http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Feminism/Article_alerts
Right now there are 3 questionable AfD's and various nominations, etc. Plus a bunch of Good article nominees and other listings.
Watch that page (or the relevant page in your language) and comment from time to time so we can make sure at least some of our 9 or 13 or whatever percent of wikiwomen gets represented. :-)
CM in DC
On 8/26/2012 9:58 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
Right now there are 3 questionable AfD's and various nominations, etc. Plus a bunch of Good article nominees and other listings.On a "fostering friendly atmosphere" note; characterising actions as "questionable" is not very nice.
Tom
Questionable is being nice. "shitty" "sexist" "woman hating BS" is what is not very nice - in a wikipedia context, anyway... :-)
CM
On 26 August 2012 15:16, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/26/2012 9:58 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
Right now there are 3 questionable AfD's and various nominations, etc.
Plus a bunch of Good article nominees and other listings.
On a "fostering friendly atmosphere" note; characterising actions as "questionable" is not very nice.
Tom
Questionable is being nice. "shitty" "sexist" "woman hating BS" is what is not very nice - in a wikipedia context, anyway... :-)
CM
Are you *seriously *implying I nominated the Tod Akin article for those reasons?
Tom
Or that I nominated the B.a.B.e article for those reasons? Let's assume good faith here.
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas@googlemail.com
wrote:
On 26 August 2012 15:16, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/26/2012 9:58 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
Right now there are 3 questionable AfD's and various nominations, etc.
Plus a bunch of Good article nominees and other listings.
On a "fostering friendly atmosphere" note; characterising actions as "questionable" is not very nice.
Tom
Questionable is being nice. "shitty" "sexist" "woman hating BS" is what is not very nice - in a wikipedia context, anyway... :-)
CM
Are you *seriously *implying I nominated the Tod Akin article for those reasons?
Tom
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Questionable just means one has questions. So it's nice, unlike the other words which I was contrasting with questionable - not using to describe my specific questions on specific articles in that particular AfD list. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Feminism/Article_alerts
But frankly I do wonder why two people on this list nominate brand new articles related to women for deletion rather than improving them.
HOWEVER -- the specifics should be discussed at the relevant AfD pages, so if this little dust up gets people there, goody goody!! :-)
CM
On 8/26/2012 11:01 AM, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson wrote:
Or that I nominated the B.a.B.e article for those reasons? Let's assume good faith here.
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas@googlemail.com mailto:morton.thomas@googlemail.com> wrote:
On 26 August 2012 15:16, Carol Moore DC <carolmooredc@verizon.net <mailto:carolmooredc@verizon.net>> wrote: On 8/26/2012 9:58 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:Right now there are 3 questionable AfD's and various nominations, etc. Plus a bunch of Good article nominees and other listings. On a "fostering friendly atmosphere" note; characterising actions as "questionable" is not very nice. TomQuestionable is being nice. "shitty" "sexist" "woman hating BS" is what is not very nice - in a wikipedia context, anyway... :-) CM Are you /seriously /implying I nominated the Tod Akin article for those reasons? Tom _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap--
Best regards,
Cindy Ashley-Nelson "Yes. /Her again./" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cindamuse
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 26 Aug 2012, at 16:36, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
Questionable just means one has questions. So it's nice, unlike the other words which I was contrasting with questionable - not using to describe my specific questions on specific articles in that particular AfD list. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Feminism/Article_alerts
But frankly I do wonder why two people on this list nominate brand new articles related to women for deletion rather than improving them.
HOWEVER -- the specifics should be discussed at the relevant AfD pages, so if this little dust up gets people there, goody goody!! :-)
CM
Wow. What a ridiculous way to say "yes". Ive always found you to be switched on and relevant in the past; but looking over your contributions to those AFDs it feels like your certain the aim is to remove these articles because we are anti-women. And for no other reason.
This is the sort of thing that puts women off editing Wikipedia and I am happy to call it out. Tom
On 8/26/2012 11:01 AM, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson wrote:
Or that I nominated the B.a.B.e article for those reasons? Let's assume good faith here.
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas@googlemail.com
wrote:
On 26 August 2012 15:16, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/26/2012 9:58 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
Right now there are 3 questionable AfD's and various nominations, etc.
Plus a bunch of Good article nominees and other listings.
On a "fostering friendly atmosphere" note; characterising actions as "questionable" is not very nice.
Tom
Questionable is being nice. "shitty" "sexist" "woman hating BS" is what is not very nice - in a wikipedia context, anyway... :-)
CM
Are you *seriously *implying I nominated the Tod Akin article for those reasons?
Tom
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
As a female I've been called ridiculous for having an opinion so many times I don't even know what it means anymore :-)
But seriously, it's not like the nominator said:"I'm on the GenderGap list and here's why I think this list would agree these articles should be deleted... "
Don't take rejections of AfD nominations so personally...
CM
On 8/26/2012 11:50 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
On 26 Aug 2012, at 16:36, Carol Moore DC <carolmooredc@verizon.net mailto:carolmooredc@verizon.net> wrote:
Questionable just means one has questions. So it's nice, unlike the other words which I was contrasting with questionable - not using to describe my specific questions on specific articles in that particular AfD list. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Feminism/Article_alerts
But frankly I do wonder why two people on this list nominate brand new articles related to women for deletion rather than improving them.
HOWEVER -- the specifics should be discussed at the relevant AfD pages, so if this little dust up gets people there, goody goody!! :-)
CM
Wow. What a ridiculous way to say "yes". Ive always found you to be switched on and relevant in the past; but looking over your contributions to those AFDs it feels like your certain the aim is to remove these articles because we are anti-women. And for no other reason.
This is the sort of thing that puts women off editing Wikipedia and I am happy to call it out. Tom
What I am taking personally is your assertion that we nominated these articles for some anti-female agenda.
Which you continue to do by suggesting my characterisation of your argument as ridiculous is due to you being a woman.
The irony of then telling me not to take it personally is... Ah, well..
Of course I take personally being characterised as holding offensive views.
The point was; I am educating you about the sorts of things that put people off editing. I am a big believer in making wikipedia a welcoming place, and your comments characterise the unfortunate low level nastiness that often puts people off. I am sure it was unintended, hence the explanation.
Tom Morton
On 26 Aug 2012, at 17:28, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
As a female I've been called ridiculous for having an opinion so many times I don't even know what it means anymore :-)
But seriously, it's not like the nominator said:"I'm on the GenderGap list and here's why I think this list would agree these articles should be deleted... "
Don't take rejections of AfD nominations so personally...
CM
On 8/26/2012 11:50 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
On 26 Aug 2012, at 16:36, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
Questionable just means one has questions. So it's nice, unlike the other words which I was contrasting with questionable - not using to describe my specific questions on specific articles in that particular AfD list. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Feminism/Article_alerts
But frankly I do wonder why two people on this list nominate brand new articles related to women for deletion rather than improving them.
HOWEVER -- the specifics should be discussed at the relevant AfD pages, so if this little dust up gets people there, goody goody!! :-)
CM
Wow. What a ridiculous way to say "yes". Ive always found you to be switched on and relevant in the past; but looking over your contributions to those AFDs it feels like your certain the aim is to remove these articles because we are anti-women. And for no other reason.
This is the sort of thing that puts women off editing Wikipedia and I am happy to call it out. Tom
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Carol, I have to point out that I added myself to the gender gap list because I want to help reduce it; however, comments you make are pushing me to remove myself. Your attitude when it comes to feminism is combative. Taking a combative stance doesn't help your argument.
Ryan Vesey
From: gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Morton Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2012 11:38 AM To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Reminder of Feminism Article Alerts
What I am taking personally is your assertion that we nominated these articles for some anti-female agenda.
Which you continue to do by suggesting my characterisation of your argument as ridiculous is due to you being a woman.
The irony of then telling me not to take it personally is... Ah, well..
Of course I take personally being characterised as holding offensive views.
The point was; I am educating you about the sorts of things that put people off editing. I am a big believer in making wikipedia a welcoming place, and your comments characterise the unfortunate low level nastiness that often puts people off. I am sure it was unintended, hence the explanation.
Tom Morton
On 26 Aug 2012, at 17:28, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
As a female I've been called ridiculous for having an opinion so many times I don't even know what it means anymore :-)
But seriously, it's not like the nominator said:"I'm on the GenderGap list and here's why I think this list would agree these articles should be deleted... "
Don't take rejections of AfD nominations so personally...
CM
On 8/26/2012 11:50 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
On 26 Aug 2012, at 16:36, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
Questionable just means one has questions. So it's nice, unlike the other words which I was contrasting with questionable - not using to describe my specific questions on specific articles in that particular AfD list. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Feminism/Article_alerts
But frankly I do wonder why two people on this list nominate brand new articles related to women for deletion rather than improving them.
HOWEVER -- the specifics should be discussed at the relevant AfD pages, so if this little dust up gets people there, goody goody!! :-)
CM
Wow. What a ridiculous way to say "yes". Ive always found you to be switched on and relevant in the past; but looking over your contributions to those AFDs it feels like your certain the aim is to remove these articles because we are anti-women. And for no other reason.
This is the sort of thing that puts women off editing Wikipedia and I am happy to call it out.
Tom
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_____
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5225 - Release Date: 08/26/12
Hate to be a pain... but Ryan, your comments and the comments by another male on the list, they make me feel uncomfortable as the tone argument is one historically used to repress women and to silence them.
As women in western cultures, many of us have been culturally indoctrinated to be loud, pushy and abrasive in order to get things accomplished. If we just go along with the flow, we cannot get things accomplished that men could get accomplished. This is a historical thing, and I would hope as a man on a list like this, you would be aware of the historical backdrop for which your comment sits.
I find nothing wrong with Carol's tone and I find it troubling that the people who do are all men, and that men continue to dominate the conversation with out having provided any real evidence of their value to improving the gendergap or any evidence of having learned lessons from this list... such as, you know, using the tone argument to historically repress women and how it really looks when men appear to gang up on a woman to do that.
