17:13, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
+1 Ryan.
This was one article, and no Wikipedians, readers, or article subjects were injured as a result of its publication. I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other about whether using language in this way is OK. But the main lesson to me is how much the English Wikipedia community has come to value the Signpost as an institution. It's hard to imagine such any Signpost column inspiring so much passion, say, five years ago. Above all, I think this constitutes a strong endorsement of the general value of the Signpost.
-Pete
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari@wikimedia.org > wrote:
> The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community > takes all of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of > profanity in a positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia > calls a female editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye. > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote: > >> Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by >> Keilana, would it have been published as is? >> >> Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite >> the one some think it would be. >> >> Risker/Anne >> >> On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting >>> double standard about profanity in the comment section. >>> >>> >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gendergap mailing list >>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, >>> please visit: >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, >> please visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, > please visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
@Risker, if your high school student are that benign, perhaps I will move to Canada.
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Give me a break, Neotarf. I am critiquing the article and the decisions by its author and its publisher. It doesn't surprise me that having someone of Keilana's stature drop more f-bombs in a couple of paragraphs than I heard on a bus full of high school students this morning will change the climate to suggest that it is now perfectly acceptable to curse out people everywhere under every circumstance.
For some strange reason, it appears the people on this list are celebrating that fact. And it has nothing to do with gender, really, and everything to do with making Wikipedia a pleasant place to work. Keilana's actions have encouraged people to make it less so.
Risker/Anne
On 22 February 2016 at 12:46, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
@Risker, the double standard is that several individuals dropped f-bombs on the page, but only the woman got tsked. Talk pages of various users, not to mention the arbitration committee's pages, routinely contain f-bombs, which I have never seen anyone remark on. JimboTalk has occasionally seen some respectful and considerate pushback, but nothing like the strident comments on the Signpost piece. True, there was a former arbitrator who had an essay about the word deleted, but that was before my time. In the current climate, an individual can drop the c-bomb on a women's task force page with impunity, while someone who marks such a thread with a NSFW tag can be permabanned for doing so. Wikipedia has become f-Wikipedia; Keilana has claimed her place at the table.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 11:33 PM, J Hayes slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
risker: i'm kinda with you about defining deviancy down
it's just that things are so bad can't go lower article subjects are already dismayed by the opaque unfriendly culture they periodically ask for article deletion librarians are advised about the "cultural buzzsaw" having a safe environment on line is a lost cause but we can have a grim determination with much cursing
cheers
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I think I've made myself clear, Pete. I don't think that anything I say will make a difference, any more than anything I have ever said has changed the sub-optimal behaviour of any editor who thinks it's acceptable professional behaviour to cuss all over the place. I'm just really disappointed that people who used to be in the "let's make this a more pleasant and positive place to do our work" have gone over to the other side.
Risker
On 21 February 2016 at 19:38, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Risker, I want to be clear:
It's not that I don't see a problem. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to your view; but I think your point has been made very strongly already, and the important audience is the Signpost editorial staff. I am confident they have heard the message, and I don't see how further discussion moves us in a better direction. The past can't be changed. I suppose the Signpost could retract the op-ed, but I rather doubt you're seeking something so extreme...or am I wrong?
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I feel very sad that you fellows don't see the problem in using this kind of language to describe women. "Badass" isn't a compliment. After the first two descriptions, I was fully expecting to see "brilliant motherf***er" to describe the third one. I'm surprised it wasn't used, in fact.
The subjects of our articles deserve to be treated much better than this.
Further, I'm incredibly disappointed that this got published in The Signpost. On Emily's own page...well, okay. But instead of drawing attention to the women who are the subjects of the articles, almost all of the discussion is about the language used to describe them....and pointing out that several of them already had articles about them that were improved, rather than that they'd not been written about at all.
All in all, it impressed me as an island of lovely flowers in a garden with a winter's worth of St. Bernard droppings.
Risker
On 21 February 2016 at 17:13, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
> +1 Ryan. > > This was one article, and no Wikipedians, readers, or article > subjects were injured as a result of its publication. I don't really have a > strong opinion one way or the other about whether using language in this > way is OK. But the main lesson to me is how much the English Wikipedia > community has come to value the Signpost as an institution. It's hard to > imagine such any Signpost column inspiring so much passion, say, five years > ago. Above all, I think this constitutes a strong endorsement of the > general value of the Signpost. > > -Pete > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari < > rkaldari@wikimedia.org> wrote: > >> The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community >> takes all of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of >> profanity in a positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia >> calls a female editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye. >> >> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >>> Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by >>> Keilana, would it have been published as is? >>> >>> Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite >>> the one some think it would be. >>> >>> Risker/Anne >>> >>> On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>>> Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting >>>> double standard about profanity in the comment section. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gendergap mailing list >>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, >>>> please visit: >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gendergap mailing list >>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, >>> please visit: >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, >> please visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, > please visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 22 February 2016 at 13:06, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
@Risker, if your high school student are that benign, perhaps I will move to Canada.
:-) Even though it's a big urban centre that takes the word "multicultural" to a whole new level, Toronto is actually a pretty accommodating and pleasant place. You'd probably like it here.
Risker/Anne
"Keilana's actions have encouraged people to make it less so. "
or validating the bad behavior elsewhere. i'd just say they don't need no validation, they will continue the "buzz saw" regardless. this language appropriation, (like sl**-walking) is a common enough device to be cliché. shouldn't have to let the young editors vent, but it's better than internalizing it.
and please don't troll the Yanks to immigrate, we're saving for our wikimania 2017 tickets, wouldn't want to make it one way.
cheers
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 February 2016 at 13:06, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
@Risker, if your high school student are that benign, perhaps I will move to Canada.
:-) Even though it's a big urban centre that takes the word "multicultural" to a whole new level, Toronto is actually a pretty accommodating and pleasant place. You'd probably like it here.
Risker/Anne
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Give me a break, Neotarf. I am critiquing the article and the decisions by its author and its publisher. It doesn't surprise me that having someone of Keilana's stature drop more f-bombs in a couple of paragraphs than I heard on a bus full of high school students this morning will change the climate to suggest that it is now perfectly acceptable to curse out people everywhere under every circumstance.
For some strange reason, it appears the people on this list are celebrating that fact. And it has nothing to do with gender, really, and everything to do with making Wikipedia a pleasant place to work. Keilana's actions have encouraged people to make it less so.
Risker/Anne
Keilana didn't curse anyone out. That should be kept clear. But it has been commonplace and acceptable to curse in Wikipedia discussions for ages. You have witnessed the failure of attempts to curtail cursing etc. first hand, and "civility police" has at times been one of the worst insults slung around on the English Wikipedia. What is strange for some is that Keilana's op-ed is an example of one of the most benign uses of strong language, and yet it has garnered a stronger negative reaction than many much more serious and damaging profane personal attacks.
Additionally, not only have I never heard "badass" used in a derogatory way, I've never even once heard anyone suggest that it might be used as an insult. In my experience it has only ever been a compliment. In the context of Keilana's op-ed, it should be obvious to any reader that she used it positively.
On 24 February 2016 at 13:45, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
<snip> Additionally, not only have I never heard "badass" used in a derogatory way, I've never even once heard anyone suggest that it might be used as an insult. In my experience it has only ever been a compliment. In the context of Keilana's op-ed, it should be obvious to any reader that she used it positively.
If exactly the same article had been written by someone who has a long and
colourful history of behaviour considered to be very uncivil, nobody would be thinking it was an okay article. It's only okay because Keilana wrote it, it wouldn't be okay if someone with a history of alleged misogyny wrote it *using exactly the same words*. I doubt very much that the Signpost would have published it had it been written by any number of other people - in fact, I'm doubtful it would have been published if written by any male editor, though Rob could tell us otherwise - but even if they did publish it, the reaction would have been infinitely more severe if not for the name of the author.
Risker/Anne
"the reaction would have been infinitely more severe if not for the name of the author"
oh no, the reaction is because she is a women. commentators at signpost care not of position, but they could be appalled that a woman is in a position of responsibility. why waste a chance to sealion when someone is celebrating the belated diversity article writing efforts.
it's all about the editing ethics on signpost, lol
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 February 2016 at 13:45, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
<snip> Additionally, not only have I never heard "badass" used in a derogatory way, I've never even once heard anyone suggest that it might be used as an insult. In my experience it has only ever been a compliment. In the context of Keilana's op-ed, it should be obvious to any reader that she used it positively.
If exactly the same article had been written by someone who has a long
and colourful history of behaviour considered to be very uncivil, nobody would be thinking it was an okay article. It's only okay because Keilana wrote it, it wouldn't be okay if someone with a history of alleged misogyny wrote it *using exactly the same words*. I doubt very much that the Signpost would have published it had it been written by any number of other people - in fact, I'm doubtful it would have been published if written by any male editor, though Rob could tell us otherwise - but even if they did publish it, the reaction would have been infinitely more severe if not for the name of the author.
Risker/Anne
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I think you miss my point, Slowking. It wouldn't have been published at all if not for the author. If a man had written it, I doubt it would have made its way out of Gamaliel's inbox. And if a man with a reputation for negative interactions with women had written it, and somehow or other those aliens from Wikimedia-L had abducted Gamaliel and published the piece, there would have been a 500,000 byte discussion on AN or ANI about whether or not to indef the guy.
In other words, the only reason there's a controversy is that the Signpost published a piece that it would have rejected if it had been written by roughly 95% of the active editorship. I'm relatively certain if I'd written exactly the same piece, they would have published it - but if you did, Slowking, it would not have seen the light of day.
Risker/Anne
On 24 February 2016 at 13:59, J Hayes slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
"the reaction would have been infinitely more severe if not for the name of the author"
oh no, the reaction is because she is a women. commentators at signpost care not of position, but they could be appalled that a woman is in a position of responsibility. why waste a chance to sealion when someone is celebrating the belated diversity article writing efforts.
it's all about the editing ethics on signpost, lol
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 February 2016 at 13:45, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
<snip> Additionally, not only have I never heard "badass" used in a derogatory way, I've never even once heard anyone suggest that it might be used as an insult. In my experience it has only ever been a compliment. In the context of Keilana's op-ed, it should be obvious to any reader that she used it positively.
If exactly the same article had been written by someone who has a long
and colourful history of behaviour considered to be very uncivil, nobody would be thinking it was an okay article. It's only okay because Keilana wrote it, it wouldn't be okay if someone with a history of alleged misogyny wrote it *using exactly the same words*. I doubt very much that the Signpost would have published it had it been written by any number of other people - in fact, I'm doubtful it would have been published if written by any male editor, though Rob could tell us otherwise - but even if they did publish it, the reaction would have been infinitely more severe if not for the name of the author.
Risker/Anne
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Context is everything. If a male editor who was previously contemptuous of women and the idea of addressing the gender gap writes a column supposedly celebrating women scientists with the same tone, that tone would be widely perceived as mockery and not celebration, and that perception would almost certainly be accurate. I will publish people being provocative to make a significant point about an important issue, but I won't provide a platform for an asshole to be an asshole. I believe this is a fairly standard editorial position.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I think you miss my point, Slowking. It wouldn't have been published at all if not for the author. If a man had written it, I doubt it would have made its way out of Gamaliel's inbox. And if a man with a reputation for negative interactions with women had written it, and somehow or other those aliens from Wikimedia-L had abducted Gamaliel and published the piece, there would have been a 500,000 byte discussion on AN or ANI about whether or not to indef the guy.
In other words, the only reason there's a controversy is that the Signpost published a piece that it would have rejected if it had been written by roughly 95% of the active editorship. I'm relatively certain if I'd written exactly the same piece, they would have published it - but if you did, Slowking, it would not have seen the light of day.
Risker/Anne
On 24 February 2016 at 13:59, J Hayes slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
"the reaction would have been infinitely more severe if not for the name of the author"
oh no, the reaction is because she is a women. commentators at signpost care not of position, but they could be appalled that a woman is in a position of responsibility. why waste a chance to sealion when someone is celebrating the belated diversity article writing efforts.
it's all about the editing ethics on signpost, lol
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 February 2016 at 13:45, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
<snip> Additionally, not only have I never heard "badass" used in a derogatory way, I've never even once heard anyone suggest that it might be used as an insult. In my experience it has only ever been a compliment. In the context of Keilana's op-ed, it should be obvious to any reader that she used it positively.
If exactly the same article had been written by someone who has a long
and colourful history of behaviour considered to be very uncivil, nobody would be thinking it was an okay article. It's only okay because Keilana wrote it, it wouldn't be okay if someone with a history of alleged misogyny wrote it *using exactly the same words*. I doubt very much that the Signpost would have published it had it been written by any number of other people - in fact, I'm doubtful it would have been published if written by any male editor, though Rob could tell us otherwise - but even if they did publish it, the reaction would have been infinitely more severe if not for the name of the author.
Risker/Anne
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
If exactly the same article had been written by someone who has a long
and colourful history of behaviour considered to be very uncivil, nobody would be thinking it was an okay article. It's only okay because Keilana wrote it, it wouldn't be okay if someone with a history of alleged misogyny wrote it *using exactly the same words*. I doubt very much that the Signpost would have published it had it been written by any number of other people - in fact, I'm doubtful it would have been published if written by any male editor, though Rob could tell us otherwise - but even if they did publish it, the reaction would have been infinitely more severe if not for the name of the author.
Risker/Anne
I think that is purely speculation. You may be right, but it seems like the opposite could just as easily be true - that because it was written by a woman, many people felt much more comfortable ignoring the substance of what she wrote and attacking the attitude and tone she used to write it.
In any case, it seems like it has long been settled that the general use of profanity on Wikipedia is accepted but not celebrated. Only in extreme cases is it considered actionable when *actually directed at an individual*. So it's hard to understand why many editors of long-tenure have reacted in such a strongly negative manner to this op-ed; it may be the unique nature of the Signpost, but like Gamaliel I would be surprised to learn that many users regard the Signpost in the same way devotees do the New York Times. The most likely conclusion is that profanity and vulgar language are almost exclusively deployed by men on Wikipedia, and the difference here is that readers were shocked --shocked!-- to read it from a woman.
In any case, it seems like it has long been settled that the general use of profanity on Wikipedia is accepted but not celebrated. Only in >extreme cases is it considered actionable when actually directed at an individual. So it's hard to understand why many editors of long->tenure have reacted in such a strongly negative manner to this op-ed; it may be the unique nature of the Signpost, but like Gamaliel I >would be surprised to learn that many users regard the Signpost in the same way devotees do the New York Times. The most likely >conclusion is that profanity and vulgar language are almost exclusively deployed by men on Wikipedia, and the difference here is that >readers were shocked --shocked!-- to read it from a woman.
While I think this has something to do with it, I suspect some of the commentators may have seen this as hypocritical: A member of the Arbitration Committee, newly elected as one of several arbs committed to restoring civility and mitigating our gender imbalance, writes a Signpost op-ed using profanity in the headline, while some users (and, more importantly, their supporters) who believe (whether reasonably or not does not matter as the belief informs their actions either way) that last year’s ArbCom results effectively painted a bullseye on their backs, know that use of such language by them in discussions is routinely hauled out as evidence against them in AN/I threads and (more importantly) at ArbCom.
I don’t fault the Signpost for its editorial decision to run it. But I wonder if someone should have talked to Emily about this before she did it. Because now it’ll be hard for her to cast votes in cases where a user’s profanity has been brought up as evidence of consistent incivility without a whole host of users bringing this up immediately on the talk page. It will haunt her effectiveness as an Arb for a long time to come, I’m afraid.
And for what it’s worth, it is not acceptable to curse onwiki where I have anything to say about it. I have blocked people for this when they have refused to cease and desist and/or apologize. I have declined unblock requests without review of the edit history if people used foul language (this usually results in a new request with a profuse apology and more reasonably stated case for unblock).
Daniel Case
A number of us who are concerned about civility on Wikipedia do not see swearing in and of itself as uncivil. Many people may include professionalism and decorum under the umbrella of civility, but others do not, and they are not hypocritical because they do not. The problem is not the words themselves, but when those words are used by editors to attack other editors.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case < dancase@frontiernet.net> wrote:
In any case, it seems like it has long been settled that the general use
of profanity on Wikipedia is accepted but not celebrated. Only in >extreme cases is it considered actionable when *actually directed at an individual*. So it's hard to understand why many editors of long->tenure have reacted in such a strongly negative manner to this op-ed; it may be the unique nature of the Signpost, but like Gamaliel I >would be surprised to learn that many users regard the Signpost in the same way devotees do the New York Times. The most likely >conclusion is that profanity and vulgar language are almost exclusively deployed by men on Wikipedia, and the difference here is that >readers were shocked --shocked!-- to read it from a woman.
While I think this has something to do with it, I suspect some of the commentators may have seen this as hypocritical: A member of the Arbitration Committee, newly elected as one of several arbs committed to restoring civility and mitigating our gender imbalance, writes a Signpost op-ed using profanity in the headline, while some users (and, more importantly, their supporters) who believe (whether reasonably or not does not matter as the belief informs their actions either way) that last year’s ArbCom results effectively painted a bullseye on their backs, know that use of such language by them in discussions is routinely hauled out as evidence against them in AN/I threads and (more importantly) at ArbCom.
I don’t fault the Signpost for its editorial decision to run it. But I wonder if someone should have talked to Emily about this before she did it. Because now it’ll be hard for her to cast votes in cases where a user’s profanity has been brought up as evidence of consistent incivility without a whole host of users bringing this up immediately on the talk page. It will haunt her effectiveness as an Arb for a long time to come, I’m afraid.
And for what it’s worth, it is not acceptable to curse onwiki where I have anything to say about it. I have blocked people for this when they have refused to cease and desist and/or apologize. I have declined unblock requests without review of the edit history if people used foul language (this usually results in a new request with a profuse apology and more reasonably stated case for unblock).
Daniel Case
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Regarding "swearing is not in itself uncivil" --
I agree strongly with that sentiment. However, in group communication it can be valuable to have clear lines that must not be crossed, in order to keep everybody on the same page. As an analogy, it seems to me that a clear expectation of avoiding ALL CAPS in various Internet forums has been positive. It's not that anybody thinks all caps is in itself uncivil or disrespectful; but very often, they are used in ways that accompany disrespectful communication. Establishing, and adhering to, a clear expectation of avoiding that format tends to keep people cognizant of the idea that their mode of expression matters.
I am not suggesting that the Signpost should rigidly adhere to a "no swearing" rule. But I do think it would be good (as you have already acknowledged) for varying expectations around swearing to be incorporated more carefully into future decisions.
Also, Daniel raises a good point. I had forgotten that Emily had joined ArbCom. I agree, that probably colors many people's reactions, whether or not it's consciously acknowledged. Another analogy...a good friend of mine is a judge, and also a big fan of rock music. I have always been impressed with her courage in resisting the unwritten expectation that she would steer clear of dive bars and house parties. But as I got to know her, I realized that she put a great deal of thought into how she conducted herself in such venues. You might find her at a table of people pontificating about a local news story, but you wouldn't find her weighing in. You might see her with a drink in her hand, but you wouldn't see her drunk. And you might hear her expressing strong opinions (unrelated to what she would hear in court), but you wouldn't hear her swearing. It's not that she felt that strong opinions, getting drunk, or swearing were awful things -- but given her position, they were things that could compromise her relationship with the people she served. My takeaway -- I think there are many good reasons for people (and perhaps publications) in a position of trust observing rules of decorum that *exceed* expectations of civility that they might apply to others, in order to earn and retain the respect of their peers.
Rob, I very much appreciate your perspective on this as an experiment that yields worthwhile lessons. I am glad that a diverse set of opinions have emerged, and that you are engaging with them. I believe that in the long run, the heightened emotions around this one will seem unnecessary...but of course, the emotional responses are real, and I don't want to discount what drives them. At any rate, I appreciate the candor everybody is bringing to this conversation, and continue to read with interest. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
A number of us who are concerned about civility on Wikipedia do not see swearing in and of itself as uncivil. Many people may include professionalism and decorum under the umbrella of civility, but others do not, and they are not hypocritical because they do not. The problem is not the words themselves, but when those words are used by editors to attack other editors.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case < dancase@frontiernet.net> wrote:
In any case, it seems like it has long been settled that the general use
of profanity on Wikipedia is accepted but not celebrated. Only in >extreme cases is it considered actionable when *actually directed at an individual*. So it's hard to understand why many editors of long->tenure have reacted in such a strongly negative manner to this op-ed; it may be the unique nature of the Signpost, but like Gamaliel I >would be surprised to learn that many users regard the Signpost in the same way devotees do the New York Times. The most likely >conclusion is that profanity and vulgar language are almost exclusively deployed by men on Wikipedia, and the difference here is that >readers were shocked --shocked!-- to read it from a woman.
While I think this has something to do with it, I suspect some of the commentators may have seen this as hypocritical: A member of the Arbitration Committee, newly elected as one of several arbs committed to restoring civility and mitigating our gender imbalance, writes a Signpost op-ed using profanity in the headline, while some users (and, more importantly, their supporters) who believe (whether reasonably or not does not matter as the belief informs their actions either way) that last year’s ArbCom results effectively painted a bullseye on their backs, know that use of such language by them in discussions is routinely hauled out as evidence against them in AN/I threads and (more importantly) at ArbCom.
I don’t fault the Signpost for its editorial decision to run it. But I wonder if someone should have talked to Emily about this before she did it. Because now it’ll be hard for her to cast votes in cases where a user’s profanity has been brought up as evidence of consistent incivility without a whole host of users bringing this up immediately on the talk page. It will haunt her effectiveness as an Arb for a long time to come, I’m afraid.
And for what it’s worth, it is not acceptable to curse onwiki where I have anything to say about it. I have blocked people for this when they have refused to cease and desist and/or apologize. I have declined unblock requests without review of the edit history if people used foul language (this usually results in a new request with a profuse apology and more reasonably stated case for unblock).
Daniel Case
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
What I don't understand is if administrators like Risker and Mike Peel are so concerned about civility on Wikipedia that they object to Keliana's swearing, why aren't they the people that are making hard blocks against vested contributors who are unambiguously violating civility with personal attacks? Instead, Keliana is the one doing that. She's the one actually putting herself on the line to try to change the civility climate on Wikipedia. Banning swear words from the Signpost isn't going to do that. Consistently blocking users who attack other editors as "worthless" or "low-lifes" or "idiots" (or a million other non-swearing insults) will.
Risker: I will be happy to support a ban on swearing if you will support a ban on personal attacks and be willing to act on it. What do you say?
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Regarding "swearing is not in itself uncivil" --
I agree strongly with that sentiment. However, in group communication it can be valuable to have clear lines that must not be crossed, in order to keep everybody on the same page. As an analogy, it seems to me that a clear expectation of avoiding ALL CAPS in various Internet forums has been positive. It's not that anybody thinks all caps is in itself uncivil or disrespectful; but very often, they are used in ways that accompany disrespectful communication. Establishing, and adhering to, a clear expectation of avoiding that format tends to keep people cognizant of the idea that their mode of expression matters.
I am not suggesting that the Signpost should rigidly adhere to a "no swearing" rule. But I do think it would be good (as you have already acknowledged) for varying expectations around swearing to be incorporated more carefully into future decisions.
Also, Daniel raises a good point. I had forgotten that Emily had joined ArbCom. I agree, that probably colors many people's reactions, whether or not it's consciously acknowledged. Another analogy...a good friend of mine is a judge, and also a big fan of rock music. I have always been impressed with her courage in resisting the unwritten expectation that she would steer clear of dive bars and house parties. But as I got to know her, I realized that she put a great deal of thought into how she conducted herself in such venues. You might find her at a table of people pontificating about a local news story, but you wouldn't find her weighing in. You might see her with a drink in her hand, but you wouldn't see her drunk. And you might hear her expressing strong opinions (unrelated to what she would hear in court), but you wouldn't hear her swearing. It's not that she felt that strong opinions, getting drunk, or swearing were awful things -- but given her position, they were things that could compromise her relationship with the people she served. My takeaway -- I think there are many good reasons for people (and perhaps publications) in a position of trust observing rules of decorum that *exceed* expectations of civility that they might apply to others, in order to earn and retain the respect of their peers.
Rob, I very much appreciate your perspective on this as an experiment that yields worthwhile lessons. I am glad that a diverse set of opinions have emerged, and that you are engaging with them. I believe that in the long run, the heightened emotions around this one will seem unnecessary...but of course, the emotional responses are real, and I don't want to discount what drives them. At any rate, I appreciate the candor everybody is bringing to this conversation, and continue to read with interest. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
A number of us who are concerned about civility on Wikipedia do not see swearing in and of itself as uncivil. Many people may include professionalism and decorum under the umbrella of civility, but others do not, and they are not hypocritical because they do not. The problem is not the words themselves, but when those words are used by editors to attack other editors.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case < dancase@frontiernet.net> wrote:
In any case, it seems like it has long been settled that the general
use of profanity on Wikipedia is accepted but not celebrated. Only in
extreme cases is it considered actionable when *actually directed at
an individual*. So it's hard to understand why many editors of long->tenure have reacted in such a strongly negative manner to this op-ed; it may be the unique nature of the Signpost, but like Gamaliel I >would be surprised to learn that many users regard the Signpost in the same way devotees do the New York Times. The most likely >conclusion is that profanity and vulgar language are almost exclusively deployed by men on Wikipedia, and the difference here is that >readers were shocked --shocked!-- to read it from a woman.
While I think this has something to do with it, I suspect some of the commentators may have seen this as hypocritical: A member of the Arbitration Committee, newly elected as one of several arbs committed to restoring civility and mitigating our gender imbalance, writes a Signpost op-ed using profanity in the headline, while some users (and, more importantly, their supporters) who believe (whether reasonably or not does not matter as the belief informs their actions either way) that last year’s ArbCom results effectively painted a bullseye on their backs, know that use of such language by them in discussions is routinely hauled out as evidence against them in AN/I threads and (more importantly) at ArbCom.
I don’t fault the Signpost for its editorial decision to run it. But I wonder if someone should have talked to Emily about this before she did it. Because now it’ll be hard for her to cast votes in cases where a user’s profanity has been brought up as evidence of consistent incivility without a whole host of users bringing this up immediately on the talk page. It will haunt her effectiveness as an Arb for a long time to come, I’m afraid.
And for what it’s worth, it is not acceptable to curse onwiki where I have anything to say about it. I have blocked people for this when they have refused to cease and desist and/or apologize. I have declined unblock requests without review of the edit history if people used foul language (this usually results in a new request with a profuse apology and more reasonably stated case for unblock).
Daniel Case
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Ryan....no. I'm sorry, but there are very good reasons why I would not be supporting any such initiative from you. I think you are well aware of what they are. Frankly, some of the stuff I see being referred to as a personal attack should get the person calling it a personal attack blocked.
Risker
On 24 February 2016 at 22:20, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
What I don't understand is if administrators like Risker and Mike Peel are so concerned about civility on Wikipedia that they object to Keliana's swearing, why aren't they the people that are making hard blocks against vested contributors who are unambiguously violating civility with personal attacks? Instead, Keliana is the one doing that. She's the one actually putting herself on the line to try to change the civility climate on Wikipedia. Banning swear words from the Signpost isn't going to do that. Consistently blocking users who attack other editors as "worthless" or "low-lifes" or "idiots" (or a million other non-swearing insults) will.
Risker: I will be happy to support a ban on swearing if you will support a ban on personal attacks and be willing to act on it. What do you say?
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Regarding "swearing is not in itself uncivil" --
I agree strongly with that sentiment. However, in group communication it can be valuable to have clear lines that must not be crossed, in order to keep everybody on the same page. As an analogy, it seems to me that a clear expectation of avoiding ALL CAPS in various Internet forums has been positive. It's not that anybody thinks all caps is in itself uncivil or disrespectful; but very often, they are used in ways that accompany disrespectful communication. Establishing, and adhering to, a clear expectation of avoiding that format tends to keep people cognizant of the idea that their mode of expression matters.
I am not suggesting that the Signpost should rigidly adhere to a "no swearing" rule. But I do think it would be good (as you have already acknowledged) for varying expectations around swearing to be incorporated more carefully into future decisions.
Also, Daniel raises a good point. I had forgotten that Emily had joined ArbCom. I agree, that probably colors many people's reactions, whether or not it's consciously acknowledged. Another analogy...a good friend of mine is a judge, and also a big fan of rock music. I have always been impressed with her courage in resisting the unwritten expectation that she would steer clear of dive bars and house parties. But as I got to know her, I realized that she put a great deal of thought into how she conducted herself in such venues. You might find her at a table of people pontificating about a local news story, but you wouldn't find her weighing in. You might see her with a drink in her hand, but you wouldn't see her drunk. And you might hear her expressing strong opinions (unrelated to what she would hear in court), but you wouldn't hear her swearing. It's not that she felt that strong opinions, getting drunk, or swearing were awful things -- but given her position, they were things that could compromise her relationship with the people she served. My takeaway -- I think there are many good reasons for people (and perhaps publications) in a position of trust observing rules of decorum that *exceed* expectations of civility that they might apply to others, in order to earn and retain the respect of their peers.
Rob, I very much appreciate your perspective on this as an experiment that yields worthwhile lessons. I am glad that a diverse set of opinions have emerged, and that you are engaging with them. I believe that in the long run, the heightened emotions around this one will seem unnecessary...but of course, the emotional responses are real, and I don't want to discount what drives them. At any rate, I appreciate the candor everybody is bringing to this conversation, and continue to read with interest. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Robert Fernandez <wikigamaliel@gmail.com
wrote:
A number of us who are concerned about civility on Wikipedia do not see swearing in and of itself as uncivil. Many people may include professionalism and decorum under the umbrella of civility, but others do not, and they are not hypocritical because they do not. The problem is not the words themselves, but when those words are used by editors to attack other editors.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case < dancase@frontiernet.net> wrote:
In any case, it seems like it has long been settled that the general
use of profanity on Wikipedia is accepted but not celebrated. Only in
extreme cases is it considered actionable when *actually directed at
an individual*. So it's hard to understand why many editors of long->tenure have reacted in such a strongly negative manner to this op-ed; it may be the unique nature of the Signpost, but like Gamaliel I >would be surprised to learn that many users regard the Signpost in the same way devotees do the New York Times. The most likely >conclusion is that profanity and vulgar language are almost exclusively deployed by men on Wikipedia, and the difference here is that >readers were shocked --shocked!-- to read it from a woman.
While I think this has something to do with it, I suspect some of the commentators may have seen this as hypocritical: A member of the Arbitration Committee, newly elected as one of several arbs committed to restoring civility and mitigating our gender imbalance, writes a Signpost op-ed using profanity in the headline, while some users (and, more importantly, their supporters) who believe (whether reasonably or not does not matter as the belief informs their actions either way) that last year’s ArbCom results effectively painted a bullseye on their backs, know that use of such language by them in discussions is routinely hauled out as evidence against them in AN/I threads and (more importantly) at ArbCom.
I don’t fault the Signpost for its editorial decision to run it. But I wonder if someone should have talked to Emily about this before she did it. Because now it’ll be hard for her to cast votes in cases where a user’s profanity has been brought up as evidence of consistent incivility without a whole host of users bringing this up immediately on the talk page. It will haunt her effectiveness as an Arb for a long time to come, I’m afraid.
And for what it’s worth, it is not acceptable to curse onwiki where I have anything to say about it. I have blocked people for this when they have refused to cease and desist and/or apologize. I have declined unblock requests without review of the edit history if people used foul language (this usually results in a new request with a profuse apology and more reasonably stated case for unblock).
Daniel Case
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Compare the reaction that Keilana's Op-ed got with the reaction that the Signpost article "Wikipedia's cute ass" got: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-12-17/Featur...
Notice any differences?
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Risker, I want to be clear:
It's not that I don't see a problem. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to your view; but I think your point has been made very strongly already, and the important audience is the Signpost editorial staff. I am confident they have heard the message, and I don't see how further discussion moves us in a better direction. The past can't be changed. I suppose the Signpost could retract the op-ed, but I rather doubt you're seeking something so extreme...or am I wrong?
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I feel very sad that you fellows don't see the problem in using this kind of language to describe women. "Badass" isn't a compliment. After the first two descriptions, I was fully expecting to see "brilliant motherf***er" to describe the third one. I'm surprised it wasn't used, in fact.
The subjects of our articles deserve to be treated much better than this.
Further, I'm incredibly disappointed that this got published in The Signpost. On Emily's own page...well, okay. But instead of drawing attention to the women who are the subjects of the articles, almost all of the discussion is about the language used to describe them....and pointing out that several of them already had articles about them that were improved, rather than that they'd not been written about at all.
All in all, it impressed me as an island of lovely flowers in a garden with a winter's worth of St. Bernard droppings.
Risker
On 21 February 2016 at 17:13, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
+1 Ryan.
This was one article, and no Wikipedians, readers, or article subjects were injured as a result of its publication. I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other about whether using language in this way is OK. But the main lesson to me is how much the English Wikipedia community has come to value the Signpost as an institution. It's hard to imagine such any Signpost column inspiring so much passion, say, five years ago. Above all, I think this constitutes a strong endorsement of the general value of the Signpost.
-Pete
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community takes all of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of profanity in a positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia calls a female editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by Keilana, would it have been published as is?
Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite the one some think it would be.
Risker/Anne
On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting double standard about profanity in the comment section.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
Compare the reaction that Keilana's Op-ed got with the reaction that the Signpost article "Wikipedia's cute ass" got: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-12-17/Featur...
Notice any differences?
Yes, it was a headline which did not swear; it only appeared to. Not a good counter example :/ It danced around 'the line' a little, intelligently, which is very common for light hearted sections of even very serious publications. It gets a few smiles, and people are not 'offended' - they just move on if they didnt like it, provided it isnt over-done.
I agree that is innocent enough. Both men and women refer to cute asses, and not just on humans! :-)
On 2/21/2016 7:58 PM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
Compare the reaction that Keilana's Op-ed got with the reaction that the Signpost article "Wikipedia's cute ass" got: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-12-17/Featur...
Notice any differences?
Yes, it was a headline which did not swear; it only appeared to. Not a good counter example :/ It danced around 'the line' a little, intelligently, which is very common for light hearted sections of even very serious publications. It gets a few smiles, and people are not 'offended' - they just move on if they didnt like it, provided it isnt over-done.
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
One reason why I try not to use expletives on wiki is that things can be misinterpreted; I've seen examples of people using a rhetorical example only to find others take it personally.
Another is that not everyone gets the difference between a swear word used against a specific person and one used against a situation; in particular I'm conscious that many people on English Wikipedia are not using their native language and might not spot the sometimes subtle distinction between unacceptable and arguable uses of such words.
Lastly there is an argument for not having a privileged status for "vested contributors" whether admins, functionaries, or editor with vociferous fans; there are times when in just a few sentences you can explain why one use of a swear word is a personal attack and another is a rhetorical statement. But people don't necessarily believe you, especially if it looks to them that you are defending a fellow insider.
Regards
Jonathan / WereSpielChequers
On 21 Feb 2016, at 21:54, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community takes all of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of profanity in a positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia calls a female editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote: Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by Keilana, would it have been published as is?
Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite the one some think it would be.
Risker/Anne
On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote: Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting double standard about profanity in the comment section.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by Keilana, would it have been published as is?
I'm curious what you mean by this exactly. Do you mean you think I published it because I know Emily personally and would not have published it as a submission from an unknown author? Or are you saying I might not have published a similar article by a male author?
(For what it's worth, I re-published an article by a male academic in the Signpost last year that had the phrase "asshole consensus" in the title. )
On 21 February 2016 at 18:42, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by Keilana, would it have been published as is?
I'm curious what you mean by this exactly. Do you mean you think I published it because I know Emily personally and would not have published it as a submission from an unknown author? Or are you saying I might not have published a similar article by a male author?
(For what it's worth, I re-published an article by a male academic in the Signpost last year that had the phrase "asshole consensus" in the title. )
If it had been written by editors who are known to regularly use profanity, to the considerable consternation of some members of the community, would you publish it? I mean...it just gave me plenty of warning not to bother participating in the edit-a-thon I usually go to each spring, since it is now apparently considered a net positive to report on new articles about women in such a derogatory way. That's fine. It made it clear that The Signpost would rather be sensationalistic than informative. That's fine too, I can take it off my watchlist again.
No, it's pretty obvious that the profanity-laden article was published because it was profanity-laden, not because it was any good.
Risker/Anne
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by Keilana, would it have been published as is?
I'm curious what you mean by this exactly. Do you mean you think I published it because I know Emily personally and would not have published it as a submission from an unknown author? Or are you saying I might not have published a similar article by a male author?
(For what it's worth, I re-published an article by a male academic in the Signpost last year that had the phrase "asshole consensus" in the title. )
I would appreciate seeing that article for comparison, as I am a little taken back by the use of swear words in the titles. Would you find it please?
It's here, John:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-08-19/Op-ed
Andreas
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:17 AM, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by Keilana, would it have been published as is?
I'm curious what you mean by this exactly. Do you mean you think I published it because I know Emily personally and would not have
published it
as a submission from an unknown author? Or are you saying I might not
have
published a similar article by a male author?
(For what it's worth, I re-published an article by a male academic in the Signpost last year that had the phrase "asshole consensus" in the title.
)
I would appreciate seeing that article for comparison, as I am a little taken back by the use of swear words in the titles. Would you find it please?
-- John Vandenberg
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I immediately searched for "double standard" and who but GuerrillaWarfare mentioned it. The arbitrator who suddenly decided "YES, CarolMooredc" should get kicked off Wikipedia. That after the other arbitrators already had voted to kicked me off off and I THEN complained that a gang of foulmouthed Manchester England editors who threw around "c*nt" and "Tw*t" were "gangbangers".
So I'm laughing at the irony.
At the time they argued about whether I meant rapists or thuggish gangmembers. I don't think there was much of a difference in my mind; there isn't right now anyway.
Otherwise, I doubt the title or the cursing helped and it might have been counterproductive. The uncivil will say - "see women can be uncivil too, it's cool". They will not admitting even slightly uncivil women (unless they have strong male protectors) will be more strongly sanctioned than much more uncivil males. And civil individuals, male and female, will just be discouraged at best and disgusted at worst by this tactic.
Something more double entendre might have been effective, however!! ;-)
On 2/21/2016 8:31 AM, Neotarf wrote:
Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting double standard about profanity in the comment section.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus