Hi Charlotte,
My only suggestion to you would be that if you loved editting and had a good time till you had this experience, don't let that spoil things for you. Best to stop that particular type of editting that attracted the Recent Changes troll and concentrate on those edits where you faced no opposition and continue to enjoy yourself. Typically most editors face such incidents early in their experience. If they are able to put it behind them, they are able to then learn to "navigate" the system and have fulfilling editting experiences. From what I read, you still have not got the happiness of seeing your article come to life in Mainspace. I would recommend you hang on, develop your article, move it into mainspace and enjoy Wikipedia.
Warm regards,
User:AshLin ------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Message: 2 Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 20:50:38 -0400 From: Charlotte J ravinpa2@gmail.com Subject: [Gendergap] As I was passing through... To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: BANLkTimK-G9DLgdURpEOXo6LAhaBt-A3gQ@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hello, everyone,
I joined this list a couple days ago after reading through its archives, which I embarked on after having come across the June 13th article in *The Signpost* discussing the tiny percentage of self-identified female Wikipedia editors. I'd missed the January *New York Times* article and all that flowed from it (including this list) until I started systematically looking through the "community" section of Wikipedia for the first time about 10 days ago, to see what my options might be to address my own recent negative encounters with other Wikipedia editors, although I hadn't yet stumbled upon the Wikipedia policies on "canvassing," etc., that apparently preclude any disclosure on this list of such experiences in a potentially identifiable manner.
Having learned of that policy from reading this list's archives, I'm accordingly using an email account not associated with my Wikipedia user account, and I'm not disclosing my Wikipedia user name, so as not to arouse any concerns that I might be canvassing for support concerning that situation, which I'm not. In fact, I've even concluded that it's not worth the aggravation of pursuing Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, which from reading through **those** archives has impressed me as likely to be little more than an exercise in futility (if not also masochism!). I'm certainly neither fragile nor easily intimidated, but I prefer not to waste my valuable free time on such exercises, so I've now stopped editing Wikipedia and -- with one foot out the door, the other soon to follow -- am posting to this list now only because I hadn't seen anything its archives that expressed anything close to some of my own thoughts about a few of the topics discussed, which might perhaps be of some value to at least some of you who plan to continue in this effort.
By way of background, I'm one of those older staying-at-home professional mothers Sarah Stierch had suggested in February might constitute a potentially fruitful demographic for female recruitment. I'm certainly no "geek," although I've picked up just enough basic HTML code along the way so as not to find Wikipedia's coding basics unduly daunting -- as long as I had the MoS "Cheat Sheet" handy. Well, aside from formatting references...
I made my first few edits not quite 18 months ago, I believe, to an article about a park system I'd just been reading about, to which I made a few gnome-like corrections without blowing the place up accidentally or attracting notice. With that success in hand, I started drafting an article about a superb all-female dance company that a niece had recently introduced me to. After seeing them perform and coming to share her enthusiasm, I tried to learn a little more about their history, discovered there was no comprehensive article about them I could find anywhere online (although they would clearly and objectively satisfy WP's notability criteria), and decided that drafting one myself could be a useful exercise in teaching myself Wikipedia's coding and style conventions, while eventually benefiting others with the fruits of my research. I got about half-way finished with it in my userspace (utilizing the Article Wizard), then had to abandon the draft (and Wikipedia) a few days later due to some serious health problems one of my children developed unexpectedly.
I didn't return again until two months ago, when a discussion elsewhere pointed me to another Wikipedia article (about whose subject I knew quite a bit) that was seriously deficient, so I signed in again for the first time in 16 months or so, added a number of references to that article, expanded it a bit and began "wikifying" it without generating any controversy or blowing the place up accidentally. I then encountered an egregious usage error a few weeks later in another Wikipedia article that had badly muddled a sentence's meaning, and corrected it, again without generating any controversy. I then checked for similar misuses of that and another commonly misused word on Wikipedia, discovered hundreds of examples, and so began correcting them in gnome-like fashion over the next month or so while watching films with my daughter after school and/or evenings and tracking down some uncommon but needed public domain images for a few other articles, until I unluckily attracted the attention of a chauvinist (in the original sense of the word) member of the "recent pages patrol" whose truculence and devotion to Huggle greatly exceeded his grasp of correct [international] English usage. What ensued persuaded me that my free time from now on would be *so* much better spent on volunteer projects other than Wikipedia (and * so* much better for my blood pressure!) that I'm not even going to bother finishing the draft article about the dance company or upload the public domain images I'd located. C'est la vie!
Also by way of background, I'm a late-70s graduate of Harvard Law School, now retired from a successful legal career, and studying legal history (a long-deferred goal). The percentage of women in the two classes ahead of mine at HLS was approximately 8%, but it doubled to 16% in my class, which quite a lot of the male students and professors (all but one of whom were male back then) found extremely threatening. I mention this because that "abrupt increase" in female students at HLS had generated a very nasty backlash from many of the men, and at each stage of our early careers many members of my female cohort experienced that backlash repeatedly. I hope that a similarly "abrupt increase" in the percentage of female Wikipedia editors doesn't generate a similar backlash toward them, but given my own experiences, I recommend that those here working to increase female participation brace themselves (and the new recruits), just in case.
This has probably been far too long already for a number of folks on the list, so I'll conclude for now and share my thoughts on hosting pornography on Wikipedia; recruiting Girl Scouts as editors; another potential consideration not yet raised as to why the WMF should be concerned, I suspect, about the relative dearth of female editors; bare-breastedness in depictions of "Liberty"; etc., in another email or two, after I've had a chance to look over again a few archived emails that it may help to quote or refer to specifically.
I'm using a middle name to post here given that the list is open-archived on the internet, that my recent unpleasant experiences on Wikipedia included what I've concluded was harassment, and that I see no good reason to risk subjecting my family to any such potential consequences due to my participation on this list, however brief, so I will sign off for now just as,
Charlotte
Hi Charlotte,
I'd like to thank you for taking the time to provide a rundown of your "Wikipedia career." I think it's useful for lots of us -- new and old Wikipedians alike -- to hear stories of how people encounter Wikipedia, and your providing the context of all your unproblematic encounters is not something many people take the time to do. So, in addition to echoing everyone's thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, I also want to thank you for this thoughtful contribution to this email list.
One thing I'd like to point out -- and it's minor, by comparison. I appreciate the care you are taking regarding canvassing, and I'm familiar with the kinds of discussions that prompt it. However, it's really not so black-and-white. When people make accusations about canvassing, it often reflects their own misunderstanding of the relevant policies and practices. No serious deliberative community would prohibit the act of seeking an outside opinion, or inviting comment from trusted friends.
Like so much of Wikipedia, the important thing is to strike a balance between good faith input-seeking, and inflating the number of "votes" in a discussion. The most important ingredient in finding that balance? Something that Wikipedians rarely talk about: your own good judgment. I trust, especially, that someone capable of composing an email as thoughtful as yours is plenty capable of finding the right balance.
As frustrating as relativism can be, Wikipedia is a project that is founded on human judgment (cf: the 5th pillar, "Ignore All Rules"), and we are are continually reevaluating how rules apply to situations. Don't let anybody's rigid adherence to a rule, such as no-canvassing, get in the way of your efforts to make a better encyclopedia!
Again, thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and to this list's understanding of the new editor's experience. I also hope you'll continue editing; but at the same time, I've seen plenty of Wikipedians quit -- sometimes when they were clearly "right" -- and benefit from their time away from Wikipedia. I've also had the pleasure of seeing some of them return refreshed and reinvigorated. I hope you are one of those; but regardless, I support your desire to do right by yourself and your family!
-Pete
Hi, Pete,
Thank you for your very thoughtful reply and kind welcome, which I appreciate most sincerely. Your gloss on the anti-canvassing policy was most illuminating for me -- thank you.
I have to admit that the anti-canvassing policy is one of the Wikipedia policies that troubles me the most, as much as I understand the desire to ensure that votes on Wikipedia are cast objectively. It concerns me because the only way minorities are typically able to challenge (and sometimes even to overcome) the "tyranny of the majority" is by banding together while also soliciting the support of those members of the majority who would potentially be most sympathetic to their position. As we all know, that is how women obtained suffrage in Western nations in the last century or so, and how racial, religious and ethnic minorities have gradually and peacefully advanced the security of their civil and political rights as well. Without the ability to "inflate votes" with those of potential supporters from the majority, that would hardly have been possible for any of those groups.
Wikipedia may consider itself exempt from such issues, but I think the number of experiences that people have reported on this list as to how articles of particular interest and concern to women have so often been deleted or attacked for supposedly "lacking notabillity" are poignant examples of how an obliviously tyrannous majority can oppress a minority, and how Wikipedia's policy against canvassing actually operates to entrench such a majority.
Thank you for your advice, your understanding my reluctance to continue editing Wikipedia, and especially for your good wishes, which I fully reciprocate.
Best,
Charlotte
On 6/23/11, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Charlotte,
I'd like to thank you for taking the time to provide a rundown of your "Wikipedia career." I think it's useful for lots of us -- new and old Wikipedians alike -- to hear stories of how people encounter Wikipedia, and your providing the context of all your unproblematic encounters is not something many people take the time to do. So, in addition to echoing everyone's thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, I also want to thank you for this thoughtful contribution to this email list.
One thing I'd like to point out -- and it's minor, by comparison. I appreciate the care you are taking regarding canvassing, and I'm familiar with the kinds of discussions that prompt it. However, it's really not so black-and-white. When people make accusations about canvassing, it often reflects their own misunderstanding of the relevant policies and practices. No serious deliberative community would prohibit the act of seeking an outside opinion, or inviting comment from trusted friends.
Like so much of Wikipedia, the important thing is to strike a balance between good faith input-seeking, and inflating the number of "votes" in a discussion. The most important ingredient in finding that balance? Something that Wikipedians rarely talk about: your own good judgment. I trust, especially, that someone capable of composing an email as thoughtful as yours is plenty capable of finding the right balance.
As frustrating as relativism can be, Wikipedia is a project that is founded on human judgment (cf: the 5th pillar, "Ignore All Rules"), and we are are continually reevaluating how rules apply to situations. Don't let anybody's rigid adherence to a rule, such as no-canvassing, get in the way of your efforts to make a better encyclopedia!
Again, thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and to this list's understanding of the new editor's experience. I also hope you'll continue editing; but at the same time, I've seen plenty of Wikipedians quit -- sometimes when they were clearly "right" -- and benefit from their time away from Wikipedia. I've also had the pleasure of seeing some of them return refreshed and reinvigorated. I hope you are one of those; but regardless, I support your desire to do right by yourself and your family!
-Pete
Hi, Ashwin,
Thank you very much for your very kind and thoughtful response. I sincerely appreciate it and will give your suggestions some thought.
Best,
Charlotte
On 6/23/11, Ashwin Baindur ashwin.baindur@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Charlotte,
My only suggestion to you would be that if you loved editting and had a good time till you had this experience, don't let that spoil things for you. Best to stop that particular type of editting that attracted the Recent Changes troll and concentrate on those edits where you faced no opposition and continue to enjoy yourself. Typically most editors face such incidents early in their experience. If they are able to put it behind them, they are able to then learn to "navigate" the system and have fulfilling editting experiences. From what I read, you still have not got the happiness of seeing your article come to life in Mainspace. I would recommend you hang on, develop your article, move it into mainspace and enjoy Wikipedia.
Warm regards,
User:AshLin
Message: 2 Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 20:50:38 -0400 From: Charlotte J ravinpa2@gmail.com Subject: [Gendergap] As I was passing through... To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: BANLkTimK-G9DLgdURpEOXo6LAhaBt-A3gQ@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hello, everyone,
I joined this list a couple days ago after reading through its archives, which I embarked on after having come across the June 13th article in *The Signpost* discussing the tiny percentage of self-identified female Wikipedia editors. I'd missed the January *New York Times* article and all that flowed from it (including this list) until I started systematically looking through the "community" section of Wikipedia for the first time about 10 days ago, to see what my options might be to address my own recent negative encounters with other Wikipedia editors, although I hadn't yet stumbled upon the Wikipedia policies on "canvassing," etc., that apparently preclude any disclosure on this list of such experiences in a potentially identifiable manner.
Having learned of that policy from reading this list's archives, I'm accordingly using an email account not associated with my Wikipedia user account, and I'm not disclosing my Wikipedia user name, so as not to arouse any concerns that I might be canvassing for support concerning that situation, which I'm not. In fact, I've even concluded that it's not worth the aggravation of pursuing Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, which from reading through **those** archives has impressed me as likely to be little more than an exercise in futility (if not also masochism!). I'm certainly neither fragile nor easily intimidated, but I prefer not to waste my valuable free time on such exercises, so I've now stopped editing Wikipedia and -- with one foot out the door, the other soon to follow -- am posting to this list now only because I hadn't seen anything its archives that expressed anything close to some of my own thoughts about a few of the topics discussed, which might perhaps be of some value to at least some of you who plan to continue in this effort.
By way of background, I'm one of those older staying-at-home professional mothers Sarah Stierch had suggested in February might constitute a potentially fruitful demographic for female recruitment. I'm certainly no "geek," although I've picked up just enough basic HTML code along the way so as not to find Wikipedia's coding basics unduly daunting -- as long as I had the MoS "Cheat Sheet" handy. Well, aside from formatting references...
I made my first few edits not quite 18 months ago, I believe, to an article about a park system I'd just been reading about, to which I made a few gnome-like corrections without blowing the place up accidentally or attracting notice. With that success in hand, I started drafting an article about a superb all-female dance company that a niece had recently introduced me to. After seeing them perform and coming to share her enthusiasm, I tried to learn a little more about their history, discovered there was no comprehensive article about them I could find anywhere online (although they would clearly and objectively satisfy WP's notability criteria), and decided that drafting one myself could be a useful exercise in teaching myself Wikipedia's coding and style conventions, while eventually benefiting others with the fruits of my research. I got about half-way finished with it in my userspace (utilizing the Article Wizard), then had to abandon the draft (and Wikipedia) a few days later due to some serious health problems one of my children developed unexpectedly.
I didn't return again until two months ago, when a discussion elsewhere pointed me to another Wikipedia article (about whose subject I knew quite a bit) that was seriously deficient, so I signed in again for the first time in 16 months or so, added a number of references to that article, expanded it a bit and began "wikifying" it without generating any controversy or blowing the place up accidentally. I then encountered an egregious usage error a few weeks later in another Wikipedia article that had badly muddled a sentence's meaning, and corrected it, again without generating any controversy. I then checked for similar misuses of that and another commonly misused word on Wikipedia, discovered hundreds of examples, and so began correcting them in gnome-like fashion over the next month or so while watching films with my daughter after school and/or evenings and tracking down some uncommon but needed public domain images for a few other articles, until I unluckily attracted the attention of a chauvinist (in the original sense of the word) member of the "recent pages patrol" whose truculence and devotion to Huggle greatly exceeded his grasp of correct [international] English usage. What ensued persuaded me that my free time from now on would be *so* much better spent on volunteer projects other than Wikipedia (and
so* much better for my blood pressure!) that I'm not even going to bother finishing the draft article about the dance company or upload the public domain images I'd located. C'est la vie!
Also by way of background, I'm a late-70s graduate of Harvard Law School, now retired from a successful legal career, and studying legal history (a long-deferred goal). The percentage of women in the two classes ahead of mine at HLS was approximately 8%, but it doubled to 16% in my class, which quite a lot of the male students and professors (all but one of whom were male back then) found extremely threatening. I mention this because that "abrupt increase" in female students at HLS had generated a very nasty backlash from many of the men, and at each stage of our early careers many members of my female cohort experienced that backlash repeatedly. I hope that a similarly "abrupt increase" in the percentage of female Wikipedia editors doesn't generate a similar backlash toward them, but given my own experiences, I recommend that those here working to increase female participation brace themselves (and the new recruits), just in case.
This has probably been far too long already for a number of folks on the list, so I'll conclude for now and share my thoughts on hosting pornography on Wikipedia; recruiting Girl Scouts as editors; another potential consideration not yet raised as to why the WMF should be concerned, I suspect, about the relative dearth of female editors; bare-breastedness in depictions of "Liberty"; etc., in another email or two, after I've had a chance to look over again a few archived emails that it may help to quote or refer to specifically.
I'm using a middle name to post here given that the list is open-archived on the internet, that my recent unpleasant experiences on Wikipedia included what I've concluded was harassment, and that I see no good reason to risk subjecting my family to any such potential consequences due to my participation on this list, however brief, so I will sign off for now just as,
Charlotte