I think that some people may have a police state mentality around these parts. But, of course, there are wonderful diligent people, too. I enjoy looking up odd subjects that help in my research -- whether college dating or hazing.
Kind regards, Mig --
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 6:00 PM, gendergap-request@lists.wikimedia.orgwrote:
Send Gendergap mailing list submissions to gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to gendergap-request@lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at gendergap-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Gendergap digest..."
Today's Topics:
- Re: Am I crazy? (B?ria Lima)
- Re: Am I crazy? (Nathan)
- Re: Am I crazy? (Daniel and Elizabeth Case)
- Re: Am I crazy? (Daniel and Elizabeth Case)
- Re: Am I crazy? (Nathan)
- Re: Am I crazy? (Lady of Shalott)
- Re: Am I crazy? (Sue Gardner)
- Re: Am I crazy? (Gillian White)
Message: 1 Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:12:49 +0100 From: B?ria Lima beria.lima@wikimedia.pt Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Am I crazy? To: fredbaud@fairpoint.net, Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: <CAA2XHjBUR3v-KNc2T4BBde12Tju0rkyL3XmW7LroLKS+338F3w@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
*It would not have to be a gender related issue for this to occur.*
Fred is right in that point. I'm not a gender editor (my articles almost never have problems with gender issues), however, the topic is one where you can find the most biased people on earth: Religion.
And I would say you case was not the worst one, the worst case i can imagine (and already happened with me several times) is to remove biased info (or include NPOV info) in an article about a religion / god / dogma who is watched by some believer of the same god / religion. ;) _____ *B?ria Lima* Wikimedia Portugal http://wikimedia.pt (351) 963 953 042
*Imagine um mundo onde ? dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somat?rio de todo o conhecimento humano. ? isso o que estamos a fazer.*
On 24 October 2011 18:54, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I've never particularly felt the "boys club" atmosphere on Wikipedia that apparently deters some women. However, I am very angry right now. I tried to add [[date rape]] as a "see also" link to the very incomplete article [[college dating]]. The relevance seemed obvious to me. It was removed by two separate people, and when I took it to the talk page, its relevance was questioned, and I was told to "prove it" because it was "obvious to whom?" Fine. I've proven it with sourcing, adding a small section. I think that needed to happen anyway, but I'm infuriated that I could not just add a see also link to it and tell the students who are really working on the article that a section needed adding. (The people who removed the link are seasoned Wikipedians, not members of the class developing the article.) Am I crazy?
LadyofShalott
No, that is the usual reaction of biased editors of all persuasions, to throw their mind out of gear, when obvious conclusions which contradict their bias are advanced.
It would not have to be a gender related issue for this to occur.
Fred
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap