I'd like to propose that the gendergap be forked. The main list would be for women and transgendered who want to work together to help increase female participation on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Foundation projects. The fork list would be for male allies who want to work towards a similar goal.
This proposal is based on two things. The first idea is that women themselves can probably best identify areas and needs regarding female participation on Wikipedia. Assuming good faith, male contributors on the list probably do really want to help work towards this goal and have women's best interest at heart and want to see improvement in the total number of female participants on the wiki... but there has been a fairly sizable amount of research in the NGO sector in countries like Africa, where outside organisations were not as effective as local organisations at identifying local problems and creating solutions that work best in a local context. In this situation, women and transgenders would be the local community and men would be the international NGOs.
The second issue is that at the moment, men appear to be dominating the conversation. (This may not by correct and I apologise if I am wrong. I'm making this assumption based on the names of participants involved.) Men are posting content with suggestions for women. Men are debating if women find the term dick offensive. Men aren't asking the women on the list if they have resources that they think other women might find useful. Men do not appear to be asking the women on the list what their opinions are regarding the use of the term dick and if women on the list find the term offensive. Rather, it appears that men are speaking for women without their consent.
I'd really like men to continue to be involved. I think the best way would be for the creation of a sublist, specifically created for men. As allies, they can discuss how to improve the rate of women's involvement. As men on that strategies sublist about the creation and implementation of solutions to increase female participation, the information can be summarised and sent to some one else off list to be posted to the main list.
I just worry at the moment that the heavy male involvement is intimidating and keeping some women from participating.
Sincerely, Laura Hale
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com wrote:
I'd like to propose that the gendergap be forked. The main list would be for women and transgendered who want to work together to help increase female participation on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Foundation projects. The fork list would be for male allies who want to work towards a similar goal.
This proposal is based on two things. The first idea is that women themselves can probably best identify areas and needs regarding female participation on Wikipedia. Assuming good faith, male contributors on the list probably do really want to help work towards this goal and have women's best interest at heart and want to see improvement in the total number of female participants on the wiki... but there has been a fairly sizable amount of research in the NGO sector in countries like Africa, where outside organisations were not as effective as local organisations at identifying local problems and creating solutions that work best in a local context. In this situation, women and transgenders would be the local community and men would be the international NGOs.
The second issue is that at the moment, men appear to be dominating the conversation. (This may not by correct and I apologise if I am wrong. I'm making this assumption based on the names of participants involved.) Men are posting content with suggestions for women. Men are debating if women find the term dick offensive. Men aren't asking the women on the list if they have resources that they think other women might find useful. Men do not appear to be asking the women on the list what their opinions are regarding the use of the term dick and if women on the list find the term offensive. Rather, it appears that men are speaking for women without their consent.
I'd really like men to continue to be involved. I think the best way would be for the creation of a sublist, specifically created for men. As allies, they can discuss how to improve the rate of women's involvement. As men on that strategies sublist about the creation and implementation of solutions to increase female participation, the information can be summarised and sent to some one else off list to be posted to the main list.
I just worry at the moment that the heavy male involvement is intimidating and keeping some women from participating.
Sincerely, Laura Hale
I realize that my replying is in a sense violating what I'm about to say below, but...
I and some others who are male are here and either listening, or listening and briefly asking what the women present (and absent) feel about things and not asserting what you do or should think.
I would appreciate not being locked out of part of the discussion. I appreciate that doing so necessarily means I should be minimizing my speaking out, and maximizing my listening, and I hope I've done so successfully.
That said, if the dynamics here overall have created a list which is not optimal for encouraging women to participate, which I can clearly see is possible, I understand your wanting to do something about it. Two lists as proposed might be necessary.
If this has happened on the list designed to talk about and fix the problem of that happening... *bang head on the wall* Talk about frustrating. We're supposed to be the "good guys", literally 8-(
My two cents, and I will now go back to listening.
Yeah, George! A definite role model for the list; but with such a common sense attitude, you should feel free to post a tiny bit more :-)
On 3/14/2011 8:33 PM, George Herbert wrote:
I realize that my replying is in a sense violating what I'm about to say below, but...
I and some others who are male are here and either listening, or listening and briefly asking what the women present (and absent) feel about things and not asserting what you do or should think.
I would appreciate not being locked out of part of the discussion. I appreciate that doing so necessarily means I should be minimizing my speaking out, and maximizing my listening, and I hope I've done so successfully.
That said, if the dynamics here overall have created a list which is not optimal for encouraging women to participate, which I can clearly see is possible, I understand your wanting to do something about it. Two lists as proposed might be necessary.
If this has happened on the list designed to talk about and fix the problem of that happening... *bang head on the wall* Talk about frustrating. We're supposed to be the "good guys", literally 8-(
My two cents, and I will now go back to listening.
This is simply, nonsense! Don't you people realize that separating this List into two distinct ones would underline, reinforce and actually signify the very "gendergap" you are allegedly trying to resolve. This is people talking with people. If there is a female or male here who has a problem communicating with, or in the presence of, another gender - they do have a problem. But a website Mailing List such as this is not the place to resolve it.
Marc Riddell
on 3/15/11 11:53 PM, carolmooredc@verizon.net at carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
Yeah, George! A definite role model for the list; but with such a common sense attitude, you should feel free to post a tiny bit more :-)
On 3/14/2011 8:33 PM, George Herbert wrote:
I realize that my replying is in a sense violating what I'm about to say below, but...
I and some others who are male are here and either listening, or listening and briefly asking what the women present (and absent) feel about things and not asserting what you do or should think.
I would appreciate not being locked out of part of the discussion. I appreciate that doing so necessarily means I should be minimizing my speaking out, and maximizing my listening, and I hope I've done so successfully.
That said, if the dynamics here overall have created a list which is not optimal for encouraging women to participate, which I can clearly see is possible, I understand your wanting to do something about it. Two lists as proposed might be necessary.
If this has happened on the list designed to talk about and fix the problem of that happening... *bang head on the wall* Talk about frustrating. We're supposed to be the "good guys", literally 8-(
My two cents, and I will now go back to listening.
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
*"If there is a female or male here who has a problem communicating with, or in the presence of, another gender - they do have a problem."*
So those of us who feel we're being drowned out by men shouting about what's best for us without listening to our opinions - we have "a problem", do we?
Really now, take a look at what you just wrote and maybe give some thought to whether minimizing the feelings of the women on this list is REALLY the tack you want to take here.
-Fluff
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
This is simply, nonsense! Don't you people realize that separating this List into two distinct ones would underline, reinforce and actually signify the very "gendergap" you are allegedly trying to resolve. This is people talking with people. If there is a female or male here who has a problem communicating with, or in the presence of, another gender - they do have a problem. But a website Mailing List such as this is not the place to resolve it.
Marc Riddell
I am not "minimizing" anything, Fluffy. If the females involved here need and want a place where they can commiserate with one another about their feelings on this issue that's fine. A separate List could be created for that. But, if the true purpose of of the "Gendergap" List is to try to identify and resolve the problem in the Project, then separating the Lists would be counterproductive.
Marc
on 3/16/11 9:14 AM, ChaoticFluffy at chaoticfluffy@gmail.com wrote:
"If there is a female or male here who has a problem communicating with, or in the presence of, another gender - they do have a problem."
So those of us who feel we're being drowned out by men shouting about what's best for us without listening to our opinions - we have "a problem", do we?
Really now, take a look at what you just wrote and maybe give some thought to whether minimizing the feelings of the women on this list is REALLY the tack you want to take here.
-Fluff
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote: This is simply, nonsense! Don't you people realize that separating this List into two distinct ones would underline, reinforce and actually signify the very "gendergap" you are allegedly trying to resolve. This is people talking with people. If there is a female or male here who has a problem communicating with, or in the presence of, another gender - they do have a problem. But a website Mailing List such as this is not the place to resolve it.
Marc Riddell
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
I am not "minimizing" anything, Fluffy.
You were minimizing people's feelings. Hey women! When working towards empowering your own community to increase participation rates for women? Well, screw you if you can't work with men. <-- If that wasn't what you were intended to say, then rethink your comments. You're a man. You are in a place of privilege. You just told some one in a place of non-privilege that their concerns aren't important.
Whether or not you intended to do that, even assuming in good faith that your intent wasn't to tell women that, it is how the message was recieved. (And if we posted your comments along side Erik's comment about equality of the sexes on a list dedicated to helping increase a marginalized group, you'd be slammed just as much, if not more.)
If the females involved here need and want a place where they can commiserate with one another about their feelings on this issue that's fine.
What is this assumption based on? Seriously?
I want a place where women can work together to increase WOMEN'S PARTICIPATION RATES. I don't want to a place to commiserate about my feelings. Seriously, what a sexist thing to say. And way to have reading comprehension fail.
The reason that male participation to be minimal is that we want to empower women to work together to increase female participation rates. We do not want a place to commiserate. We want to develop strategies to increase female participation rates on Wikipedia.
And you're not helping to make Wikipedia a more female friendly place. You're not helping to increase female participation rates. Your comments run counter to the goal of increasing female participation rates, because if shown to women, they would make them less likely to contribute.
A separate List could be created for that.
A separate list could be created to develop strategies for increasing women's participation rates on Wikipedia? Then what is this list about? Is this the "Make men feel good" list? The list to increase the gender gap between male and female participation by providing a lot of fodder that demonstrates how Wikipedia is fundamentally sexist? The list dedicated to proving that men can't get over their own male privilege?
But, if the true purpose of of the "Gendergap" List is to try to identify
and resolve the problem in the Project, then separating the Lists would be counterproductive.
Women empowering women is counter productive to decreasing the gender gap on Wikiedia, but your comments are helpful to decreasing the gender gap because they demonstrate a clear idea of women's concerns and present a happy atmosphere that of Wikipedia not being filled with sexists?
I've identified a problem. The problem is you. The problem is Fred. The problem is Erik. The problem is male privilege. How do we resolve the problem to get on to the next step? We create a fork for men to work on. We ask men to read the list and remain silent unless they can specifically offer help to address specific needs. We encourage men to recruit women to join the list.
There. I've done what you said. Still, same conclusion: You and other men need to go. You haven't demonstrated your relevance, but rather have behaved counter productively to the stated goal: Increasing female participation rates.
Just to clarify, I think the list should remain mixed sex.
But it is a problem when on a list dedicated to getting more women involved, men post two to four times as much as women (depending on the week), with some men posting a couple times a day. It can feel like the "same old same old" - especially if the men are disagreeing a lot with what women say. Plus women often do need more encouragement to post.
George definitely could post a bit more; and some male posters should try to keep it down to one a day or five a week. I've been on lists of Palestinians and of African-Americans where they were working on their issues and I was always careful to just add info of general interest and occasional positive suggestions -- and not to post too much or be critical of their views since I felt they should work it out among themselves.
Since most - not all - wikipedia issues are common to men and women, more might be expected of guys here. But not as much as seems to come through the list now.
On 3/16/2011 8:42 AM, Marc Riddell wrote:
This is simply, nonsense! Don't you people realize that separating this List into two distinct ones would underline, reinforce and actually signify the very "gendergap" you are allegedly trying to resolve. This is people talking with people. If there is a female or male here who has a problem communicating with, or in the presence of, another gender - they do have a problem. But a website Mailing List such as this is not the place to resolve it.
Marc Riddell
on 3/15/11 11:53 PM, carolmooredc@verizon.net at carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
Yeah, George! A definite role model for the list; but with such a common sense attitude, you should feel free to post a tiny bit more :-)
On 3/14/2011 8:33 PM, George Herbert wrote:
I realize that my replying is in a sense violating what I'm about to say below, but...
I and some others who are male are here and either listening, or listening and briefly asking what the women present (and absent) feel about things and not asserting what you do or should think.
I would appreciate not being locked out of part of the discussion. I appreciate that doing so necessarily means I should be minimizing my speaking out, and maximizing my listening, and I hope I've done so successfully.
That said, if the dynamics here overall have created a list which is not optimal for encouraging women to participate, which I can clearly see is possible, I understand your wanting to do something about it. Two lists as proposed might be necessary.
If this has happened on the list designed to talk about and fix the problem of that happening... *bang head on the wall* Talk about frustrating. We're supposed to be the "good guys", literally 8-(
My two cents, and I will now go back to listening.
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 7:10 AM, carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
men post two to four times as much as women (depending on the week), with some men posting a couple times a day.
So, perhaps ironically, we're having a problem with participatory inequality on the gender gap mailing list.
A power law of individual participation is a natural part of any open forum on the Web. It just seems like, just as on Wikipedia, we want to swing the distribution toward more women as well as men.
Maybe we should edit the Code of Conduct as a first step to try and explicitly encourage the kind of participation what we want.[1]
Perhaps guys leaving the floor open a bit more for women would help. ("Ladies first" as part of the code of conduct? Is that joke too meta to be effective?) I don't think it can hurt to try anyway.
I think it's going to take a lot more than men being quieter though.
One feeling I've had is that we should do more person-to-person outreach to women who are currently editors. They're the type that may even think that there is no problem, because they overcame the barriers on their own. But we're probably missing the voices of *hundreds* of women Wikipedians here. (Chaoticfluffy, want to help me make a list of talk pages to hit?)
1. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_gap#Discuss
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 5:01 AM, Steven Walling swalling@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 7:10 AM, carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
men post two to four times as much as women (depending on the week), with some men posting a couple times a day.
So, perhaps ironically, we're having a problem with participatory inequality on the gender gap mailing list. A power law of individual participation is a natural part of any open forum on the Web. It just seems like, just as on Wikipedia, we want to swing the distribution toward more women as well as men.
;-)
Maybe we should edit the Code of Conduct as a first step to try and explicitly encourage the kind of participation what we want.[1] Perhaps guys leaving the floor open a bit more for women would help. ("Ladies first" as part of the code of conduct? Is that joke too meta to be effective?) I don't think it can hurt to try anyway. I think it's going to take a lot more than men being quieter though.
Suggestions to tame the men.
moderation: 1. put all men on moderation, with a female moderator approving their posts, or 2. put on moderation any man who posts more than three times per calendar week
artificial/self-imposed/self-inflicted controls: 1. no threads started by men, and 2. one post per man per thread unless subsequent responses address them specifically, by name.
-- John Vandenberg
IMO this list was started as an inclusive forum for discussion of gender gap among equal participants. Discrimination by gender doesn't make sense to me. My vote goes to common sense rules, election of a male and female moderator, and enforcement of those rules into actual practice (without discrimination by gender). In other words, egalitarianism and sensible moderation.
If people want to run female-only lists or groups, I think that can be useful and good, but should be done separately.
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 6:30 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
IMO this list was started as an inclusive forum for discussion of gender gap among equal participants. Discrimination by gender doesn't make sense to me.
Erik,
Can I ask you a personal question? What gender are you? If you aren't female, why are you participating in this conversation? (And why is any person who gender identifies as male participating? Seriously? The question are basically for female participants basically: Do as a woman you feel like you have better chances to empower women than men do? Do you as a woman feel that you behave differently in a community dominated by men? Do you as a woman feel like your modes of communication change in mixed gendered groups?)
I think this is an issue of empowerment. Women can empower women more than men can empower women. When men empower women, it often doesn't work because who likes it when some majority group comes in to tell them what they should and should not be doing. This isn't about discriminating: This is about empowering.
I've read enough comments on this list to definitely feel discriminated against: Women's concerns don't matter! seems to be the underlying message. Fred makes flippant comments about gendered language. Michael implies women are stupid because they want to empower themselves. You, Erik, imply that women are discriminating against men on a list dedicated to increasing women's participation.
Please, tell me about your experiences as a male contributor to Wikipedia. Please, as a man, tell me all your problems with Wikipedia. Then Erik, tell me so that I as a woman fix them all for you. Because we know men can't solve problems at all unless women do it for them. (And if that offends you, then realise that some of us women may see the need to go to men to beg them for help to fix our problem the same way.)
Now, maybe because I'm a woman, I just don't understand your message here Erik. Why do you feel discriminated against? And do you feel that your position of feeling discriminated against carries more weight than that of women on this list?
On 3/16/11 1:18 PM, Laura Hale wrote:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 6:30 AM, Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org mailto:erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:
IMO this list was started as an inclusive forum for discussion of gender gap among equal participants. Discrimination by gender doesn't make sense to me.Erik,
Can I ask you a personal question? What gender are you? If you aren't female, why are you participating in this conversation?
Erik is the Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. As to why he is on this list and participating in the conversation, it is because the overall health of Wikimedia projects is his primary concern.
My reasons are similar: I am the User Interface Designer employed by the Foundation. I believe my paramount mission is increase overall participation and collaboration. The male/female gendergap falls into the purview of that mission.
If anything I have said has made you uncomfortable, I apologize; however, I do not necessarily believe that I should stop my (admittedly limited) participation in this conversation because of my gender.
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Brandon Harris bharris@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On 3/16/11 1:18 PM, Laura Hale wrote:
Erik is the Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. As to whyhe is on this list and participating in the conversation, it is because the overall health of Wikimedia projects is his primary concern.
My reasons are similar: I am the User Interface Designer employed bythe Foundation. I believe my paramount mission is increase overall participation and collaboration. The male/female gendergap falls into the purview of that mission.
If anything I have said has made you uncomfortable, I apologize;however, I do not necessarily believe that I should stop my (admittedly limited) participation in this conversation because of my gender.
Erik's comment made me feel decidedly uncomfortable. On a list dedicated to helping increase the female participation rates on Wikipedia, Erik basically said: WOMENS! THEY IS DISCRIMINATING AGAINST ME! If I went to some women's communities and I posted Erik's comment (and comments of other male posters) with the context of these comments being said on a list dedicated to increasing female participation rates...
... well, you'd potentially have a mob involved. This effort? It would appear extremely sexist. (The large male involvement, the defensiveness of men regaridng their participation contribute to this image.) That these sexist comments are coming from the Deputy Director of WMF? It makes this worst because it is sexism coming from inside the institution.
If you and Erik want to belong, that's great. It should be purely in support roles: Women say they are doing this project and need help. WMF officials step in and say we can help this way. If this was the general mode of male participation on the list, of specific support offered in response to specific requests, male involvement would be less problematic.
On 3/16/11 1:48 PM, Laura Hale wrote:
If you and Erik want to belong, that's great. It should be purely in support roles: Women say they are doing this project and need help. WMF officials step in and say we can help this way. If this was the general mode of male participation on the list, of specific support offered in response to specific requests, male involvement would be less problematic.
I'm not sure that relegating the anyone to "support roles" based on gender is the wisest course of action. Isn't that mindset one aspect of the problem at hand?
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com wrote:
[...] Erik's comment made me feel decidedly uncomfortable. On a list dedicated to helping increase the female participation rates on Wikipedia, Erik basically said: WOMENS! THEY IS DISCRIMINATING AGAINST ME! If I went to some women's communities and I posted Erik's comment (and comments of other male posters) with the context of these comments being said on a list dedicated to increasing female participation rates...
... well, you'd potentially have a mob involved. This effort? It would appear extremely sexist. (The large male involvement, the defensiveness of men regaridng their participation contribute to this image.) That these sexist comments are coming from the Deputy Director of WMF? It makes this worst because it is sexism coming from inside the institution.
If you and Erik want to belong, that's great. It should be purely in support roles: Women say they are doing this project and need help. WMF officials step in and say we can help this way. If this was the general mode of male participation on the list, of specific support offered in response to specific requests, male involvement would be less problematic.
I would like to hear more from other women here on your impressions of and responses to Erik's comments.
Unless Erik has alter egos posting here, I didn't have any problems with * his* comments. I find the idea that men and women are automatically equal participants on a list like this a bit naive, but it's not offensive.
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 4:04 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com wrote:
[...] Erik's comment made me feel decidedly uncomfortable. On a list dedicated
to
helping increase the female participation rates on Wikipedia, Erik
basically
said: WOMENS! THEY IS DISCRIMINATING AGAINST ME! If I went to some
women's
communities and I posted Erik's comment (and comments of other male
posters)
with the context of these comments being said on a list dedicated to increasing female participation rates...
... well, you'd potentially have a mob involved. This effort? It would appear extremely sexist. (The large male involvement, the defensiveness
of
men regaridng their participation contribute to this image.) That these sexist comments are coming from the Deputy Director of WMF? It makes
this
worst because it is sexism coming from inside the institution.
If you and Erik want to belong, that's great. It should be purely in support roles: Women say they are doing this project and need help. WMF officials step in and say we can help this way. If this was the general mode of male participation on the list, of specific support offered in response to specific requests, male involvement would be less
problematic.
I would like to hear more from other women here on your impressions of and responses to Erik's comments.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I also don't have a problem with Erik's POV in particular. My views on this topic are basically that:
1) Yes, some of the men here are being excessively strident and dismissive in a lot of cases 2) Yes, I feel less inclined to speak my mind because I know that I'm going to have to defend every point I make from three or four men telling me how it's not a problem 3) No, I don't think the solution is to fork the list. We have to function with men onwiki, there's no reason to kick them off here 4) I'm not sure how moderation could be used effectively other than to have moderators speak to people who are overly dismissive. Having a moderator approve all posts seems excessive, but I would support, say, an X-strikes-you're-out policy regarding belittling or dismissive behavior 5) I don't think it's constructive to require the men to justify themselves to us or the list. If they're here, they're here because they want to work on the gender gap. That said... 6) I don't know how many more ways we women can tell you guys that some of you are coming across as obnoxious. I'm sorry if that offends you (mostly because I'm a woman and I've been trained to be sorry if I offend people, hey look how that works), but YOU ARE. Please accept that this is happening, it's making the women unhappy, and we'd like you to think before you speak from now on. 7) Please do NOT immediately protest that you feel like the mean feminist women are trying to oppress you by telling you all this. Feel like we're snap-judging your statements? Feel like we're treating you as your gender rather than yourself, and unfairly so? Feel like we're just not listening to the points you're trying to make? WELCOME TO OUR WORLD AS WOMEN.
-Fluff
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Nepenthe topazbutterfly@gmail.com wrote:
Unless Erik has alter egos posting here, I didn't have any problems with * his* comments. I find the idea that men and women are automatically equal participants on a list like this a bit naive, but it's not offensive.
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 4:04 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com wrote:
[...] Erik's comment made me feel decidedly uncomfortable. On a list
dedicated to
helping increase the female participation rates on Wikipedia, Erik
basically
said: WOMENS! THEY IS DISCRIMINATING AGAINST ME! If I went to some
women's
communities and I posted Erik's comment (and comments of other male
posters)
with the context of these comments being said on a list dedicated to increasing female participation rates...
... well, you'd potentially have a mob involved. This effort? It would appear extremely sexist. (The large male involvement, the defensiveness
of
men regaridng their participation contribute to this image.) That these sexist comments are coming from the Deputy Director of WMF? It makes
this
worst because it is sexism coming from inside the institution.
If you and Erik want to belong, that's great. It should be purely in support roles: Women say they are doing this project and need help. WMF officials step in and say we can help this way. If this was the general mode of male participation on the list, of specific support offered in response to specific requests, male involvement would be less
problematic.
I would like to hear more from other women here on your impressions of and responses to Erik's comments.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
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 completely agree with Fluffy. _____ *Béria Lima* Wikimedia Portugal http://wikimedia.pt (351) 963 953 042
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer.*
2011/3/16 ChaoticFluffy chaoticfluffy@gmail.com
I also don't have a problem with Erik's POV in particular. My views on this topic are basically that:
- Yes, some of the men here are being excessively strident and dismissive
in a lot of cases 2) Yes, I feel less inclined to speak my mind because I know that I'm going to have to defend every point I make from three or four men telling me how it's not a problem 3) No, I don't think the solution is to fork the list. We have to function with men onwiki, there's no reason to kick them off here 4) I'm not sure how moderation could be used effectively other than to have moderators speak to people who are overly dismissive. Having a moderator approve all posts seems excessive, but I would support, say, an X-strikes-you're-out policy regarding belittling or dismissive behavior 5) I don't think it's constructive to require the men to justify themselves to us or the list. If they're here, they're here because they want to work on the gender gap. That said... 6) I don't know how many more ways we women can tell you guys that some of you are coming across as obnoxious. I'm sorry if that offends you (mostly because I'm a woman and I've been trained to be sorry if I offend people, hey look how that works), but YOU ARE. Please accept that this is happening, it's making the women unhappy, and we'd like you to think before you speak from now on. 7) Please do NOT immediately protest that you feel like the mean feminist women are trying to oppress you by telling you all this. Feel like we're snap-judging your statements? Feel like we're treating you as your gender rather than yourself, and unfairly so? Feel like we're just not listening to the points you're trying to make? WELCOME TO OUR WORLD AS WOMEN.
-Fluff
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Nepenthe topazbutterfly@gmail.comwrote:
Unless Erik has alter egos posting here, I didn't have any problems with *his* comments. I find the idea that men and women are automatically equal participants on a list like this a bit naive, but it's not offensive.
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 4:04 PM, George Herbert <george.herbert@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com wrote:
[...] Erik's comment made me feel decidedly uncomfortable. On a list
dedicated to
helping increase the female participation rates on Wikipedia, Erik
basically
said: WOMENS! THEY IS DISCRIMINATING AGAINST ME! If I went to some
women's
communities and I posted Erik's comment (and comments of other male
posters)
with the context of these comments being said on a list dedicated to increasing female participation rates...
... well, you'd potentially have a mob involved. This effort? It
would
appear extremely sexist. (The large male involvement, the
defensiveness of
men regaridng their participation contribute to this image.) That
these
sexist comments are coming from the Deputy Director of WMF? It makes
this
worst because it is sexism coming from inside the institution.
If you and Erik want to belong, that's great. It should be purely in support roles: Women say they are doing this project and need help.
WMF
officials step in and say we can help this way. If this was the
general
mode of male participation on the list, of specific support offered in response to specific requests, male involvement would be less
problematic.
I would like to hear more from other women here on your impressions of and responses to Erik's comments.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
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
I second. The problem is aggression and trying to impose one's agenda, and whether you are male, female, M2F transgender or F2M transgender, you can be aggressive and disruptive. (And I've been on a couple all women lists over the years where M2F transgenders were very aggressive, condescending and disruptive.) I don't see any agreement with Ms. Hale's proposal and I think we need to drop it.
On 3/16/2011 7:01 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
I completely agree with Fluffy. _____ /Béria Lima/ Wikimedia Portugal http://wikimedia.pt (351) 963 953 042
/Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer./
2011/3/16 ChaoticFluffy <chaoticfluffy@gmail.com mailto:chaoticfluffy@gmail.com>
I also don't have a problem with Erik's POV in particular. My views on this topic are basically that: 1) Yes, some of the men here are being excessively strident and dismissive in a lot of cases 2) Yes, I feel less inclined to speak my mind because I know that I'm going to have to defend every point I make from three or four men telling me how it's not a problem 3) No, I don't think the solution is to fork the list. We have to function with men onwiki, there's no reason to kick them off here 4) I'm not sure how moderation could be used effectively other than to have moderators speak to people who are overly dismissive. Having a moderator approve all posts seems excessive, but I would support, say, an X-strikes-you're-out policy regarding belittling or dismissive behavior 5) I don't think it's constructive to require the men to justify themselves to us or the list. If they're here, they're here because they want to work on the gender gap. That said... 6) I don't know how many more ways we women can tell you guys that some of you are coming across as obnoxious. I'm sorry if that offends you (mostly because I'm a woman and I've been trained to be sorry if I offend people, hey look how that works), but YOU ARE. Please accept that this is happening, it's making the women unhappy, and we'd like you to think before you speak from now on. 7) Please do NOT immediately protest that you feel like the mean feminist women are trying to oppress you by telling you all this. Feel like we're snap-judging your statements? Feel like we're treating you as your gender rather than yourself, and unfairly so? Feel like we're just not listening to the points you're trying to make? WELCOME TO OUR WORLD AS WOMEN. -Fluff
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 17:52, carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
I second. The problem is aggression and trying to impose one's agenda, and whether you are male, female, M2F transgender or F2M transgender, you can be aggressive and disruptive. (And I've been on a couple all women lists over the years where M2F transgenders were very aggressive, condescending and disruptive.) I don't see any agreement with Ms. Hale's proposal and I think we need to drop it.
It's true, though, that there are things I would post about Wikipedia on a women-only list, if I could be 100 percent sure that's what it was. And as if to prove that point, I just typed out an example, then deleted it because I felt uncomfortable. :) So even if Laura's proposal isn't being supported, I hope it gives food for thought. And there's nothing to stop her from setting up such a list herself.
Sarah
I don't have a problem with people starting an all women list specifically on this topic through whatever appropriate list serve service seems appropriate. It can make its own rules about participants. The impression I got was the proposal was to make *this* the all women list, which I oppose. With all back and forth one gets confused.
On 3/16/2011 7:59 PM, SlimVirgin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 17:52,carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
I second. The problem is aggression and trying to impose one's agenda, and whether you are male, female, M2F transgender or F2M transgender, you can be aggressive and disruptive. (And I've been on a couple all women lists over the years where M2F transgenders were very aggressive, condescending and disruptive.) I don't see any agreement with Ms. Hale's proposal and I think we need to drop it.
It's true, though, that there are things I would post about Wikipedia on a women-only list, if I could be 100 percent sure that's what it was. And as if to prove that point, I just typed out an example, then deleted it because I felt uncomfortable. :) So even if Laura's proposal isn't being supported, I hope it gives food for thought. And there's nothing to stop her from setting up such a list herself.
Sarah
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 8:04 AM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.comwrote:
I would like to hear more from other women here on your impressions of and responses to Erik's comments.
I showed Erik's comment to a friend who works at an agency. He thought it was an unwise comment to make, *especially *given the purpose of the list. Erik made it about Erik and not the mission.
I showed it to another female acquaintence. I explained the purpose of the list. The response was basically: Erik is entitled to Erik's feelings but in the context of the purpose of the list, Erik's proposal was completely inappropiate. Another female acquaintence I showed it to told me that : There we go again. Another case of Mansplaining.
I encourage everyone on the list to share the comment with women they know. Explain that Wikipedia has a gender gap, with 87% of its contributors being male. Explain that WMF created a mailing list to try to overcome this gendergap and get more women involved, and that the purpose of the list is to develop strategies to get more women involved. Then share them Erik's posts and ask them if Erik's post mirrors that mission, if they would join the list in response. Because the women I've talked to sure as heck wouldn't. (And then offer the context that a woman asked about making the list for women only, in an effort to empower women, and that about 5 to 10 guys jumped in to say that women need to get over the gender issue and that on a list dedicated to increasing female participation rates, the men cried they were being discriminated against.)
Laura,
I don't find the tone of your messages in this thread an acceptable basis for constructive conversation. On that basis, I am going to disengage from this thread.
Respectfully, Erik
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_gap/outreach_letters My first draft of any outreach email letter - which I sent an earlier version of to a bunch of women with no positive feedback. So waiting for others to comment or come up with different approaches before sending out such outreach emails more widely
On 3/16/2011 2:01 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
One feeling I've had is that we should do more person-to-person outreach to women who are currently editors. They're the type that may even think that there is no problem, because they overcame the barriers on their own. But we're probably missing the voices of /hundreds/ of women Wikipedians here. (Chaoticfluffy, want to help me make a list of talk pages to hit?)
-- Steven Walling Fellow at Wikimedia Foundation wikimediafoundation.org http://wikimediafoundation.org
Thanks Carol!
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Carol Moore in DC <contactme@carolmoore.net
wrote:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_gap/outreach_letters My first draft of any outreach email letter - which I sent an earlier version of to a bunch of women with no positive feedback. So waiting for others to comment or come up with different approaches before sending out such outreach emails more widely
On 3/16/2011 2:01 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
One feeling I've had is that we should do more person-to-person outreach to women who are currently editors. They're the type that may even think that there is no problem, because they overcame the barriers on their own. But we're probably missing the voices of *hundreds* of women Wikipedians here. (Chaoticfluffy, want to help me make a list of talk pages to hit?)
-- Steven Walling Fellow at Wikimedia Foundation wikimediafoundation.org
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
2011/3/17 Carol Moore in DC contactme@carolmoore.net:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_gap/outreach_letters My first draft of any outreach email letter - which I sent an earlier version of to a bunch of women with no positive feedback.
What do you mean by this? Did you get any feedback at all?
So waiting for others to comment or come up with different approaches before sending out such outreach emails more widely
I don't think outreach letters, however well formulated, will motivate many people to try editing Wikipedia. If you know the women you sent your letter to, why not rather invite them to an edit wikipedia party?
greetings, elian
On 3/17/2011 6:43 AM, elisabeth bauer wrote:
2011/3/17 Carol Moore in DCcontactme@carolmoore.net:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_gap/outreach_letters My first draft of any outreach email letter - which I sent an earlier version of to a bunch of women with no positive feedback.
What do you mean by this? Did you get any feedback at all?
**If I remember correctly, the response was two "Good idea, but I'm too busy" messages. Like all forms of advertising, it is necessary to repeat the message before people pay attention.
So actually there need to be a series of messages for such group lists over a period of a month or so. Whether they are all people you know personally, partially know (as in case of two different lists I sent to) or not know at all. Say, one introductory and explicit one like the draft I put up. Two short, wow, look at this article I worked on on wikipedia (in their area of interest) with general encouragement to edit. (I.e., obviously not as canvassing to get support on a disputed article). Maybe mixed into some discussion on some topic. And then another one that again encourages them in a short friendly way. Plus drop in links to various articles on topics discussed from time to time after that. Maybe even put it in one's tag line "I edit wikipedia! Can you guess my handle?" or whatever.
So waiting for others to comment or come up with different approaches before sending out such outreach emails more widely
I don't think outreach letters, however well formulated, will motivate many people to try editing Wikipedia. If you know the women you sent your letter to, why not rather invite them to an edit wikipedia party?
Great idea! Is there a link to show how to do that? I can imagine a few of us getting together and, after running through the basics, having TOO much fun with some article, meat puppeting away. (Especially if someone brings booze.) So good to have clear guidelines on how to do that as a party - but not party too hard! :-)
greetings, elian
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 3:43 AM, elisabeth bauer eflebeth@googlemail.comwrote:
I don't think outreach letters, however well formulated, will motivate many people to try editing Wikipedia. If you know the women you sent your letter to, why not rather invite them to an edit wikipedia party?
Clear and direct invitations to join Wikipedia really matter, I think, which is why Carol's letter excites me. Who knows how many women who could be motivated to edit don't because they think we don't want or need their help?
On Wednesday, March 16, 2011, you wrote:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_gap/outreach_letters My first draft of any outreach email letter - which I sent an earlier
Good, thank you.
I think it could be useful to provide some examples of efforts/projects on this issue that have succeeded, active/promiment Wikipedian women as role models, and a place to go or be welcomed. Presently, it feels a bit like "please come and watch out for the 20-something males" which could be supplemented with "please come, progress can be made, such as [here], there are other women like you here such as [active/prominent Wikipedians] and come visit us [at wiki/gendergap/wikichix] if you want/need to."
On 3/17/2011 3:28 PM, Joseph Reagle wrote:
On Wednesday, March 16, 2011, you wrote:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_gap/outreach_letters My first draft of any outreach email letter - which I sent an earlier
Good, thank you.
I think it could be useful to provide some examples of efforts/projects on this issue that have succeeded, active/promiment Wikipedian women as role models, and a place to go or be welcomed. Presently, it feels a bit like "please come and watch out for the 20-something males" which could be supplemented with "please come, progress can be made, such as [here], there are other women like you here such as [active/prominent Wikipedians] and come visit us [at wiki/gendergap/wikichix] if you want/need to."
*Yup, my perspective when I wrote it way back in Mid-February. Probably evolved more in a more positive direction since then. (Of course I also dropped off of a couple of the most annoying articles where the 20 something males were driving me craziest.)
So I should update/improve it with all info/insights that have come by since then, including with your suggestions...
Others please feel free to draft your own letters.
Or maybe we need a "module" letter...
In other words sections with suggested language and they can decide what seems most appropriate to them...
Like: my experience, why I like it, role models, how to get involved, how to learn more about editing,, how to connect with other women... etc...
Will see what can do this weekend...
Cm in DC
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
This is simply, nonsense!
That is your opinion, and you're welcome to it. In my experience, there are two general groups of women:
1. One who welcome men as participants in events specifically targeting women, because the women feel the men can learn. 2. One who don't want men involved because they feel women should work towards their own self interests and that women behave differently around men.
Don't you people realize that separating this List into two distinct ones would underline, reinforce and actually signify the very "gendergap" you are allegedly trying to resolve.
This pretty much is why I think we need men off the list. While you're intending to or not, I'm reading this as "Don't you understand that the only way women can succeed it by having men involved! You need men!" If you're not intending to send the message: Women cannot succeed with out men!, then you may want to reconsider your wording.
And I'd argue the opposite: Men have done an awful job at recruiting women to be involved with Wikipedia. The current problems exist because men have tried to "solve" this problem.
This is people talking with people. If there is a female or male here who has a problem communicating with, or in the presence of, another gender - they do have a problem.
Translation: "Women! You're the problem! If you could stop engaging in female modes of communication, we could fix this problem! "
This list is NOT a general list for increasing the participation rates of people. If you want to have a list dedicated to generally increasing the participation rates of people on Wikipedia, then fork off and do that.
But a website Mailing List such as this is not the place to resolve it.
Am I supposed to interpret this as you claiming that this list has a mission that will never succeed because it acknowledges there are gender differences and different approaches are needed to get different audiences? As a woman, a representative of a minority group on Wikipedia, how am I supposed to respond to you? I can tell you that this post of yours makes me feel distinctly uncomfortable posting to this list. It seems to put men in the position of power above women, demanding that women participate only in male modes of communication, that women on the list can't talk about genuine concerns they have as women because they are going to get blown off, and that feelings of men on the list are more important then women.
This pretty much is why I think we need men off the list. While you're intending to or not, I'm reading this as "Don't you understand that the only way women can succeed it by having men involved! You need men!" If you're not intending to send the message: Women cannot succeed with out men!, then you may want to reconsider your wording. -- twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com
You certainly will not be editing Wikipedia without men being involved. I've looked at your editing. It seems to be very good. I see the role of experienced editors, men and women, as helping you or anyone else who is interested in editing get started and over any rough spots. We do know how to get work done and avoid unnecessary conflict. We are a resource for you to use, or not.
I will continue to joke around a bit, but you're free to not be amused.
Fred
On 3/16/11 1:42 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
I will continue to joke around a bit, but you're free to not be amused.
Fred, I really don't think this response is appropriate. If people are complaining that your humor is exacerbating the problem rather helping the discussion, don't you think it would be sensible to exercise some discretion?
Kaldari
On 3/16/11 1:42 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
I will continue to joke around a bit, but you're free to not be amused.
Fred, I really don't think this response is appropriate. If people are complaining that your humor is exacerbating the problem rather helping the discussion, don't you think it would be sensible to exercise some discretion?
Kaldari
I am exercising considerable discretion. I'm not going to walk on eggshells though. Throwing a hissy fit over every word or phrase you don't like is no good either. We deal with disruptive people and disruptive language 24/7. In a way, that is what we do. I've seen Mau-Mauing before, and I don't respect it; I may make fun of it.
The reference is literary, see https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Radical_Chic_%26_Mau-Mauing_t...
Fred
Steven asked me a while back to help moderate this list. Unfortunately, I just haven't had time to keep up with the volume of discussion here, so I don't feel like I'm doing a very effective job of keeping the discussions on track. Rather than keep up the pretense, I think it would be better if I resign and let someone else take my place. I've asked SlimVirgin if she would be willing to take over this responsibility and she has graciously agreed to do so. I'm still going to be participating in the list, I just won't be moderating.
Kaldari
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com wrote:
I'd like to propose that the gendergap be forked. The main list would be for women and transgendered who want to work together to help increase female participation on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Foundation projects. The fork list would be for male allies who want to work towards a similar goal.
There already is the WikiChix [1] list just for female editors. There were two problems with it. One was the difficulties in ensuring only females joined, and the other was inactivity. How would a fork of the gendergap list avoid those issues?
Angela
[1] http://lists.modernthings.org/listinfo.cgi/wikichix-l-modernthings.org
I never got a response from the wikichix list when tried to join.
Here, I'd rather see the males control themselves and post less and the women encourage each other to participate more.
:-) Smiley face added to make up for lack of interpersonal interface...
carol in dc
On 3/14/2011 11:37 PM, Angela wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Laura Halelaura@fanhistory.com wrote:
I'd like to propose that the gendergap be forked. The main list would be for women and transgendered who want to work together to help increase female participation on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Foundation projects. The fork list would be for male allies who want to work towards a similar goal.
There already is the WikiChix [1] list just for female editors. There were two problems with it. One was the difficulties in ensuring only females joined, and the other was inactivity. How would a fork of the gendergap list avoid those issues?
Angela
[1] http://lists.modernthings.org/listinfo.cgi/wikichix-l-modernthings.org
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com wrote:
I'd like to propose that the gendergap be forked. The main list would be for women and transgendered who want to work together to help increase female participation on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Foundation projects. The fork list would be for male allies who want to work towards a similar goal.
There already is the WikiChix [1] list just for female editors. There were two problems with it. One was the difficulties in ensuring only females joined, and the other was inactivity. How would a fork of the gendergap list avoid those issues?
On the practical side, I founded and administered a women-only list for several years. Our method was to make subscription requests moderated, and only approve requests if the subscriber sent an email to the list administrator email address explicitly stating, in some form:
1. I am female. 2. I am interested in $TOPIC_OF_LIST.
As far as we could tell, very few men were interested enough in eavesdropping on the list to state, even in a private email, that they were female. In practice, we ended up with a list where women felt comfortable participating publicly far more than any of our mixed gender lists, and for some time it was our highest traffic forum.
As for inactivity, in my experience constructive public discussion requires curation. I don't know who has the time and qualifications to do so, for this list or any forks of it.
-VAL
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com wrote:
I'd like to propose that the gendergap be forked. The main list would be for women and transgendered who want to work together to help increase female participation on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Foundation
projects.
The fork list would be for male allies who want to work towards a similar goal.
There already is the WikiChix [1] list just for female editors. There were two problems with it. One was the difficulties in ensuring only females joined, and the other was inactivity. How would a fork of the gendergap list avoid those issues?
Is the purpose of WikiChix to increase female participation on Wikipedia or does it have a different goal? My understanding is that gendergap and wikichix have two different missions.
I don't necessarily have a problem with men joining the list. My own issues are male involvement as participants. Fantastic that they want to help increase women's participation on Wikipedia. It is a great goal. I just don't think that you can successfully get female participants (with the general goal being increase female participation, not say increase educator participation or sport participation) that is dependent on male involvement. My experience has been that men and women have different responses. It can be a bit nerve wracking to post to the list, because I'm worried about saying things that will offend men. I don't feel as free to participate as I might otherwise would if men weren't involved as participants.
The issue of inactivity on this list could be dealt with by having an administer who will try to post often. What events are being planned? Wikipedia4Women is doing things. I'm trying to do my own thing. There is a group in New York doing things. RecentChangesCamp tries to do things. These can be starting points. It's a matter of having an admin commit to that.
Beyond that, I feel like it would be much easier to get participation on the list if it could be defined less as a space for general conversation about general wiki issues (which, when men start participating in general discussion, that's what it feels like it devolves to for me) but about having a safe space where women can be advocates, talk about what they are doing, talk about their plans. I feel that the list should be about empowering women to empower other women to get involved.
The men can have their own list, where they are free to discuss. All current list members can be moderated, asked to identify their gender to the admin and if they are female, given unmoderated access to the list. If they are male, they can be urged to join the men's list or informed that they won't be allowed to post but they are free to watch.
Sincerely, Laura Hale
Once at an Ani diFranco concert (that my husband took me to) I saw several men wearing a t-shirt that said "This is what a feminist looks like." Situations like that have helped me get over my anti-men attitude that was a reaction to an early indoctrination of fundamentalist teaching that "women must submit to their husbands," and now I believe that we as humans need to protect the rights of other individuals. So I vote against limiting the conversation to women, because can only arrive at the most effective solution through diversity in the dialogue. If the ones advocating for women's involvement in Wikipedia are men, then rather than silence them, maybe women should speak up too. This list is a direct invitation for women to voice the issues they have on Wikipedia and many have done that. It seems to me that the men who are active on this list join the conversation in an effort to find out what issues female editors face and how they can help.
thanks for reading my 2 cents, Amy
On 3/14/11 5:14 PM, Laura Hale wrote:
I'd like to propose that the gendergap be forked. The main list would be for women and transgendered who want to work together to help increase female participation on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Foundation projects. The fork list would be for male allies who want to work towards a similar goal.
This proposal is based on two things. The first idea is that women themselves can probably best identify areas and needs regarding female participation on Wikipedia. Assuming good faith, male contributors on the list probably do really want to help work towards this goal and have women's best interest at heart and want to see improvement in the total number of female participants on the wiki... but there has been a fairly sizable amount of research in the NGO sector in countries like Africa, where outside organisations were not as effective as local organisations at identifying local problems and creating solutions that work best in a local context. In this situation, women and transgenders would be the local community and men would be the international NGOs.
The second issue is that at the moment, men appear to be dominating the conversation. (This may not by correct and I apologise if I am wrong. I'm making this assumption based on the names of participants involved.) Men are posting content with suggestions for women. Men are debating if women find the term dick offensive. Men aren't asking the women on the list if they have resources that they think other women might find useful. Men do not appear to be asking the women on the list what their opinions are regarding the use of the term dick and if women on the list find the term offensive. Rather, it appears that men are speaking for women without their consent.
I'd really like men to continue to be involved. I think the best way would be for the creation of a sublist, specifically created for men. As allies, they can discuss how to improve the rate of women's involvement. As men on that strategies sublist about the creation and implementation of solutions to increase female participation, the information can be summarised and sent to some one else off list to be posted to the main list.
I just worry at the moment that the heavy male involvement is intimidating and keeping some women from participating.
Sincerely, Laura Hale
-- twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com http://ozziesport.com
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Amy Roth aroth@wikimedia.org wrote:
This list is a direct invitation for women to voice the issues they have on Wikipedia and many have done that. It seems to me that the men who are active on this list join the conversation in an effort to find out what issues female editors face and how they can help.
This is my opinion only... but I'm very much for female empowerment. We create our own power. Having men involved as supporters is great but at the same time, I feel some of the male posters are not actually interested in finding out our issues, nor do they seem to be organising events to get female participation to increase. And if I had a male come up to me and say "We want to increase female participation! Join now!" I'd kind of back away... my feeling is that if you need men to be advocates for women in a situation like this, the whole system is so inherently flawed that it isn't worth joining or fixing. If it really was great, then they'd have female spokes people, they'd have women doing these things. My personal opinion is male involvement hurts credibility in the movement, and female leadership brings credibility to it.
Plus, the ratio of male posting to female posting for a while was kind of very "What's going on here? I thought this list was trying to encourage women to become involved with Wikipedia and something has failed because even on the list dedicated to the topic, men continue to dominate the conversation."
I strongly disagree. It is over-feminism. Noa, The Hebrew Wikipedia.
בתאריך יום שלישי, 15 במרס 2011, Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com כתב:
I'd like to propose that the gendergap be forked. The main list would be for women and transgendered who want to work together to help increase female participation on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Foundation projects. The fork list would be for male allies who want to work towards a similar goal.
This proposal is based on two things. The first idea is that women themselves can probably best identify areas and needs regarding female participation on Wikipedia. Assuming good faith, male contributors on the list probably do really want to help work towards this goal and have women's best interest at heart and want to see improvement in the total number of female participants on the wiki... but there has been a fairly sizable amount of research in the NGO sector in countries like Africa, where outside organisations were not as effective as local organisations at identifying local problems and creating solutions that work best in a local context. In this situation, women and transgenders would be the local community and men would be the international NGOs.
The second issue is that at the moment, men appear to be dominating the conversation. (This may not by correct and I apologise if I am wrong. I'm making this assumption based on the names of participants involved.) Men are posting content with suggestions for women. Men are debating if women find the term dick offensive. Men aren't asking the women on the list if they have resources that they think other women might find useful. Men do not appear to be asking the women on the list what their opinions are regarding the use of the term dick and if women on the list find the term offensive. Rather, it appears that men are speaking for women without their consent.
I'd really like men to continue to be involved. I think the best way would be for the creation of a sublist, specifically created for men. As allies, they can discuss how to improve the rate of women's involvement. As men on that strategies sublist about the creation and implementation of solutions to increase female participation, the information can be summarised and sent to some one else off list to be posted to the main list.
I just worry at the moment that the heavy male involvement is intimidating and keeping some women from participating.
Sincerely, Laura Hale -- twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com