Now, that may not be your intent, and I assuming you were acting in good faith in making your comment... but now you know. :) And hopefully, you will use fewer arguments used to historically repress female voices. :)
Anyway, what gendergap work have you been doing lately Ryan? We miss you on Wikinews and would love to have you writing articles about women over there. :)
Sincerely, Laura Hale
Sent from my iPad
On 26/08/2012, at 7:11 PM, "Ryan Vesey" rdjvesey@gmail.com wrote:
Carol, I have to point out that I added myself to the gender gap list because I want to help reduce it; however, comments you make are pushing me to remove myself. Your attitude when it comes to feminism is combative. Taking a combative stance doesn’t help your argument.
Ryan Vesey
From: gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Morton Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2012 11:38 AM To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Reminder of Feminism Article Alerts
What I am taking personally is your assertion that we nominated these articles for some anti-female agenda.
Which you continue to do by suggesting my characterisation of your argument as ridiculous is due to you being a woman.
The irony of then telling me not to take it personally is... Ah, well..
Of course I take personally being characterised as holding offensive views.
The point was; I am educating you about the sorts of things that put people off editing. I am a big believer in making wikipedia a welcoming place, and your comments characterise the unfortunate low level nastiness that often puts people off. I am sure it was unintended, hence the explanation.
Tom Morton
On 26 Aug 2012, at 17:28, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
As a female I've been called ridiculous for having an opinion so many times I don't even know what it means anymore :-)
But seriously, it's not like the nominator said:"I'm on the GenderGap list and here's why I think this list would agree these articles should be deleted... "
Don't take rejections of AfD nominations so personally...
CM
On 8/26/2012 11:50 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
On 26 Aug 2012, at 16:36, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
Questionable just means one has questions. So it's nice, unlike the other words which I was contrasting with questionable - not using to describe my specific questions on specific articles in that particular AfD list. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Feminism/Article_alerts
But frankly I do wonder why two people on this list nominate brand new articles related to women for deletion rather than improving them.
HOWEVER -- the specifics should be discussed at the relevant AfD pages, so if this little dust up gets people there, goody goody!! :-)
CM
Wow. What a ridiculous way to say "yes". Ive always found you to be switched on and relevant in the past; but looking over your contributions to those AFDs it feels like your certain the aim is to remove these articles because we are anti-women. And for no other reason.
This is the sort of thing that puts women off editing Wikipedia and I am happy to call it out. Tom
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5225 - Release Date: 08/26/12 _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Just for the record: I am in possession of a full set of female genitalia, and I think Carol's tone was aggressive and very clearly represented an assumption of bad faith. Accusing other editors of AfDing articles because of some crypto-misogyny plan they're secretly pursing, especially editors who have no history of such a thing, is not helping to close of the gendergap. It's shoving a wedge into that gap and going "No one but me can possibly be working for the good here. Off with you, penis-havers!"
Similarly, implying that someone is not allowed to express an opinion about someone's behavior unless/until they do the work you prefer them to do is not advocating for women or women's rights. It's advocating for shutting out everyone who isn't doing exactly what you want them to do, in exactly the proportions you want them to do it.
In short: the "repressive" comments I see in this conversation are coming from women, not men, and it saddens me that people think this sort of behavior somehow helps anything.
-Fluffernutter
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com wrote:
<snip>
I find nothing wrong with Carol's tone and I find it troubling that the people who do are all men, and that men continue to dominate the conversation with out having provided any real evidence of their value to improving the gendergap or any evidence of having learned lessons from this list... such as, you know, using the tone argument to historically repress women and how it really looks when men appear to gang up on a woman to do that.
Now, that may not be your intent, and I assuming you were acting in good faith in making your comment... but now you know. :) And hopefully, you will use fewer arguments used to historically repress female voices. :)
Anyway, what gendergap work have you been doing lately Ryan? We miss you on Wikinews and would love to have you writing articles about women over there. :)
Sincerely, Laura Hale
Sent from my iPad
On 26/08/2012, at 7:11 PM, "Ryan Vesey" rdjvesey@gmail.com wrote:
Carol, I have to point out that I added myself to the gender gap list because I want to help reduce it; however, comments you make are pushing me to remove myself. Your attitude when it comes to feminism is combative. Taking a combative stance doesn’t help your argument.****
Ryan Vesey****
*From:* gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Thomas Morton *Sent:* Sunday, August 26, 2012 11:38 AM *To:* Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects *Subject:* Re: [Gendergap] Reminder of Feminism Article Alerts****
What I am taking personally is your assertion that we nominated these articles for some anti-female agenda. ****
Which you continue to do by suggesting my characterisation of your argument as ridiculous is due to you being a woman.****
The irony of then telling me not to take it personally is... Ah, well.. ** **
Of course I take personally being characterised as holding offensive views. ****
The point was; I am educating you about the sorts of things that put people off editing. I am a big believer in making wikipedia a welcoming place, and your comments characterise the unfortunate low level nastiness that often puts people off. I am sure it was unintended, hence the explanation.
Tom Morton****
On 26 Aug 2012, at 17:28, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
As a female I've been called ridiculous for having an opinion so many times I don't even know what it means anymore :-)
But seriously, it's not like the nominator said:"I'm on the GenderGap list and here's why I think this list would agree these articles should be deleted... "
Don't take rejections of AfD nominations so personally...
CM
On 8/26/2012 11:50 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:****
On 26 Aug 2012, at 16:36, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
Questionable just means one has questions. So it's nice, unlike the other words which I was contrasting with questionable - not using to describe my specific questions on specific articles in that particular AfD list. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Feminism/Article_alerts
But frankly I do wonder why two people on this list nominate brand new articles related to women for deletion rather than improving them.
HOWEVER -- the specifics should be discussed at the relevant AfD pages, so if this little dust up gets people there, goody goody!! :-)
CM****
Wow. What a ridiculous way to say "yes". Ive always found you to be switched on and relevant in the past; but looking over your contributions to those AFDs it feels like your certain the aim is to remove these articles because we are anti-women. And for no other reason. ****
This is the sort of thing that puts women off editing Wikipedia and I am happy to call it out. ****
Tom****
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap****
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5225 - Release Date: 08/26/12*
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I'm with ChaoticFluffy. This thread makes me want to slap one of those "This insults women" stickers on other *women*.
Courtney
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 4:52 PM, ChaoticFluffy chaoticfluffy@gmail.comwrote:
Just for the record: I am in possession of a full set of female genitalia, and I think Carol's tone was aggressive and very clearly represented an assumption of bad faith. Accusing other editors of AfDing articles because of some crypto-misogyny plan they're secretly pursing, especially editors who have no history of such a thing, is not helping to close of the gendergap. It's shoving a wedge into that gap and going "No one but me can possibly be working for the good here. Off with you, penis-havers!"
Similarly, implying that someone is not allowed to express an opinion about someone's behavior unless/until they do the work you prefer them to do is not advocating for women or women's rights. It's advocating for shutting out everyone who isn't doing exactly what you want them to do, in exactly the proportions you want them to do it.
In short: the "repressive" comments I see in this conversation are coming from women, not men, and it saddens me that people think this sort of behavior somehow helps anything.
-Fluffernutter
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com wrote:
<snip>
I find nothing wrong with Carol's tone and I find it troubling that the people who do are all men, and that men continue to dominate the conversation with out having provided any real evidence of their value to improving the gendergap or any evidence of having learned lessons from this list... such as, you know, using the tone argument to historically repress women and how it really looks when men appear to gang up on a woman to do that.
Now, that may not be your intent, and I assuming you were acting in good faith in making your comment... but now you know. :) And hopefully, you will use fewer arguments used to historically repress female voices. :)
Anyway, what gendergap work have you been doing lately Ryan? We miss you on Wikinews and would love to have you writing articles about women over there. :)
Sincerely, Laura Hale
Sent from my iPad
On 26/08/2012, at 7:11 PM, "Ryan Vesey" rdjvesey@gmail.com wrote:
Carol, I have to point out that I added myself to the gender gap list because I want to help reduce it; however, comments you make are pushing me to remove myself. Your attitude when it comes to feminism is combative. Taking a combative stance doesn’t help your argument.****
Ryan Vesey****
*From:* gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Thomas Morton *Sent:* Sunday, August 26, 2012 11:38 AM *To:* Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects *Subject:* Re: [Gendergap] Reminder of Feminism Article Alerts****
What I am taking personally is your assertion that we nominated these articles for some anti-female agenda. ****
Which you continue to do by suggesting my characterisation of your argument as ridiculous is due to you being a woman.****
The irony of then telling me not to take it personally is... Ah, well.. *
Of course I take personally being characterised as holding offensive views. ****
The point was; I am educating you about the sorts of things that put people off editing. I am a big believer in making wikipedia a welcoming place, and your comments characterise the unfortunate low level nastiness that often puts people off. I am sure it was unintended, hence the explanation.
Tom Morton****
On 26 Aug 2012, at 17:28, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:****
As a female I've been called ridiculous for having an opinion so many times I don't even know what it means anymore :-)
But seriously, it's not like the nominator said:"I'm on the GenderGap list and here's why I think this list would agree these articles should be deleted... "
Don't take rejections of AfD nominations so personally...
CM
On 8/26/2012 11:50 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:****
On 26 Aug 2012, at 16:36, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:****
Questionable just means one has questions. So it's nice, unlike the other words which I was contrasting with questionable - not using to describe my specific questions on specific articles in that particular AfD list. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Feminism/Article_alerts
But frankly I do wonder why two people on this list nominate brand new articles related to women for deletion rather than improving them.
HOWEVER -- the specifics should be discussed at the relevant AfD pages, so if this little dust up gets people there, goody goody!! :-)
CM****
Wow. What a ridiculous way to say "yes". Ive always found you to be switched on and relevant in the past; but looking over your contributions to those AFDs it feels like your certain the aim is to remove these articles because we are anti-women. And for no other reason. ****
This is the sort of thing that puts women off editing Wikipedia and I am happy to call it out. ****
Tom****
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap****
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5225 - Release Date: 08/26/12
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Sent from my iPad
On 26/08/2012, at 10:18 PM, Courtney Thurston thurscon@gmail.com wrote:
I'm with ChaoticFluffy. This thread makes me want to slap one of those "This insults women" stickers on other women.
I would personally be less bothered if it was women criticising women critically and harshly, but when it looks like man after man criticising women and no other female voices in the conversation, that bothers me because of the historical overtones regarding male voices in women's conversations.
Sincerely, Laura Hale
It's probably better to avoid arguments of tone online, even if it's a tone you want to avoid yourself, because it's way too easy to misinterpret without tonal inflection, or other bits of non-verbal body language. You may have misinterpreted the tone you're trying to criticize, or they may have misinterpreted what you're trying to say.
On the other hand, as it's just been demonstrated, just because men are offended by what a woman is saying doesn't mean that other women aren't offended as well.
From, Emily
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com wrote:
Sent from my iPad
On 26/08/2012, at 10:18 PM, Courtney Thurston thurscon@gmail.com wrote:
I'm with ChaoticFluffy. This thread makes me want to slap one of those "This insults women" stickers on other *women*.
I would personally be less bothered if it was women criticising women critically and harshly, but when it looks like man after man criticising women and no other female voices in the conversation, that bothers me because of the historical overtones regarding male voices in women's conversations.
Sincerely, Laura Hale
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 8/26/2012 5:33 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:
It's probably better to avoid arguments of tone online, even if it's a tone you want to avoid yourself, because it's way too easy to misinterpret without tonal inflection, or other bits of non-verbal body language. You may have misinterpreted the tone you're trying to criticize, or they may have misinterpreted what you're trying to say.
Excellent point.
I said questionable without defining what I meant.
He said "not nice" which I took as a personal slur.
I made a joke about what I WOULD have said if I was NOT being nice.
Someone others took that as my actual position which it was not.
My actual was reaction was that PERHAPS those young guys who get their questionable jollies AfDing new articles like it was a video game had just shot down three articles of interest to women - none of which I named, merely shared the link to Feminist Wikiproject list. I didn't pay attention to who did the AfDs and didn't really think about that issue at all.
That was as far as my analysis went in the 45 seconds it took me to send the message.
Sorry for what obviously was an extreme criminal act in some people's eyes!!
Women, make sure you take at least an hour before posting here to make sure there isn't a single word - and especially no JOKES - that anyone could possible misinterpret.
CM
Carol, I know you feel aggrieved in this situation, but I would ask you to please consider stepping away from this conversation. This conversation is making the list look like it's populated not by gendergap closers, but nasty people who enjoy being nasty for the sake of feeling special. And that characterization is not because of what Thomas has been writing - it's from what you've been writing. Frankly I would rather fork to a list populated by people who speak and act like him than stay on a list dominated by people who speak and act like you. It would be more likely to accomplish our goal than this list. And to pre-empt a possible reply, I'm saying this not because I'm a brainwashed, patriarchy-dominated woman who thinks men have rights to speak that you don't, but because I am someone who feels NO ONE has the right to attack others like you've been doing, no matter what minority you do it in the name of.
I know the list mods have been trying to keep a hands-off approach to members, but it's really reached the point for me where I feel nothing good can be accomplished on this list if its level of discourse is allowed to stay where it is.
-Fluff
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.netwrote:
On 8/26/2012 5:33 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:
It's probably better to avoid arguments of tone online, even if it's a tone you want to avoid yourself, because it's way too easy to misinterpret without tonal inflection, or other bits of non-verbal body language. You may have misinterpreted the tone you're trying to criticize, or they may have misinterpreted what you're trying to say.
Excellent point.
I said questionable without defining what I meant.
He said "not nice" which I took as a personal slur.
I made a joke about what I WOULD have said if I was NOT being nice.
Someone others took that as my actual position which it was not.
My actual was reaction was that PERHAPS those young guys who get their questionable jollies AfDing new articles like it was a video game had just shot down three articles of interest to women - none of which I named, merely shared the link to Feminist Wikiproject list. I didn't pay attention to who did the AfDs and didn't really think about that issue at all.
That was as far as my analysis went in the 45 seconds it took me to send the message.
Sorry for what obviously was an extreme criminal act in some people's eyes!!
Women, make sure you take at least an hour before posting here to make sure there isn't a single word - and especially no JOKES - that anyone could possible misinterpret.
CM
______________________________**_________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/gendergaphttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Hi all -
I've been in a significant academic time crunch for the last several weeks, and Sarah is currently AFK, which is why neither of us have participated in this thread so far. One of us (Sarah, me, or Cindy,) will probably have further comment on this thread in general and may reach out to some of you individually in the near future, but I wanted to send out a general note that the mods are reading this thread and some sort of action is likely to be forthcoming.
For now: I agree with Fluffernutter that a lot of the behavior that has occurred on this thread is not productive. I subscribe to this list because I believe it should be a place where we can have important discussions. I believe that the gendergap in Wikimedia projects has significant real-world implications that need to be addressed to avoid significant long term consequences. I believe that many of the subscribers to this list, including many people who have participated here, believe the same way.
If you do believe the same way, I would ask that when you start to type a post to this list, please consider whether or not your comment will benefit our mutual goals, or whether it will harm them. If you feel you can't make a comment that will be productive (or at least neutral) at any given point, please hold off on sending your email for a while - even if it's just for a few hours - to allow tensions and feelings on all sides to de-escalate.
Thanks, Kevin Gorman
Kevin,
I would like to thank you for this email. I think you expressed several things I was thinking a lot better than I would have been able to.
From, Emily
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all -
I've been in a significant academic time crunch for the last several weeks, and Sarah is currently AFK, which is why neither of us have participated in this thread so far. One of us (Sarah, me, or Cindy,) will probably have further comment on this thread in general and may reach out to some of you individually in the near future, but I wanted to send out a general note that the mods are reading this thread and some sort of action is likely to be forthcoming.
For now: I agree with Fluffernutter that a lot of the behavior that has occurred on this thread is not productive. I subscribe to this list because I believe it should be a place where we can have important discussions. I believe that the gendergap in Wikimedia projects has significant real-world implications that need to be addressed to avoid significant long term consequences. I believe that many of the subscribers to this list, including many people who have participated here, believe the same way.
If you do believe the same way, I would ask that when you start to type a post to this list, please consider whether or not your comment will benefit our mutual goals, or whether it will harm them. If you feel you can't make a comment that will be productive (or at least neutral) at any given point, please hold off on sending your email for a while - even if it's just for a few hours - to allow tensions and feelings on all sides to de-escalate.
Thanks, Kevin Gorman
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 8/26/2012 5:27 PM, Laura Hale wrote:
I would personally be less bothered if it was women criticising women critically and harshly, but when it looks like man after man criticising women and no other female voices in the conversation, that bothers me because of the historical overtones regarding male voices in women's conversations.
Sincerely, Laura Hale
I don't know how it is now a days, but when I was growing up in the 1960s when a man said a woman was not "nice" (per Thomas Morton's original message that started the brouhaha) it meant she was a bitch/whore who deserved everything she got. What does it mean now, may I ask??
Anyway, it obviously annoyed me enough to explain what I thought was "not nice." There are radical feminists out there still with harsh analysis of male behavior. Get used to it. But know one -male or female - should assume that any female who expresses a simple word - "questionable" - that you ASSUME is some extremely harsh indictment of you and your behavior needs to be chastised for daring to discomfort you.
After all someone might hate Croatians; or someone might be Mr. Atkins staffer; or someone might be a right to lifer who doesn't want anyone pointing out that rape may lead to pregnancy. All of those would be QUESTIONABLE reasons. Why attack a woman with the "not nice" accusation without even asking why???
Fair question, eh??
CM
On 8/26/2012 9:58 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
Right now there are 3 questionable AfD's and various nominations, etc. Plus a bunch of Good article nominees and other listings.On a "fostering friendly atmosphere" note; characterising actions as "questionable" is not very nice.
Tom
Carol; are you now suggesting I am an Akin staffer?
Im distraught by this entire thread; it started with my motives being questioned in creating an AFD. And descended into hurtful comments about me trying to oppress women.
Because I suggested the word questionable wasnt nice, and that carols attitude was one we try to avoid!
How exactly that implied some threat against you, Carol, I do not know.
But the threats certainly came at me. I am leaving this list, I think, because it feels a poisonous and nasty place to contribute, where men are stamped on simply for being men.
I find that attitude as objectionable as the other.
Tom Morton
On 27 Aug 2012, at 00:42, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/26/2012 5:27 PM, Laura Hale wrote:
I would personally be less bothered if it was women criticising women critically and harshly, but when it looks like man after man criticising women and no other female voices in the conversation, that bothers me because of the historical overtones regarding male voices in women's conversations.
Sincerely, Laura Hale
I don't know how it is now a days, but when I was growing up in the 1960s when a man said a woman was not "nice" (per Thomas Morton's original message that started the brouhaha) it meant she was a bitch/whore who deserved everything she got. What does it mean now, may I ask??
Anyway, it obviously annoyed me enough to explain what I thought was "not nice." There are radical feminists out there still with harsh analysis of male behavior. Get used to it. But know one -male or female - should assume that any female who expresses a simple word - "questionable" - that you ASSUME is some extremely harsh indictment of you and your behavior needs to be chastised for daring to discomfort you.
After all someone might hate Croatians; or someone might be Mr. Atkins staffer; or someone might be a right to lifer who doesn't want anyone pointing out that rape may lead to pregnancy. All of those would be QUESTIONABLE reasons. Why attack a woman with the "not nice" accusation without even asking why???
Fair question, eh??
CM
On 8/26/2012 9:58 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
Right now there are 3 questionable AfD's and various nominations, etc.
Plus a bunch of Good article nominees and other listings.
On a "fostering friendly atmosphere" note; characterising actions as "questionable" is not very nice.
Tom
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
One final point; my response to you was not related to your gender - just your choice of word.
I was, I think justifiably, upset at you implication that my carefully described AFD in which I highlight policy issues with the Akin fork and suggest a merge back was actually based on some hidden anti-female agenda.
Something I have still not seen a retraction of or apology for.
It is not acceptable to play the "I can say but you can't" card. Had I called Cindy's AFD questionable, would I have been allowed to get away with it?
Tom Morton
On 27 Aug 2012, at 00:42, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/26/2012 5:27 PM, Laura Hale wrote:
I would personally be less bothered if it was women criticising women critically and harshly, but when it looks like man after man criticising women and no other female voices in the conversation, that bothers me because of the historical overtones regarding male voices in women's conversations.
Sincerely, Laura Hale
I don't know how it is now a days, but when I was growing up in the 1960s when a man said a woman was not "nice" (per Thomas Morton's original message that started the brouhaha) it meant she was a bitch/whore who deserved everything she got. What does it mean now, may I ask??
Anyway, it obviously annoyed me enough to explain what I thought was "not nice." There are radical feminists out there still with harsh analysis of male behavior. Get used to it. But know one -male or female - should assume that any female who expresses a simple word - "questionable" - that you ASSUME is some extremely harsh indictment of you and your behavior needs to be chastised for daring to discomfort you.
After all someone might hate Croatians; or someone might be Mr. Atkins staffer; or someone might be a right to lifer who doesn't want anyone pointing out that rape may lead to pregnancy. All of those would be QUESTIONABLE reasons. Why attack a woman with the "not nice" accusation without even asking why???
Fair question, eh??
CM
On 8/26/2012 9:58 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
Right now there are 3 questionable AfD's and various nominations, etc.
Plus a bunch of Good article nominees and other listings.
On a "fostering friendly atmosphere" note; characterising actions as "questionable" is not very nice.
Tom
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I’ll disagree with you on the point here. The tone I referred to was one that I attempt to avoid using myself. I don’t feel that it is conducive to discussion when used by males or females. On the topic of the Gender Gap. Thanks to the awesome help of Sarah, I just created 5 articles about the 100 most powerful women in the world. I’m also drafting a letter to the editor to be sent to the Daily Pennsylvanian to encourage female participation on Wikipedia. On the topic of Wikinews, it’s a writing style that I’m not comfortable with. I’m a very poor writer in general (still putting off my writing seminar) so trying to manage multiple writing styles is too much.
Ryan
From: gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Laura Hale Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2012 3:40 PM To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Reminder of Feminism Article Alerts
Hate to be a pain... but Ryan, your comments and the comments by another male on the list, they make me feel uncomfortable as the tone argument is one historically used to repress women and to silence them.
As women in western cultures, many of us have been culturally indoctrinated to be loud, pushy and abrasive in order to get things accomplished. If we just go along with the flow, we cannot get things accomplished that men could get accomplished. This is a historical thing, and I would hope as a man on a list like this, you would be aware of the historical backdrop for which your comment sits.
I find nothing wrong with Carol's tone and I find it troubling that the people who do are all men, and that men continue to dominate the conversation with out having provided any real evidence of their value to improving the gendergap or any evidence of having learned lessons from this list... such as, you know, using the tone argument to historically repress women and how it really looks when men appear to gang up on a woman to do that.
Now, that may not be your intent, and I assuming you were acting in good faith in making your comment... but now you know. :) And hopefully, you will use fewer arguments used to historically repress female voices. :)
Anyway, what gendergap work have you been doing lately Ryan? We miss you on Wikinews and would love to have you writing articles about women over there. :)
Sincerely,
Laura Hale
Sent from my iPad
On 26/08/2012, at 7:11 PM, "Ryan Vesey" rdjvesey@gmail.com wrote:
Carol, I have to point out that I added myself to the gender gap list because I want to help reduce it; however, comments you make are pushing me to remove myself. Your attitude when it comes to feminism is combative. Taking a combative stance doesn’t help your argument.
Ryan Vesey
From: gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Morton Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2012 11:38 AM To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Reminder of Feminism Article Alerts
What I am taking personally is your assertion that we nominated these articles for some anti-female agenda.
Which you continue to do by suggesting my characterisation of your argument as ridiculous is due to you being a woman.
The irony of then telling me not to take it personally is... Ah, well..
Of course I take personally being characterised as holding offensive views.
The point was; I am educating you about the sorts of things that put people off editing. I am a big believer in making wikipedia a welcoming place, and your comments characterise the unfortunate low level nastiness that often puts people off. I am sure it was unintended, hence the explanation.
Tom Morton
On 26 Aug 2012, at 17:28, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
As a female I've been called ridiculous for having an opinion so many times I don't even know what it means anymore :-)
But seriously, it's not like the nominator said:"I'm on the GenderGap list and here's why I think this list would agree these articles should be deleted... "
Don't take rejections of AfD nominations so personally...
CM
On 8/26/2012 11:50 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
On 26 Aug 2012, at 16:36, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
Questionable just means one has questions. So it's nice, unlike the other words which I was contrasting with questionable - not using to describe my specific questions on specific articles in that particular AfD list. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Feminism/Article_alerts
But frankly I do wonder why two people on this list nominate brand new articles related to women for deletion rather than improving them.
HOWEVER -- the specifics should be discussed at the relevant AfD pages, so if this little dust up gets people there, goody goody!! :-)
CM
Wow. What a ridiculous way to say "yes". Ive always found you to be switched on and relevant in the past; but looking over your contributions to those AFDs it feels like your certain the aim is to remove these articles because we are anti-women. And for no other reason.
This is the sort of thing that puts women off editing Wikipedia and I am happy to call it out.
Tom
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_____
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5225 - Release Date: 08/26/12
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_____
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5225 - Release Date: 08/26/12
Wow. What a ridiculous way to say "yes". Ive always found you to be switched on and relevant in the past; but looking over your contributions to those AFDs it feels like your certain the aim is to remove these articles because we are anti-women. And for no other reason.
This is the sort of thing that puts women off editing Wikipedia and I am happy to call it out. Tom
Lord knows I can't sort out the feelings and frustrations in this thread, but I have a reaction to this statement: "This is the sort of thing that puts women off editing Wikipedia and I am happy to call it out."
This is a speculative claim from someone who seems to be attempting to speak for an entire group of people to which I don't think they belong by birth or nature (and pardon me if I am wrong in that assumption). My point here is that it is a cruel dig toward someone (Carol) who very clearly works toward equalizing gender issues on Wikipedia.
As a woman, I would ask you not to speak for me when criticizing other women or deciding what would put me off of editing Wikipedia. For me personally, this wouldn't even be on the radar. Thank you. Heather
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.netwrote:
Questionable just means one has questions.
I disagree. I think "questionable" is a highly charged word that's usually understood to be rhetorical (whether or not it was intended that way).
For instance, if I say "I find the circumstances around Barack Obama's birth certificate questionable," I think it's pretty clear that would be a political point -- not idle curiosity about the technicalities of what happened. (Please note the "IF" :)
I haven't looked at these AfDs, so I don't really have any opinion about whether or not their motives are questionable, beyond the starting point of assuming good faith. But if something is going to be called out as "questionable," I think it's reasonable to expect that those whose motives are being questioned would be affronted, and that they deserve an explanation about why their motives are being publicly called into question.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.comwrote:
I haven't looked at these AfDs
Whoops -- correction, I actually did !vote in one of these AfDs (Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy), just didn't realize it was one of those being called out. Sorry -- no deception intended.
And in this case, I frankly don't see any reason for departing from AGF and questioning the motive of the nominator. It seems like a pretty straightforward question of whether it's better to have a separate article or whether to keep the content merged. We have these discussions all the time, on all kinds of subjects; I'm puzzled about how such a question could be "pro" or "anti" woman, it's a simple question of content structure, with plenty of good faith Wikipedians supporting both positions.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On 08/26/2012 09:20 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
On 26 August 2012 15:16, Carol Moore DC <carolmooredc@verizon.net mailto:carolmooredc@verizon.net> wrote:
On 8/26/2012 9:58 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:Right now there are 3 questionable AfD's and various nominations, etc. Plus a bunch of Good article nominees and other listings. On a "fostering friendly atmosphere" note; characterising actions as "questionable" is not very nice. TomQuestionable is being nice. "shitty" "sexist" "woman hating BS" is what is not very nice - in a wikipedia context, anyway... :-) CMAre you /seriously /implying I nominated the Tod Akin article for those reasons?
Tom
I think a related point of concern is the tone that editors can take during some of these deletion discussions, although it is disturbing to have so many iconic feminist articles nominated for deletion at once (Pussy Riot, pregnancy from rape, Sandra Fluke). Some of the comments //just a party tool// //"fame" is "do you remember that person Rush called a slut?"// on the most recent DRV for Sandra Fluke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_August_22#Sa...) made me wish that there was some teeth in [[WP:CIVIL]]. Gobonobo
On 8/26/2012 11:02 AM, Gobonobo wrote:
I think a related point of concern is the tone that editors can take during some of these deletion discussions, although it is disturbing to have so many iconic feminist articles nominated for deletion at once (Pussy Riot, pregnancy from rape, Sandra Fluke). Some of the comments //just a party tool// //"fame" is "do you remember that person Rush called a slut?"// on the most recent DRV for Sandra Fluke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_August_22#Sa...) made me wish that there was some teeth in [[WP:CIVIL]]. Gobonobo
Get thee to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Closing_...