Another day, another examplehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=564679884&oldid=564678700of casual sexism exhibited by en.wikipedia editors who mean absolutely no harm, but simply don't understand how they could cause harm while meaning none. I seem to havehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Another_admin_issuecaused significant alarm and offense to a number of male editors be publicly pointing out that I found the comment inappropriate.
Was there a better way to handle this? I can't help feeling that saying nothing or hatting the section would have been supporting the notion that it's either not a problem or not remarkable for male editors to make comments encouraging others to comment on female editors' bodies.
-Fluff
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Katherine Casey < fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
Another day, another examplehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=564679884&oldid=564678700of casual sexism exhibited by en.wikipedia editors who mean absolutely no harm, but simply don't understand how they could cause harm while meaning none. I seem to havehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Another_admin_issuecaused significant alarm and offense to a number of male editors be publicly pointing out that I found the comment inappropriate.
Was there a better way to handle this? I can't help feeling that saying nothing or hatting the section would have been supporting the notion that it's either not a problem or not remarkable for male editors to make comments encouraging others to comment on female editors' bodies.
-Fluff
Hi Fluff, I see comments like that on WP regularly. Most people mean no harm, so it's a difficult thing to approach.
More shocking was this comment last month: "[Der Spiegel] ... swallowed what less considerate young ladies would have spit out ..." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=5...
Only one editor commented on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=5...
Are you familiar with the [[Everyday Sexism Project]]? It aims to collect the kind of sexist comments that women read and hear all the time. http://www.everydaysexism.com/ It's in part intended to counter the "you're just being a killjoy" type response.
Sarah
Well, it's not something I'd probably comment on at the noticeboards themselves, but I did leave a message for Drmies on his talk page.[1]
I think the most bizarre aspect of the post is that it was made at all. Birthday posts on the admin noticeboard? Really?
Risker/Anne
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADrmies&diff=56471...
On 17 July 2013 14:24, Katherine Casey fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Another day, another examplehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=564679884&oldid=564678700of casual sexism exhibited by en.wikipedia editors who mean absolutely no harm, but simply don't understand how they could cause harm while meaning none. I seem to havehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Another_admin_issuecaused significant alarm and offense to a number of male editors be publicly pointing out that I found the comment inappropriate.
Was there a better way to handle this? I can't help feeling that saying nothing or hatting the section would have been supporting the notion that it's either not a problem or not remarkable for male editors to make comments encouraging others to comment on female editors' bodies.
-Fluff
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
The comments on his talk page might freak me out more than the original post. A whole group of people thumping their fists and grumbling about how men ain't allowed to have no fun anymore talkin' about cute women without pushy chicks coming along to start drama...
I dunno. I usually think our projects are pretty enlightened, despite our gender gap struggles, but the level of resentment directed at my speaking up has me reconsidering that.
Fluff
-P.S. Though I'm now smirking at the possibility of drowning out all the drama at AN with regular birthday posts. How can people keep shouting about who they want banned when there's cake to be had?!
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it's not something I'd probably comment on at the noticeboards themselves, but I did leave a message for Drmies on his talk page.[1]
I think the most bizarre aspect of the post is that it was made at all. Birthday posts on the admin noticeboard? Really?
Risker/Anne
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADrmies&diff=56471...
On 17 July 2013 14:24, Katherine Casey fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.comwrote:
Another day, another examplehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=564679884&oldid=564678700of casual sexism exhibited by en.wikipedia editors who mean absolutely no harm, but simply don't understand how they could cause harm while meaning none. I seem to havehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Another_admin_issuecaused significant alarm and offense to a number of male editors be publicly pointing out that I found the comment inappropriate.
Was there a better way to handle this? I can't help feeling that saying nothing or hatting the section would have been supporting the notion that it's either not a problem or not remarkable for male editors to make comments encouraging others to comment on female editors' bodies.
-Fluff
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 think your approach was well-intentioned but flawed, much like Drmies' initial post.
Unfortunately, your admonition came off like the stereotypical "that's so sexist to comment on a woman's body" approach, which triggered defenses that focused on the fact that it was just a joke, Drmies and LoS are friends, why don't you people have a sense of humor?
If, instead, you'd acknowledged the humor (rather than just an attempt at humor), acknowledged that LoS herself likely would not find it offensive, nor that Drmies intended it as such. and then explained that your concern was for other editors who might come across the comment and, not knowing the relationships involved, tick Wikipedia down yet another mental notch in "welcomingness".
Instead you came across as humorless and scolding, which rarely garners productive responses.
Powers &8^]
-----Original Message----- From: Katherine Casey [mailto:fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday 17 July 2013 14:24 To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects Subject: [Gendergap] Casual sexism on en.wp
Another day, another http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_not iceboard&diff=564679884&oldid=564678700 example of casual sexism exhibited by en.wikipedia editors who mean absolutely no harm, but simply don't understand how they could cause harm while meaning none. I seem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Anothe r_admin_issue to have caused significant alarm and offense to a number of male editors be publicly pointing out that I found the comment inappropriate.
Was there a better way to handle this? I can't help feeling that saying nothing or hatting the section would have been supporting the notion that it's either not a problem or not remarkable for male editors to make comments encouraging others to comment on female editors' bodies.
-Fluff
But I did all those things, Powers. I said that I knew it was supposed to be humourous and that LoS might not personally mind it, and I said that my concern was for other people reading it. And the responses I've gotten, both directed at me and among people not talking to me, were pretty horrible. All of them alleged that I had no right to speak at all, and certainly not a right to ruin the fun other editors were having with my silly old "women are equal" crap.
I see a large part - maybe the bigger part - of the problem here as the fact that men perceive my intervention as "humorless scolding" that's just out to ruin their good, clean fun (fun that was totally humorous and in no way in need of correction, of course), and that they feel the appropriate response to that is to jeer, laugh, and insult me freely, the better to make sure no woman dares speak up next time.
As a thought experiment, Powers, consider: would you ever tell a male editor that their behavior came off as "scolding"? I suspect the answer is no; that's a term almost exclusively reserved for use against women.
-Fluff
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Powers LtPowers_Wiki@rochester.rr.comwrote:
I think your approach was well-intentioned but flawed, much like Drmies’ initial post.
Unfortunately, your admonition came off like the stereotypical “that’s so sexist to comment on a woman’s body” approach, which triggered defenses that focused on the fact that it was just a joke, Drmies and LoS are friends, why don’t you people have a sense of humor?
If, instead, you’d acknowledged the humor (rather than just an attempt at humor), acknowledged that LoS herself likely would not find it offensive, nor that Drmies intended it as such… and then explained that your concern was for other editors who might come across the comment and, not knowing the relationships involved, tick Wikipedia down yet another mental notch in “welcomingness”.
Instead you came across as humorless and scolding, which rarely garners productive responses.
Powers &8^]
-----Original Message----- *From:* Katherine Casey [mailto:fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday 17 July 2013 14:24 *To:* Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects *Subject:* [Gendergap] Casual sexism on en.wp
Another day, another examplehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=564679884&oldid=564678700of casual sexism exhibited by en.wikipedia editors who mean absolutely no harm, but simply don't understand how they could cause harm while meaning none. I seem to havehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Another_admin_issuecaused significant alarm and offense to a number of male editors be publicly pointing out that I found the comment inappropriate.
Was there a better way to handle this? I can't help feeling that saying nothing or hatting the section would have been supporting the notion that it's either not a problem or not remarkable for male editors to make comments encouraging others to comment on female editors' bodies.
-Fluff
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
It's interesting to note that the response to Flutternutter's criticism has been generally negative, with the exception of Riskers comments. Several other female editors have supported Drmies, or at least not reacted well to the notion that his birthday note was sexist. I can see Fluffernutter's point, of course (and find that part of the birthday note at a minimum strange), but I wonder if there aren't more obvious and serious examples with which to spend ones time.
I think my note backfired. It was meant to BOTH say that the intention of the writer of the note was not /meant/ to be sexist and that this was actually a good place to question whether it was because we need safety to do that, but came across wrong.
Lesson learned.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
It's interesting to note that the response to Flutternutter's criticism has been generally negative, with the exception of Riskers comments. Several other female editors have supported Drmies, or at least not reacted well to the notion that his birthday note was sexist. I can see Fluffernutter's point, of course (and find that part of the birthday note at a minimum strange), but I wonder if there aren't more obvious and serious examples with which to spend ones time.
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Nathan, 18/07/2013 17:31:
It's interesting to note that the response to Flutternutter's criticism has been generally negative, with the exception of Riskers comments. Several other female editors have supported Drmies, or at least not reacted well to the notion that his birthday note was sexist. I can see Fluffernutter's point, of course (and find that part of the birthday note at a minimum strange), but I wonder if there aren't more obvious and serious examples with which to spend ones time.
Indeed the problem was not so obvious to me when I read the original post, and please don't say that I must be blind only because I'm white and male, I'm very sensitive to sexism. (Now at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive251#Another_admin_issue.)
Thomas Morton, 18/07/2013 17:41:
My thought was on reading your comment was something like... it didn't seem at all a sexist comment, and wondering why you were focusing on the word "body" and ignoring "mind".
It struck me as somewhat odd, pleasant, sweet post which elicited an unpleasant reaction.
This is the reason of the bad reaction to Fluff's response, I think. My first reaction when I read messages I don't fully understand is to read the userpages; in this case, on the complimented admin's, we find plenty of paintings like this Tennyson-inspired Pre-Raphaelite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JWW_TheLadyOfShallot_1888.jpg and that, to me, explains the aesthetic passage of the message dismissing the suspect of underlying issues revealed by the word "body".
That said, if some people genuinely find something sexist and offensive it makes sense to acknowledge there /is/ a problem. In my opinion just including one of those pictures next to the post would have made it not only sweeter but also easier to understand. The lack of context in a communication, even if intended for some OT humour, needs to be seen and addessed in some way to avoid misunderstandings and culture clashes.
Nemo
In the German Wikipedia a huge discussion has erupted over the question how to change the Wikipedia page for Chelsea Manning and it's another textbook example over how to drive women of Wikipedia. You can see the gory details here (in German of course): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Bradley_Manning
I don't want to discuss this because it has already exhausted me to no end but it's another example of “How not to deal with women” and especially “How not to deal with transwomen” and it's important to understand the dynamics.
After her statement on Today, one user went over the article, changing it from Bradley to Chelsea. When discussions about this started, two other users set up a section "Namensänderung" that addressed some of the criticism (confusion over names, before „Breanna“ was mentioned, how the support network has handled the name question) and provided sources. They did this on an etherpad and then moved the complete section into Wikipedia. By the way a modus operandi that I have heard from several women, to minimize chances of their work being deleted again. One admin locked the article title to Chelsea Manning. Some friends told me how happy they were to see the page presenting her in this way.
Over the night, though, the discussion exploded. Changes were made by the minute, or rather, the article was reverted. Every try, to change something back or to reason with people was made impossible. To keep up, you would have had to be there, writing and fighting not only during the day but also the night. That is just not possible for anybody except students.
Somebody mentioned that “commonly referred to names” were ok to use, so I tried to get people to acknowledge that the final article will influence how Manning is referred to in German speaking countries. No avail. Instead, the amount of transphobic statements was disgusting. People wanting to check her therapy progress, ID documents or in her pants. I cannot blame anybody who doesn't want to deal with this sort of violence.
Every try to get people consider US laws and customs, which differ from much stricter German transgender laws and guidelines, was totally ignored. Also, guidelines by transgender organizations on how to write about transpeople were ignored. Somebody brought up the fact that Manning hat entered the military in a profession reserved for men at the time. Instead of asking an expert how to deal with it, it was solely used as an argument. It was all just opinions, instead of facts. While some people were still talking about knowledge, someone else would start a vote and then the majority decided. (In case you wonder: one way would be to keep referring to Chelsea as female while noting that the profession was reserved for men at the time and she entered presenting as male.)
Of course, people who identified as women or worse, transwomen, were shouted down to no end and accused of being too emotional or having a political agenda. Wanting to be treated with respect and having human rights is indeed a political agenda but none to be insulted for. Also: one transwoman was not egligible to vote, her account was too “new”. She had shut down her old account, from before transition for several reason (transphobia being one).
The section "Namensänderung" was removed, too. There was no reason given and Kathrin, the author, later told in a podcast how difficult it was for her to find out, how and when this happened as it was removed with other sections. She managed to get it restored with the help of an experienced Wikipedia admin. Deleting a thoroughly researched section that is undoubtedly relevant reeks of erasure, in this case of the existence of a transwoman. The podcast (in German) is available here: http://www.iheartdigitallife.de/nrrrdz000020-mesh-up/
So. There's a group of mostly women, who poured their hearts into work, defended it thoroughly and were insulted and shouted down. I honestly see no way, how we are even in a position to get people to change guidelines anywhere in Wikipedia. Plus, we're all exhausted.
Still, there are some ideas what to do: - The guidelines on naming need to include how to deal with transpersons. - As does a policy of using pronouns. - If guidelines and policies are expanded on how to deal with marginalised groups, their expertise has to be valued. - Removal of sections should be easier to reconstruct
Once again: I don't want to discuss the issue at hand or even be forced to defend who wrote what when. I also know how Wikipedia works and this mailinglist is in no place to officially demand changes, yadayada. But this is important. If it weren't for some very persistent people, the German entry would not even mention the fact that Manning has asked to be referred to as a woman.
All the best Helga Hansen
PS: It has to be said that Lana Wachowskis entry was changed without much kerfuffle, but then it's always been a “Wachowski brothers” entry that's now “Wachowski siblings” and there's about one pronoun used that refers to “her” and not “them”.
PPS: Please realize that I feel the need to ask not be treated to any explanations because I have experienced that way too often.
__________________ Helga Hansen @hanhaiwen helgahansen.de
There have been similar problems at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning Obviously there have been a number of comments that are obviously transphobic. However, there also have been repeated false charges of transphobia against those who cite good policy reasons for not changing the name. I personally oppose the change to Chelsea as premature for a number of reasons, FYI.
And there are good reasons to question what happened at that article process wise (the policy reasons for and against the change are discussed ad nauseam at the talk page where editors are just trying to get it changed back to Bradley Manning, though I think that's morphed into a final discussion - hard to tell!! ): * an admin changed the title to Chelsea Manning with no discussion on the talk page, given it's a controversial move in such a high publicity figure *the admin then spoke to the press about it, wrote a blog entry with their opinion, tweeted about it, and got even more media publicity for their blog entry and/or tweets *I would not be surprised if a number of editors also alerted the media to her writings and actions in order to try to influence the outcome of a Wikipedia policy decision *I don't know how much off wiki canvassing there was, but I did start a list of wikiprojects alerted, so at least that aspect of WP:Canvass would be covered *an editor threatened anyone moving the title back would become a minor celebrity for a few days, a threat only to those whose actual names were used, which implied outing (there's a subsection of the larger ANI thread on that threat and related insults)
Wonder if I'll get shouted down *here* yet again for expressing my opinions... sigh...
CM
On 8/24/2013 7:34 AM, Helga Hansen wrote:
In the German Wikipedia a huge discussion has erupted over the question how to change the Wikipedia page for Chelsea Manning and it's another textbook example over how to drive women of Wikipedia. You can see the gory details here (in German of course): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Bradley_Manning
I don't want to discuss this because it has already exhausted me to no end but it's another example of “How not to deal with women” and especially “How not to deal with transwomen” and it's important to understand the dynamics.
After her statement on Today, one user went over the article, changing it from Bradley to Chelsea. When discussions about this started, two other users set up a section "Namensänderung" that addressed some of the criticism (confusion over names, before „Breanna“ was mentioned, how the support network has handled the name question) and provided sources. They did this on an etherpad and then moved the complete section into Wikipedia. By the way a modus operandi that I have heard from several women, to minimize chances of their work being deleted again. One admin locked the article title to Chelsea Manning. Some friends told me how happy they were to see the page presenting her in this way.
Over the night, though, the discussion exploded. Changes were made by the minute, or rather, the article was reverted. Every try, to change something back or to reason with people was made impossible. To keep up, you would have had to be there, writing and fighting not only during the day but also the night. That is just not possible for anybody except students.
Somebody mentioned that “commonly referred to names” were ok to use, so I tried to get people to acknowledge that the final article will influence how Manning is referred to in German speaking countries. No avail. Instead, the amount of transphobic statements was disgusting. People wanting to check her therapy progress, ID documents or in her pants. I cannot blame anybody who doesn't want to deal with this sort of violence.
Every try to get people consider US laws and customs, which differ from much stricter German transgender laws and guidelines, was totally ignored. Also, guidelines by transgender organizations on how to write about transpeople were ignored. Somebody brought up the fact that Manning hat entered the military in a profession reserved for men at the time. Instead of asking an expert how to deal with it, it was solely used as an argument. It was all just opinions, instead of facts. While some people were still talking about knowledge, someone else would start a vote and then the majority decided. (In case you wonder: one way would be to keep referring to Chelsea as female while noting that the profession was reserved for men at the time and she entered presenting as male.)
Of course, people who identified as women or worse, transwomen, were shouted down to no end and accused of being too emotional or having a political agenda. Wanting to be treated with respect and having human rights is indeed a political agenda but none to be insulted for. Also: one transwoman was not egligible to vote, her account was too “new”. She had shut down her old account, from before transition for several reason (transphobia being one).
The section "Namensänderung" was removed, too. There was no reason given and Kathrin, the author, later told in a podcast how difficult it was for her to find out, how and when this happened as it was removed with other sections. She managed to get it restored with the help of an experienced Wikipedia admin. Deleting a thoroughly researched section that is undoubtedly relevant reeks of erasure, in this case of the existence of a transwoman. The podcast (in German) is available here: http://www.iheartdigitallife.de/nrrrdz000020-mesh-up/
So. There's a group of mostly women, who poured their hearts into work, defended it thoroughly and were insulted and shouted down. I honestly see no way, how we are even in a position to get people to change guidelines anywhere in Wikipedia. Plus, we're all exhausted.
Still, there are some ideas what to do:
- The guidelines on naming need to include how to deal with transpersons.
- As does a policy of using pronouns.
- If guidelines and policies are expanded on how to deal with marginalised groups, their expertise has to be valued.
- Removal of sections should be easier to reconstruct
Once again: I don't want to discuss the issue at hand or even be forced to defend who wrote what when. I also know how Wikipedia works and this mailinglist is in no place to officially demand changes, yadayada. But this is important. If it weren't for some very persistent people, the German entry would not even mention the fact that Manning has asked to be referred to as a woman.
All the best Helga Hansen
PS: It has to be said that Lana Wachowskis entry was changed without much kerfuffle, but then it's always been a “Wachowski brothers” entry that's now “Wachowski siblings” and there's about one pronoun used that refers to “her” and not “them”.
PPS: Please realize that I feel the need to ask not be treated to any explanations because I have experienced that way too often.
Helga Hansen @hanhaiwen helgahansen.de
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
One thing I find interesting about the discussions on this is that people seem to be, sometimes, applying different standards from how we normally handle ourselves. So on WP normally, there is some deference paid to expertise (as distinct from credentials). Normally, editors will often defer to others who are known to have subject-matter expertise in a particular area. We express expertise through research: editors who have done a lot of reading and who cite reliable sources have more weight accorded to their views than those who have not done that reading and citing.
It feels to me like on this issue people are often seeming to substitute "common sense" or "conventional wisdom" for expertise/knowledge. There has been lots of scholarly work on transgender issues, in the fields of psychology, gender studies, medicine, and so forth. So it surprises me to have editors making off-the-cuff comments, and expecting them to be taken seriously. A lot of people's expressed assumptions (that Chelsea may change her mind tomorrow, that Chelsea was a man and is now a woman, or even that a person's gender is easy to determine) are just flat-out wrong. It's okay for people to be wrong, but their wrong assumptions shouldn't determine what goes in an encyclopedia.
(In saying this, I'm not responding directly to Helga or Carol. It's just something I've noticed on the enWP discussions that I think is interesting.)
Thanks, Sue On Aug 24, 2013 6:18 AM, "Carol Moore dc" carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
There have been similar problems at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/** Chelsea_Manning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning Obviously there have been a number of comments that are obviously transphobic. However, there also have been repeated false charges of transphobia against those who cite good policy reasons for not changing the name. I personally oppose the change to Chelsea as premature for a number of reasons, FYI.
And there are good reasons to question what happened at that article process wise (the policy reasons for and against the change are discussed ad nauseam at the talk page where editors are just trying to get it changed back to Bradley Manning, though I think that's morphed into a final discussion - hard to tell!! ):
- an admin changed the title to Chelsea Manning with no discussion on the
talk page, given it's a controversial move in such a high publicity figure *the admin then spoke to the press about it, wrote a blog entry with their opinion, tweeted about it, and got even more media publicity for their blog entry and/or tweets *I would not be surprised if a number of editors also alerted the media to her writings and actions in order to try to influence the outcome of a Wikipedia policy decision *I don't know how much off wiki canvassing there was, but I did start a list of wikiprojects alerted, so at least that aspect of WP:Canvass would be covered *an editor threatened anyone moving the title back would become a minor celebrity for a few days, a threat only to those whose actual names were used, which implied outing (there's a subsection of the larger ANI thread on that threat and related insults)
Wonder if I'll get shouted down *here* yet again for expressing my opinions... sigh...
CM
On 8/24/2013 7:34 AM, Helga Hansen wrote:
In the German Wikipedia a huge discussion has erupted over the question how to change the Wikipedia page for Chelsea Manning and it's another textbook example over how to drive women of Wikipedia. You can see the gory details here (in German of course): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/** Diskussion:Bradley_Manninghttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Bradley_Manning
I don't want to discuss this because it has already exhausted me to no end but it's another example of “How not to deal with women” and especially “How not to deal with transwomen” and it's important to understand the dynamics.
After her statement on Today, one user went over the article, changing it from Bradley to Chelsea. When discussions about this started, two other users set up a section "Namensänderung" that addressed some of the criticism (confusion over names, before „Breanna“ was mentioned, how the support network has handled the name question) and provided sources. They did this on an etherpad and then moved the complete section into Wikipedia. By the way a modus operandi that I have heard from several women, to minimize chances of their work being deleted again. One admin locked the article title to Chelsea Manning. Some friends told me how happy they were to see the page presenting her in this way.
Over the night, though, the discussion exploded. Changes were made by the minute, or rather, the article was reverted. Every try, to change something back or to reason with people was made impossible. To keep up, you would have had to be there, writing and fighting not only during the day but also the night. That is just not possible for anybody except students.
Somebody mentioned that “commonly referred to names” were ok to use, so I tried to get people to acknowledge that the final article will influence how Manning is referred to in German speaking countries. No avail. Instead, the amount of transphobic statements was disgusting. People wanting to check her therapy progress, ID documents or in her pants. I cannot blame anybody who doesn't want to deal with this sort of violence.
Every try to get people consider US laws and customs, which differ from much stricter German transgender laws and guidelines, was totally ignored. Also, guidelines by transgender organizations on how to write about transpeople were ignored. Somebody brought up the fact that Manning hat entered the military in a profession reserved for men at the time. Instead of asking an expert how to deal with it, it was solely used as an argument. It was all just opinions, instead of facts. While some people were still talking about knowledge, someone else would start a vote and then the majority decided. (In case you wonder: one way would be to keep referring to Chelsea as female while noting that the profession was reserved for men at the time and she entered presenting as male.)
Of course, people who identified as women or worse, transwomen, were shouted down to no end and accused of being too emotional or having a political agenda. Wanting to be treated with respect and having human rights is indeed a political agenda but none to be insulted for. Also: one transwoman was not egligible to vote, her account was too “new”. She had shut down her old account, from before transition for several reason (transphobia being one).
The section "Namensänderung" was removed, too. There was no reason given and Kathrin, the author, later told in a podcast how difficult it was for her to find out, how and when this happened as it was removed with other sections. She managed to get it restored with the help of an experienced Wikipedia admin. Deleting a thoroughly researched section that is undoubtedly relevant reeks of erasure, in this case of the existence of a transwoman. The podcast (in German) is available here: http://www.iheartdigitallife.**de/nrrrdz000020-mesh-up/http://www.iheartdigitallife.de/nrrrdz000020-mesh-up/
So. There's a group of mostly women, who poured their hearts into work, defended it thoroughly and were insulted and shouted down. I honestly see no way, how we are even in a position to get people to change guidelines anywhere in Wikipedia. Plus, we're all exhausted.
Still, there are some ideas what to do:
- The guidelines on naming need to include how to deal with transpersons.
- As does a policy of using pronouns.
- If guidelines and policies are expanded on how to deal with
marginalised groups, their expertise has to be valued.
- Removal of sections should be easier to reconstruct
Once again: I don't want to discuss the issue at hand or even be forced to defend who wrote what when. I also know how Wikipedia works and this mailinglist is in no place to officially demand changes, yadayada. But this is important. If it weren't for some very persistent people, the German entry would not even mention the fact that Manning has asked to be referred to as a woman.
All the best Helga Hansen
PS: It has to be said that Lana Wachowskis entry was changed without much kerfuffle, but then it's always been a “Wachowski brothers” entry that's now “Wachowski siblings” and there's about one pronoun used that refers to “her” and not “them”.
PPS: Please realize that I feel the need to ask not be treated to any explanations because I have experienced that way too often.
Helga Hansen @hanhaiwen helgahansen.de
______________________________**_________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/gendergaphttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
______________________________**_________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/gendergaphttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I think sometimes about the e.e. cummings quote "To be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight; and never stop fighting" (citation needed) - that it also means that to support others in being themselves is ALSO one of the hardest battles we fight. I hear the exhaustion, the need to have a place to put forward ideas, where one will experience support and not combat, and just want to say that I'm proud of the extraordinary effort to date. As throw-things-at-the-wall angry as the human rights fighting makes me, in all the places we fight injustice, knowing there are allies out there willing to wade into the shitstorms of things does help keep the flame a little kindled for me.
So to Carol and Helga, specifically, this is not a shout down, but a shout out of "Thank you", for the courage to speak, for the resilience, and I'm sending my wishes for a respite, a good night's sleep, a hearty meal, a conversation with a friend, or whatever you may want or need to keep going.
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.orgwrote:
One thing I find interesting about the discussions on this is that people seem to be, sometimes, applying different standards from how we normally handle ourselves. So on WP normally, there is some deference paid to expertise (as distinct from credentials). Normally, editors will often defer to others who are known to have subject-matter expertise in a particular area. We express expertise through research: editors who have done a lot of reading and who cite reliable sources have more weight accorded to their views than those who have not done that reading and citing.
It feels to me like on this issue people are often seeming to substitute "common sense" or "conventional wisdom" for expertise/knowledge. There has been lots of scholarly work on transgender issues, in the fields of psychology, gender studies, medicine, and so forth. So it surprises me to have editors making off-the-cuff comments, and expecting them to be taken seriously. A lot of people's expressed assumptions (that Chelsea may change her mind tomorrow, that Chelsea was a man and is now a woman, or even that a person's gender is easy to determine) are just flat-out wrong. It's okay for people to be wrong, but their wrong assumptions shouldn't determine what goes in an encyclopedia.
(In saying this, I'm not responding directly to Helga or Carol. It's just something I've noticed on the enWP discussions that I think is interesting.)
Thanks, Sue On Aug 24, 2013 6:18 AM, "Carol Moore dc" carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
There have been similar problems at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/** Chelsea_Manning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning Obviously there have been a number of comments that are obviously transphobic. However, there also have been repeated false charges of transphobia against those who cite good policy reasons for not changing the name. I personally oppose the change to Chelsea as premature for a number of reasons, FYI.
And there are good reasons to question what happened at that article process wise (the policy reasons for and against the change are discussed ad nauseam at the talk page where editors are just trying to get it changed back to Bradley Manning, though I think that's morphed into a final discussion - hard to tell!! ):
- an admin changed the title to Chelsea Manning with no discussion on the
talk page, given it's a controversial move in such a high publicity figure *the admin then spoke to the press about it, wrote a blog entry with their opinion, tweeted about it, and got even more media publicity for their blog entry and/or tweets *I would not be surprised if a number of editors also alerted the media to her writings and actions in order to try to influence the outcome of a Wikipedia policy decision *I don't know how much off wiki canvassing there was, but I did start a list of wikiprojects alerted, so at least that aspect of WP:Canvass would be covered *an editor threatened anyone moving the title back would become a minor celebrity for a few days, a threat only to those whose actual names were used, which implied outing (there's a subsection of the larger ANI thread on that threat and related insults)
Wonder if I'll get shouted down *here* yet again for expressing my opinions... sigh...
CM
On 8/24/2013 7:34 AM, Helga Hansen wrote:
In the German Wikipedia a huge discussion has erupted over the question how to change the Wikipedia page for Chelsea Manning and it's another textbook example over how to drive women of Wikipedia. You can see the gory details here (in German of course): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/** Diskussion:Bradley_Manninghttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Bradley_Manning
I don't want to discuss this because it has already exhausted me to no end but it's another example of “How not to deal with women” and especially “How not to deal with transwomen” and it's important to understand the dynamics.
After her statement on Today, one user went over the article, changing it from Bradley to Chelsea. When discussions about this started, two other users set up a section "Namensänderung" that addressed some of the criticism (confusion over names, before „Breanna“ was mentioned, how the support network has handled the name question) and provided sources. They did this on an etherpad and then moved the complete section into Wikipedia. By the way a modus operandi that I have heard from several women, to minimize chances of their work being deleted again. One admin locked the article title to Chelsea Manning. Some friends told me how happy they were to see the page presenting her in this way.
Over the night, though, the discussion exploded. Changes were made by the minute, or rather, the article was reverted. Every try, to change something back or to reason with people was made impossible. To keep up, you would have had to be there, writing and fighting not only during the day but also the night. That is just not possible for anybody except students.
Somebody mentioned that “commonly referred to names” were ok to use, so I tried to get people to acknowledge that the final article will influence how Manning is referred to in German speaking countries. No avail. Instead, the amount of transphobic statements was disgusting. People wanting to check her therapy progress, ID documents or in her pants. I cannot blame anybody who doesn't want to deal with this sort of violence.
Every try to get people consider US laws and customs, which differ from much stricter German transgender laws and guidelines, was totally ignored. Also, guidelines by transgender organizations on how to write about transpeople were ignored. Somebody brought up the fact that Manning hat entered the military in a profession reserved for men at the time. Instead of asking an expert how to deal with it, it was solely used as an argument. It was all just opinions, instead of facts. While some people were still talking about knowledge, someone else would start a vote and then the majority decided. (In case you wonder: one way would be to keep referring to Chelsea as female while noting that the profession was reserved for men at the time and she entered presenting as male.)
Of course, people who identified as women or worse, transwomen, were shouted down to no end and accused of being too emotional or having a political agenda. Wanting to be treated with respect and having human rights is indeed a political agenda but none to be insulted for. Also: one transwoman was not egligible to vote, her account was too “new”. She had shut down her old account, from before transition for several reason (transphobia being one).
The section "Namensänderung" was removed, too. There was no reason given and Kathrin, the author, later told in a podcast how difficult it was for her to find out, how and when this happened as it was removed with other sections. She managed to get it restored with the help of an experienced Wikipedia admin. Deleting a thoroughly researched section that is undoubtedly relevant reeks of erasure, in this case of the existence of a transwoman. The podcast (in German) is available here: http://www.iheartdigitallife.**de/nrrrdz000020-mesh-up/http://www.iheartdigitallife.de/nrrrdz000020-mesh-up/
So. There's a group of mostly women, who poured their hearts into work, defended it thoroughly and were insulted and shouted down. I honestly see no way, how we are even in a position to get people to change guidelines anywhere in Wikipedia. Plus, we're all exhausted.
Still, there are some ideas what to do:
- The guidelines on naming need to include how to deal with transpersons.
- As does a policy of using pronouns.
- If guidelines and policies are expanded on how to deal with
marginalised groups, their expertise has to be valued.
- Removal of sections should be easier to reconstruct
Once again: I don't want to discuss the issue at hand or even be forced to defend who wrote what when. I also know how Wikipedia works and this mailinglist is in no place to officially demand changes, yadayada. But this is important. If it weren't for some very persistent people, the German entry would not even mention the fact that Manning has asked to be referred to as a woman.
All the best Helga Hansen
PS: It has to be said that Lana Wachowskis entry was changed without much kerfuffle, but then it's always been a “Wachowski brothers” entry that's now “Wachowski siblings” and there's about one pronoun used that refers to “her” and not “them”.
PPS: Please realize that I feel the need to ask not be treated to any explanations because I have experienced that way too often.
Helga Hansen @hanhaiwen helgahansen.de
______________________________**_________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/gendergaphttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
______________________________**_________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/gendergaphttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Looks like the Chelsea Manning article has been changed back to Bradley Manning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chelsea_Manning/August_2013_move_request
There is still a discussion ongoing about which name to lead the article text with, however: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bradley_Manning#First_sentence
Ryan Kaldari
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.netwrote:
There have been similar problems at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/** Chelsea_Manning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning Obviously there have been a number of comments that are obviously transphobic. However, there also have been repeated false charges of transphobia against those who cite good policy reasons for not changing the name. I personally oppose the change to Chelsea as premature for a number of reasons, FYI.
And there are good reasons to question what happened at that article process wise (the policy reasons for and against the change are discussed ad nauseam at the talk page where editors are just trying to get it changed back to Bradley Manning, though I think that's morphed into a final discussion - hard to tell!! ):
- an admin changed the title to Chelsea Manning with no discussion on the
talk page, given it's a controversial move in such a high publicity figure *the admin then spoke to the press about it, wrote a blog entry with their opinion, tweeted about it, and got even more media publicity for their blog entry and/or tweets *I would not be surprised if a number of editors also alerted the media to her writings and actions in order to try to influence the outcome of a Wikipedia policy decision *I don't know how much off wiki canvassing there was, but I did start a list of wikiprojects alerted, so at least that aspect of WP:Canvass would be covered *an editor threatened anyone moving the title back would become a minor celebrity for a few days, a threat only to those whose actual names were used, which implied outing (there's a subsection of the larger ANI thread on that threat and related insults)
Wonder if I'll get shouted down *here* yet again for expressing my opinions... sigh...
CM
On 8/24/2013 7:34 AM, Helga Hansen wrote:
In the German Wikipedia a huge discussion has erupted over the question how to change the Wikipedia page for Chelsea Manning and it's another textbook example over how to drive women of Wikipedia. You can see the gory details here (in German of course): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/** Diskussion:Bradley_Manninghttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Bradley_Manning
I don't want to discuss this because it has already exhausted me to no end but it's another example of “How not to deal with women” and especially “How not to deal with transwomen” and it's important to understand the dynamics.
After her statement on Today, one user went over the article, changing it from Bradley to Chelsea. When discussions about this started, two other users set up a section "Namensänderung" that addressed some of the criticism (confusion over names, before „Breanna“ was mentioned, how the support network has handled the name question) and provided sources. They did this on an etherpad and then moved the complete section into Wikipedia. By the way a modus operandi that I have heard from several women, to minimize chances of their work being deleted again. One admin locked the article title to Chelsea Manning. Some friends told me how happy they were to see the page presenting her in this way.
Over the night, though, the discussion exploded. Changes were made by the minute, or rather, the article was reverted. Every try, to change something back or to reason with people was made impossible. To keep up, you would have had to be there, writing and fighting not only during the day but also the night. That is just not possible for anybody except students.
Somebody mentioned that “commonly referred to names” were ok to use, so I tried to get people to acknowledge that the final article will influence how Manning is referred to in German speaking countries. No avail. Instead, the amount of transphobic statements was disgusting. People wanting to check her therapy progress, ID documents or in her pants. I cannot blame anybody who doesn't want to deal with this sort of violence.
Every try to get people consider US laws and customs, which differ from much stricter German transgender laws and guidelines, was totally ignored. Also, guidelines by transgender organizations on how to write about transpeople were ignored. Somebody brought up the fact that Manning hat entered the military in a profession reserved for men at the time. Instead of asking an expert how to deal with it, it was solely used as an argument. It was all just opinions, instead of facts. While some people were still talking about knowledge, someone else would start a vote and then the majority decided. (In case you wonder: one way would be to keep referring to Chelsea as female while noting that the profession was reserved for men at the time and she entered presenting as male.)
Of course, people who identified as women or worse, transwomen, were shouted down to no end and accused of being too emotional or having a political agenda. Wanting to be treated with respect and having human rights is indeed a political agenda but none to be insulted for. Also: one transwoman was not egligible to vote, her account was too “new”. She had shut down her old account, from before transition for several reason (transphobia being one).
The section "Namensänderung" was removed, too. There was no reason given and Kathrin, the author, later told in a podcast how difficult it was for her to find out, how and when this happened as it was removed with other sections. She managed to get it restored with the help of an experienced Wikipedia admin. Deleting a thoroughly researched section that is undoubtedly relevant reeks of erasure, in this case of the existence of a transwoman. The podcast (in German) is available here: http://www.iheartdigitallife.**de/nrrrdz000020-mesh-up/http://www.iheartdigitallife.de/nrrrdz000020-mesh-up/
So. There's a group of mostly women, who poured their hearts into work, defended it thoroughly and were insulted and shouted down. I honestly see no way, how we are even in a position to get people to change guidelines anywhere in Wikipedia. Plus, we're all exhausted.
Still, there are some ideas what to do:
- The guidelines on naming need to include how to deal with transpersons.
- As does a policy of using pronouns.
- If guidelines and policies are expanded on how to deal with
marginalised groups, their expertise has to be valued.
- Removal of sections should be easier to reconstruct
Once again: I don't want to discuss the issue at hand or even be forced to defend who wrote what when. I also know how Wikipedia works and this mailinglist is in no place to officially demand changes, yadayada. But this is important. If it weren't for some very persistent people, the German entry would not even mention the fact that Manning has asked to be referred to as a woman.
All the best Helga Hansen
PS: It has to be said that Lana Wachowskis entry was changed without much kerfuffle, but then it's always been a “Wachowski brothers” entry that's now “Wachowski siblings” and there's about one pronoun used that refers to “her” and not “them”.
PPS: Please realize that I feel the need to ask not be treated to any explanations because I have experienced that way too often.
Helga Hansen @hanhaiwen helgahansen.de
______________________________**_________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/gendergaphttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
______________________________**_________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/gendergaphttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
It's an interesting discussion on that move request page. I noticed the Wikibump for the Bradley Manning page peaked at 173,000 views on 22 August and went down to less that 3,000 per day a week later. I think the current situation (today I see an article named Bradley Manning, and an article named "Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage" on the English Wikipedia) is the correct way to go forward until the media coverage settles down. At this moment in time, the person formerly known as Bradley Manning is still most notable for Wikipedia under that name, as her most famous act is still the Wikileaks issue. After a few months, it could turn out that her fight for transexual awareness or hormone drug therapy while in prison becomes more notable, but right now it is simply too early to say.
As for shouting matches and women contributors, I always tell everyone I meet to contribute to Wikipedia first on non-controversial topics, such as anything related to cultural heritage. If you are not a regular contributor to Wikipedia with a sound "Wikipedia reputation", your edits to controversial topics will probably be reverted semi-automatically no matter what you do. This is one of the biggest problems facing new contributors, because obviously they are attracted to controversial topics where the need for correction is probably high. I didn't click on the Bradley Manning article on 22 August, but I can imagine that it was in bad shape about half the time before it was page-protected 14:41, 22 August 2013 by Mark Arsten.
2013/9/1, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org:
Looks like the Chelsea Manning article has been changed back to Bradley Manning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chelsea_Manning/August_2013_move_request
There is still a discussion ongoing about which name to lead the article text with, however: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bradley_Manning#First_sentence
Ryan Kaldari
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.netwrote:
There have been similar problems at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/** Chelsea_Manning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning Obviously there have been a number of comments that are obviously transphobic. However, there also have been repeated false charges of transphobia against those who cite good policy reasons for not changing the name. I personally oppose the change to Chelsea as premature for a number of reasons, FYI.
And there are good reasons to question what happened at that article process wise (the policy reasons for and against the change are discussed ad nauseam at the talk page where editors are just trying to get it changed back to Bradley Manning, though I think that's morphed into a final discussion - hard to tell!! ):
- an admin changed the title to Chelsea Manning with no discussion on the
talk page, given it's a controversial move in such a high publicity figure *the admin then spoke to the press about it, wrote a blog entry with their opinion, tweeted about it, and got even more media publicity for their blog entry and/or tweets *I would not be surprised if a number of editors also alerted the media to her writings and actions in order to try to influence the outcome of a Wikipedia policy decision *I don't know how much off wiki canvassing there was, but I did start a list of wikiprojects alerted, so at least that aspect of WP:Canvass would be covered *an editor threatened anyone moving the title back would become a minor celebrity for a few days, a threat only to those whose actual names were used, which implied outing (there's a subsection of the larger ANI thread on that threat and related insults)
Wonder if I'll get shouted down *here* yet again for expressing my opinions... sigh...
CM
On 8/24/2013 7:34 AM, Helga Hansen wrote:
In the German Wikipedia a huge discussion has erupted over the question how to change the Wikipedia page for Chelsea Manning and it's another textbook example over how to drive women of Wikipedia. You can see the gory details here (in German of course): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/** Diskussion:Bradley_Manninghttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Bradley_Manning
I don't want to discuss this because it has already exhausted me to no end but it's another example of “How not to deal with women” and especially “How not to deal with transwomen” and it's important to understand the dynamics.
After her statement on Today, one user went over the article, changing it from Bradley to Chelsea. When discussions about this started, two other users set up a section "Namensänderung" that addressed some of the criticism (confusion over names, before „Breanna“ was mentioned, how the support network has handled the name question) and provided sources. They did this on an etherpad and then moved the complete section into Wikipedia. By the way a modus operandi that I have heard from several women, to minimize chances of their work being deleted again. One admin locked the article title to Chelsea Manning. Some friends told me how happy they were to see the page presenting her in this way.
Over the night, though, the discussion exploded. Changes were made by the minute, or rather, the article was reverted. Every try, to change something back or to reason with people was made impossible. To keep up, you would have had to be there, writing and fighting not only during the day but also the night. That is just not possible for anybody except students.
Somebody mentioned that “commonly referred to names” were ok to use, so I tried to get people to acknowledge that the final article will influence how Manning is referred to in German speaking countries. No avail. Instead, the amount of transphobic statements was disgusting. People wanting to check her therapy progress, ID documents or in her pants. I cannot blame anybody who doesn't want to deal with this sort of violence.
Every try to get people consider US laws and customs, which differ from much stricter German transgender laws and guidelines, was totally ignored. Also, guidelines by transgender organizations on how to write about transpeople were ignored. Somebody brought up the fact that Manning hat entered the military in a profession reserved for men at the time. Instead of asking an expert how to deal with it, it was solely used as an argument. It was all just opinions, instead of facts. While some people were still talking about knowledge, someone else would start a vote and then the majority decided. (In case you wonder: one way would be to keep referring to Chelsea as female while noting that the profession was reserved for men at the time and she entered presenting as male.)
Of course, people who identified as women or worse, transwomen, were shouted down to no end and accused of being too emotional or having a political agenda. Wanting to be treated with respect and having human rights is indeed a political agenda but none to be insulted for. Also: one transwoman was not egligible to vote, her account was too “new”. She had shut down her old account, from before transition for several reason (transphobia being one).
The section "Namensänderung" was removed, too. There was no reason given and Kathrin, the author, later told in a podcast how difficult it was for her to find out, how and when this happened as it was removed with other sections. She managed to get it restored with the help of an experienced Wikipedia admin. Deleting a thoroughly researched section that is undoubtedly relevant reeks of erasure, in this case of the existence of a transwoman. The podcast (in German) is available here: http://www.iheartdigitallife.**de/nrrrdz000020-mesh-up/http://www.iheartdigitallife.de/nrrrdz000020-mesh-up/
So. There's a group of mostly women, who poured their hearts into work, defended it thoroughly and were insulted and shouted down. I honestly see no way, how we are even in a position to get people to change guidelines anywhere in Wikipedia. Plus, we're all exhausted.
Still, there are some ideas what to do:
- The guidelines on naming need to include how to deal with
transpersons.
- As does a policy of using pronouns.
- If guidelines and policies are expanded on how to deal with
marginalised groups, their expertise has to be valued.
- Removal of sections should be easier to reconstruct
Once again: I don't want to discuss the issue at hand or even be forced to defend who wrote what when. I also know how Wikipedia works and this mailinglist is in no place to officially demand changes, yadayada. But this is important. If it weren't for some very persistent people, the German entry would not even mention the fact that Manning has asked to be referred to as a woman.
All the best Helga Hansen
PS: It has to be said that Lana Wachowskis entry was changed without much kerfuffle, but then it's always been a “Wachowski brothers” entry that's now “Wachowski siblings” and there's about one pronoun used that refers to “her” and not “them”.
PPS: Please realize that I feel the need to ask not be treated to any explanations because I have experienced that way too often.
Helga Hansen @hanhaiwen helgahansen.de
______________________________**_________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/gendergaphttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
______________________________**_________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/gendergaphttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Wait a minute... our article titles policy doesn't say anything about naming a biographical article based on how the person was known during their period of highest notability. It /doesn't matter/ if Manning ever becomes better known for transgender advocacy than for the leaks (and she probably won't); it's just rude to continue to refer to her using a male name once she's expressed a preference for a female name.
This is the same situation as our Shirley Temple article, as the Ambassador has gone by Shirley Temple Black for decades, but move requests have fallen on deaf ears because "she was most well known as Shirley Temple".
None of that should matter; what matters is this: How is the subject referred to in /recent/ sources? For Manning, that might be arguable at the moment, but for Temple Black it's not.
When a company changes its name, we're very quick to change its name on Wikipedia. Heck, when a woman gets married, we're usually very quick to update her surname if she so chooses (e.g., Lauren Cheney/Lauren Holiday). But for some reason Temple Black has been an issue, and Manning is becoming an issue. Why? Who knows?
Powers &8^]
-----Original Message----- From: Jane Darnell [mailto:jane023@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday 4 September 2013 06:00 To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participationof women within Wikimedia projects. Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)
It's an interesting discussion on that move request page. I noticed the Wikibump for the Bradley Manning page peaked at 173,000 views on 22 August and went down to less that 3,000 per day a week later. I think the current situation (today I see an article named Bradley Manning, and an article named "Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage" on the English Wikipedia) is the correct way to go forward until the media coverage settles down. At this moment in time, the person formerly known as Bradley Manning is still most notable for Wikipedia under that name, as her most famous act is still the Wikileaks issue. After a few months, it could turn out that her fight for transexual awareness or hormone drug therapy while in prison becomes more notable, but right now it is simply too early to say.
As for shouting matches and women contributors, I always tell everyone I meet to contribute to Wikipedia first on non-controversial topics, such as anything related to cultural heritage. If you are not a regular contributor to Wikipedia with a sound "Wikipedia reputation", your edits to controversial topics will probably be reverted semi-automatically no matter what you do. This is one of the biggest problems facing new contributors, because obviously they are attracted to controversial topics where the need for correction is probably high. I didn't click on the Bradley Manning article on 22 August, but I can imagine that it was in bad shape about half the time before it was page-protected 14:41, 22 August 2013 by Mark Arsten.
2013/9/1, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org:
Looks like the Chelsea Manning article has been changed back to Bradley Manning:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chelsea_Manning/August_2013_move_reques t
There is still a discussion ongoing about which name to lead the article text with, however: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bradley_Manning#First_sentence
Ryan Kaldari
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.netwrote:
There have been similar problems at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/** Chelsea_Manning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning Obviously there have been a number of comments that are obviously transphobic. However, there also have been repeated false charges of transphobia against those who cite good policy reasons for not changing the name. I personally oppose the change to Chelsea as premature for a number of reasons, FYI.
And there are good reasons to question what happened at that article process wise (the policy reasons for and against the change are
discussed
ad nauseam at the talk page where editors are just trying to get it changed back to Bradley Manning, though I think that's morphed into a final discussion - hard to tell!! ):
- an admin changed the title to Chelsea Manning with no discussion on
the
talk page, given it's a controversial move in such a high publicity figure *the admin then spoke to the press about it, wrote a blog entry with their opinion, tweeted about it, and got even more media publicity for their blog entry and/or tweets *I would not be surprised if a number of editors also alerted the media to her writings and actions in order to try to influence the outcome of a Wikipedia policy decision *I don't know how much off wiki canvassing there was, but I did start a list of wikiprojects alerted, so at least that aspect of WP:Canvass
would
be covered *an editor threatened anyone moving the title back would become a minor celebrity for a few days, a threat only to those whose actual names
were
used, which implied outing (there's a subsection of the larger ANI
thread
on that threat and related insults)
Wonder if I'll get shouted down *here* yet again for expressing my opinions... sigh...
CM
On 8/24/2013 7:34 AM, Helga Hansen wrote:
In the German Wikipedia a huge discussion has erupted over the
question
how to change the Wikipedia page for Chelsea Manning and it's another textbook example over how to drive women of Wikipedia. You can see the gory details here (in German of course): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/**
Diskussion:Bradley_Manninghttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Bradley _Manning
I don't want to discuss this because it has already exhausted me to no end but it's another example of How not to deal with women and especially How not to deal with transwomen and it's important to understand the dynamics.
After her statement on Today, one user went over the article, changing it from Bradley to Chelsea. When discussions about this started, two
other
users set up a section "Namensänderung" that addressed some of the criticism (confusion over names, before Breanna was mentioned, how
the
support network has handled the name question) and provided sources. They did this on an etherpad and then moved the complete section into Wikipedia. By the way a modus operandi that I have heard from several women, to minimize chances of their work being deleted again. One admin locked the article title to Chelsea Manning. Some friends
told
me how happy they were to see the page presenting her in this way.
Over the night, though, the discussion exploded. Changes were made by the minute, or rather, the article was reverted. Every try, to change something back or to reason with people was made impossible. To keep up, you
would
have had to be there, writing and fighting not only during the day but also the night. That is just not possible for anybody except students.
Somebody mentioned that commonly referred to names were ok to use,
so
I tried to get people to acknowledge that the final article will
influence
how Manning is referred to in German speaking countries. No avail. Instead, the amount of transphobic statements was disgusting. People wanting to check her therapy progress, ID documents or in her pants. I cannot
blame
anybody who doesn't want to deal with this sort of violence.
Every try to get people consider US laws and customs, which differ
from
much stricter German transgender laws and guidelines, was totally ignored. Also, guidelines by transgender organizations on how to write about transpeople were ignored. Somebody brought up the fact that Manning
hat
entered the military in a profession reserved for men at the time. Instead of asking an expert how to deal with it, it was solely used as an argument. It was all just opinions, instead of facts. While some people were
still
talking about knowledge, someone else would start a vote and then the majority decided. (In case you wonder: one way would be to keep referring to Chelsea as female while noting that the profession was reserved for men at the
time
and she entered presenting as male.)
Of course, people who identified as women or worse, transwomen, were shouted down to no end and accused of being too emotional or having a political agenda. Wanting to be treated with respect and having human rights is indeed a political agenda but none to be insulted for. Also: one transwoman was not egligible to vote, her account was too new. She
had
shut down her old account, from before transition for several reason (transphobia being one).
The section "Namensänderung" was removed, too. There was no reason
given
and Kathrin, the author, later told in a podcast how difficult it was for her to find out, how and when this happened as it was removed with
other
sections. She managed to get it restored with the help of an
experienced
Wikipedia admin. Deleting a thoroughly researched section that is undoubtedly relevant reeks of erasure, in this case of the existence
of
a transwoman. The podcast (in German) is available here: http://www.iheartdigitallife.**de/nrrrdz000020-mesh-
up/http://www.iheartdigitallife.de/nrrrdz000020-mesh-up/
So. There's a group of mostly women, who poured their hearts into
work,
defended it thoroughly and were insulted and shouted down. I honestly see no way, how we are even in a position to get people to change
guidelines
anywhere in Wikipedia. Plus, we're all exhausted.
Still, there are some ideas what to do:
- The guidelines on naming need to include how to deal with
transpersons.
- As does a policy of using pronouns.
- If guidelines and policies are expanded on how to deal with
marginalised groups, their expertise has to be valued.
- Removal of sections should be easier to reconstruct
Once again: I don't want to discuss the issue at hand or even be
forced
to defend who wrote what when. I also know how Wikipedia works and
this
mailinglist is in no place to officially demand changes, yadayada. But this is important. If it weren't for some very persistent people, the
German
entry would not even mention the fact that Manning has asked to be referred to as a woman.
All the best Helga Hansen
PS: It has to be said that Lana Wachowskis entry was changed without much kerfuffle, but then it's always been a Wachowski brothers entry
that's
now Wachowski siblings and there's about one pronoun used that
refers
to her and not them.
PPS: Please realize that I feel the need to ask not be treated to any explanations because I have experienced that way too often.
Helga Hansen @hanhaiwen helgahansen.de
______________________________**_________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/gendergaphttps://lists.wik imedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
______________________________**_________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/gendergaphttps://lists.wik imedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Actually you would be surprised at the nature of some of the renaming debates on Wikipedia in the area of artists like the one you mention, but also artists from the 17th-century. One could probably write a funny book about renaming debates on Wikipedia. I do think the Shirley Temple article should be named Shirley Temple for the notability issue. In the second screen effect, during a Shirley Temple movie, people will google Shirley Temple and not Shirley Temple Black. Personal notability has also everything to do with how biographical enterprises (companies named after their founder) are categorized on Wikipedia - as people or as organizations.
In the case of a gender-change, it can just be downright confusing for readers who google a person based on a TV show or other media article in which the new gender is not even mentioned, while the lead suddenly uses an unexpected name and pronoun. Wikipedia has of course the "redirect" facility to take care of this. Over time redirect-pagename debates go back and forth regularly for controversial articles, and this will be no exception in the Manning case, I am sure.
My point has to do with the way Wikipedia approaches such controversial topics as they unfold, and the effect of getting involved in such debates on the editors themselves. My advice is to step back. An encyclopedia with lots of content still based on the original 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica articles first added before 2005, does not need to be a media leader in producing up-to-the-minute 100% accurate information. I think Wikipedia does a good job in publishing easy-to-read information based on reliable sources.
2013/9/4, Powers LtPowers_Wiki@rochester.rr.com:
Wait a minute... our article titles policy doesn't say anything about naming a biographical article based on how the person was known during their period of highest notability. It /doesn't matter/ if Manning ever becomes better known for transgender advocacy than for the leaks (and she probably won't); it's just rude to continue to refer to her using a male name once she's expressed a preference for a female name.
This is the same situation as our Shirley Temple article, as the Ambassador has gone by Shirley Temple Black for decades, but move requests have fallen on deaf ears because "she was most well known as Shirley Temple".
None of that should matter; what matters is this: How is the subject referred to in /recent/ sources? For Manning, that might be arguable at the moment, but for Temple Black it's not.
When a company changes its name, we're very quick to change its name on Wikipedia. Heck, when a woman gets married, we're usually very quick to update her surname if she so chooses (e.g., Lauren Cheney/Lauren Holiday). But for some reason Temple Black has been an issue, and Manning is becoming an issue. Why? Who knows?
Powers &8^]
-----Original Message----- From: Jane Darnell [mailto:jane023@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday 4 September 2013 06:00 To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participationof women within Wikimedia projects. Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)
It's an interesting discussion on that move request page. I noticed the Wikibump for the Bradley Manning page peaked at 173,000 views on 22 August and went down to less that 3,000 per day a week later. I think the current situation (today I see an article named Bradley Manning, and an article named "Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage" on the English Wikipedia) is the correct way to go forward until the media coverage settles down. At this moment in time, the person formerly known as Bradley Manning is still most notable for Wikipedia under that name, as her most famous act is still the Wikileaks issue. After a few months, it could turn out that her fight for transexual awareness or hormone drug therapy while in prison becomes more notable, but right now it is simply too early to say.
As for shouting matches and women contributors, I always tell everyone I meet to contribute to Wikipedia first on non-controversial topics, such as anything related to cultural heritage. If you are not a regular contributor to Wikipedia with a sound "Wikipedia reputation", your edits to controversial topics will probably be reverted semi-automatically no matter what you do. This is one of the biggest problems facing new contributors, because obviously they are attracted to controversial topics where the need for correction is probably high. I didn't click on the Bradley Manning article on 22 August, but I can imagine that it was in bad shape about half the time before it was page-protected 14:41, 22 August 2013 by Mark Arsten.
2013/9/1, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org:
Looks like the Chelsea Manning article has been changed back to Bradley Manning:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chelsea_Manning/August_2013_move_reques t
There is still a discussion ongoing about which name to lead the article text with, however: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bradley_Manning#First_sentence
Ryan Kaldari
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.netwrote:
There have been similar problems at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/** Chelsea_Manning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning Obviously there have been a number of comments that are obviously transphobic. However, there also have been repeated false charges of transphobia against those who cite good policy reasons for not changing the name. I personally oppose the change to Chelsea as premature for a number of reasons, FYI.
And there are good reasons to question what happened at that article process wise (the policy reasons for and against the change are
discussed
ad nauseam at the talk page where editors are just trying to get it changed back to Bradley Manning, though I think that's morphed into a final discussion - hard to tell!! ):
- an admin changed the title to Chelsea Manning with no discussion on
the
talk page, given it's a controversial move in such a high publicity figure *the admin then spoke to the press about it, wrote a blog entry with their opinion, tweeted about it, and got even more media publicity for their blog entry and/or tweets *I would not be surprised if a number of editors also alerted the media to her writings and actions in order to try to influence the outcome of a Wikipedia policy decision *I don't know how much off wiki canvassing there was, but I did start a list of wikiprojects alerted, so at least that aspect of WP:Canvass
would
be covered *an editor threatened anyone moving the title back would become a minor celebrity for a few days, a threat only to those whose actual names
were
used, which implied outing (there's a subsection of the larger ANI
thread
on that threat and related insults)
Wonder if I'll get shouted down *here* yet again for expressing my opinions... sigh...
CM
On 8/24/2013 7:34 AM, Helga Hansen wrote:
In the German Wikipedia a huge discussion has erupted over the
question
how to change the Wikipedia page for Chelsea Manning and it's another textbook example over how to drive women of Wikipedia. You can see the gory details here (in German of course): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/**
Diskussion:Bradley_Manninghttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Bradley _Manning
I don't want to discuss this because it has already exhausted me to no end but it's another example of “How not to deal with women” and especially “How not to deal with transwomen” and it's important to understand the dynamics.
After her statement on Today, one user went over the article, changing it from Bradley to Chelsea. When discussions about this started, two
other
users set up a section "Namensänderung" that addressed some of the criticism (confusion over names, before „Breanna“ was mentioned, how
the
support network has handled the name question) and provided sources. They did this on an etherpad and then moved the complete section into Wikipedia. By the way a modus operandi that I have heard from several women, to minimize chances of their work being deleted again. One admin locked the article title to Chelsea Manning. Some friends
told
me how happy they were to see the page presenting her in this way.
Over the night, though, the discussion exploded. Changes were made by the minute, or rather, the article was reverted. Every try, to change something back or to reason with people was made impossible. To keep up, you
would
have had to be there, writing and fighting not only during the day but also the night. That is just not possible for anybody except students.
Somebody mentioned that “commonly referred to names” were ok to use,
so
I tried to get people to acknowledge that the final article will
influence
how Manning is referred to in German speaking countries. No avail. Instead, the amount of transphobic statements was disgusting. People wanting to check her therapy progress, ID documents or in her pants. I cannot
blame
anybody who doesn't want to deal with this sort of violence.
Every try to get people consider US laws and customs, which differ
from
much stricter German transgender laws and guidelines, was totally ignored. Also, guidelines by transgender organizations on how to write about transpeople were ignored. Somebody brought up the fact that Manning
hat
entered the military in a profession reserved for men at the time. Instead of asking an expert how to deal with it, it was solely used as an argument. It was all just opinions, instead of facts. While some people were
still
talking about knowledge, someone else would start a vote and then the majority decided. (In case you wonder: one way would be to keep referring to Chelsea as female while noting that the profession was reserved for men at the
time
and she entered presenting as male.)
Of course, people who identified as women or worse, transwomen, were shouted down to no end and accused of being too emotional or having a political agenda. Wanting to be treated with respect and having human rights is indeed a political agenda but none to be insulted for. Also: one transwoman was not egligible to vote, her account was too “new”. She
had
shut down her old account, from before transition for several reason (transphobia being one).
The section "Namensänderung" was removed, too. There was no reason
given
and Kathrin, the author, later told in a podcast how difficult it was for her to find out, how and when this happened as it was removed with
other
sections. She managed to get it restored with the help of an
experienced
Wikipedia admin. Deleting a thoroughly researched section that is undoubtedly relevant reeks of erasure, in this case of the existence
of
a transwoman. The podcast (in German) is available here: http://www.iheartdigitallife.**de/nrrrdz000020-mesh-
up/http://www.iheartdigitallife.de/nrrrdz000020-mesh-up/
So. There's a group of mostly women, who poured their hearts into
work,
defended it thoroughly and were insulted and shouted down. I honestly see no way, how we are even in a position to get people to change
guidelines
anywhere in Wikipedia. Plus, we're all exhausted.
Still, there are some ideas what to do:
- The guidelines on naming need to include how to deal with
transpersons.
- As does a policy of using pronouns.
- If guidelines and policies are expanded on how to deal with
marginalised groups, their expertise has to be valued.
- Removal of sections should be easier to reconstruct
Once again: I don't want to discuss the issue at hand or even be
forced
to defend who wrote what when. I also know how Wikipedia works and
this
mailinglist is in no place to officially demand changes, yadayada. But this is important. If it weren't for some very persistent people, the
German
entry would not even mention the fact that Manning has asked to be referred to as a woman.
All the best Helga Hansen
PS: It has to be said that Lana Wachowskis entry was changed without much kerfuffle, but then it's always been a “Wachowski brothers” entry
that's
now “Wachowski siblings” and there's about one pronoun used that
refers
to “her” and not “them”.
PPS: Please realize that I feel the need to ask not be treated to any explanations because I have experienced that way too often.
Helga Hansen @hanhaiwen helgahansen.de
______________________________**_________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/gendergaphttps://lists.wik imedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
______________________________**_________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/gendergaphttps://lists.wik imedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Actually you would be surprised at the nature of some of the renaming debates on Wikipedia in the area of artists like the one you mention, but also artists from the 17th-century. One could probably write a funny book about renaming debates on Wikipedia. I do think the Shirley Temple article should be named Shirley Temple for the notability issue. In the second screen effect, during a Shirley Temple movie, people will google Shirley Temple and not Shirley Temple Black.
Okay, I've been wondering about this argument for a while - "It's what people search for so we have to keep that as the name of the article." As far as I can tell, that's what redirects are for: search for "Shirley Temple" and you can get a page named "Shirley Temple Black" with a little note at the top that says "Redirected from Shirley Temple."
Can someone with more WP experience explain why redirects aren't sufficient for the "what people search for" argument?
(FYI I'm on the "call people what they want to be called, including pronouns" side of the question.)
-VAL
There are a whole bunch of reasons for using article titles that are the most commonly known name. The search function is very important - and some search engines rank redirects differently (i.e., much lower) or don't even include them, so using the title that is most likely to come up on a search means the article will almost always come up in the first page of results. From the movement perspective, it is a *good* thing that most searches will lead to Wikipedia.
Secondly, redirects are expensive - not to those in the Western world with fast computers and high speed internet, but to those who are on dial-up or have comparatively high lag times because of distance (lots of people at Wikimania had difficulty getting good access to Wikipedia during their stay in Hong Kong, for example). A redirect means that the reader must first load up the "redirect" page and then follow the redirect instruction and wind up on the intended page. I don't think we pay nearly enough attention to the comparatively poor performance from WMF that our Asian, African, and South American colleagues experience; we're terribly spoiled.
I'll let someone else cover the logic behind the policy.
Risker/Anne
On 5 September 2013 18:16, Valerie Aurora valerie@adainitiative.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Actually you would be surprised at the nature of some of the renaming debates on Wikipedia in the area of artists like the one you mention, but also artists from the 17th-century. One could probably write a funny book about renaming debates on Wikipedia. I do think the Shirley Temple article should be named Shirley Temple for the notability issue. In the second screen effect, during a Shirley Temple movie, people will google Shirley Temple and not Shirley Temple Black.
Okay, I've been wondering about this argument for a while - "It's what people search for so we have to keep that as the name of the article." As far as I can tell, that's what redirects are for: search for "Shirley Temple" and you can get a page named "Shirley Temple Black" with a little note at the top that says "Redirected from Shirley Temple."
Can someone with more WP experience explain why redirects aren't sufficient for the "what people search for" argument?
(FYI I'm on the "call people what they want to be called, including pronouns" side of the question.)
-VAL
-- You can help increase the participation of women in open technology and culture! Donate today at http://adainitiative.org/donate/
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Sep 5, 2013 6:55 PM, "Risker" risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Secondly, redirects are expensive - not to those in the Western world
with fast computers and high speed internet, but to those who are on dial-up or have comparatively high lag times because of distance (lots of people at Wikimania had difficulty getting good access to Wikipedia during their stay in Hong Kong, for example). A redirect means that the reader must first load up the "redirect" page and then follow the redirect instruction and wind up on the intended page. I don't think we pay nearly enough attention to the comparatively poor performance from WMF that our Asian, African, and South American colleagues experience; we're terribly spoiled.
that's not how redirects work on Wikipedia. (at least for a redirect directly to a page with content… double redirects, i.e. a redirect to a redirect which then points to a real page it is more like how you described. but we have bots and special: pages for fixing double redirects)
we serve a 200 with a little hatnote that says it was a redirect and otherwise serve the same content as if they had visited the canonical name directly. i.e. we don't currently send a 30x to the canonical name and the alternative name remains in the URL in the user's location bar.
the actual timing difference client-side should be smaller than anything a human could detect. (or too small for a computer to notice? idk if anyone's done a study)
-Jeremy
Odd thing about the current Google search results for Bradley Manning. It gives the title "Bradley Manning" with a link to the Chelsea Manning page, which when followed is a redirect to Bradley Manning. SS attached.
On 6 September 2013 11:55, Jeremy Baron jeremy@tuxmachine.com wrote:
On Sep 5, 2013 6:55 PM, "Risker" risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Secondly, redirects are expensive - not to those in the Western world
with fast computers and high speed internet, but to those who are on dial-up or have comparatively high lag times because of distance (lots of people at Wikimania had difficulty getting good access to Wikipedia during their stay in Hong Kong, for example). A redirect means that the reader must first load up the "redirect" page and then follow the redirect instruction and wind up on the intended page. I don't think we pay nearly enough attention to the comparatively poor performance from WMF that our Asian, African, and South American colleagues experience; we're terribly spoiled.
that's not how redirects work on Wikipedia. (at least for a redirect directly to a page with content… double redirects, i.e. a redirect to a redirect which then points to a real page it is more like how you described. but we have bots and special: pages for fixing double redirects)
we serve a 200 with a little hatnote that says it was a redirect and otherwise serve the same content as if they had visited the canonical name directly. i.e. we don't currently send a 30x to the canonical name and the alternative name remains in the URL in the user's location bar.
the actual timing difference client-side should be smaller than anything a human could detect. (or too small for a computer to notice? idk if anyone's done a study)
-Jeremy
Yeah, I keep hearing those excuses for performance problems, Jeremy. It takes longer to serve up the original page here in North America on a fast connection - enough so that it is noticeable on a normal computer.
Risker/Anne
As a wild guess, I'd say that's probably a caching issue.
Powers &8^]
-----Original Message----- From: Risker [mailto:risker.wp@gmail.com] Sent: Friday 6 September 2013 13:32 To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participationof women within Wikimedia projects. Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)
On 6 September 2013 11:55, Jeremy Baron jeremy@tuxmachine.com wrote:
On Sep 5, 2013 6:55 PM, "Risker" risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Secondly, redirects are expensive - not to those in the Western world with
fast computers and high speed internet, but to those who are on dial-up or have comparatively high lag times because of distance (lots of people at Wikimania had difficulty getting good access to Wikipedia during their stay in Hong Kong, for example). A redirect means that the reader must first load up the "redirect" page and then follow the redirect instruction and wind up on the intended page. I don't think we pay nearly enough attention to the comparatively poor performance from WMF that our Asian, African, and South American colleagues experience; we're terribly spoiled.
that's not how redirects work on Wikipedia. (at least for a redirect directly to a page with content. double redirects, i.e. a redirect to a redirect which then points to a real page it is more like how you described. but we have bots and special: pages for fixing double redirects)
we serve a 200 with a little hatnote that says it was a redirect and otherwise serve the same content as if they had visited the canonical name directly. i.e. we don't currently send a 30x to the canonical name and the alternative name remains in the URL in the user's location bar.
the actual timing difference client-side should be smaller than anything a human could detect. (or too small for a computer to notice? idk if anyone's done a study)
-Jeremy
Yeah, I keep hearing those excuses for performance problems, Jeremy. It takes longer to serve up the original page here in North America on a fast connection - enough so that it is noticeable on a normal computer.
Risker/Anne
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, I keep hearing those excuses for performance problems, Jeremy. It takes longer to serve up the original page here in North America on a fast connection - enough so that it is noticeable on a normal computer.
I don't know what that means. ("Original page"? does that mean it loads faster with a redirect than by hitting the canonical URL directly?)
Please provide enough details (steps, recipe, instructions, whatever you want to call it) so that someone else could repeat your experiment to verify your results.
Ideally we'd do that for both logged in and logged out users (and various combinations of prefs) but in the case of redirects for Shirley Temple Black and Chelsea Manning I think we mostly care about logged out users visiting the /wiki/${title} style URLs (so not people visiting &uselang= or &useskin= URLs) so let's focus on those. Which case were you testing?
-Jeremy
On 7 September 2013 10:49, Jeremy Baron jeremy@tuxmachine.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, I keep hearing those excuses for performance problems, Jeremy. It takes longer to serve up the original page here in North America on a
fast
connection - enough so that it is noticeable on a normal computer.
I don't know what that means. ("Original page"? does that mean it loads faster with a redirect than by hitting the canonical URL directly?)
Please provide enough details (steps, recipe, instructions, whatever you want to call it) so that someone else could repeat your experiment to verify your results.
Ideally we'd do that for both logged in and logged out users (and various combinations of prefs) but in the case of redirects for Shirley Temple Black and Chelsea Manning I think we mostly care about logged out users visiting the /wiki/${title} style URLs (so not people visiting &uselang= or &useskin= URLs) so let's focus on those. Which case were you testing?
Jeremy, this is not the "performance testing" list. The paragraph you've written above is pretty well the definition of why women don't stick around wikipedia - they say something that to anyone else is obvious, but not to those who just cannot resist writing code into their responses. You know why they call it code? Because *most* people don't understand it.
The fact that you're entirely missing the point of this discussion by digressing into a proposal to test the speed of redirects vs canonical pages should generally be a hint that you're moving into your own comfort zone and leaving the rest of us behind.
Risker
Let me chime in with some background information that might help explain.
Article title disputes are some of the longest and most difficult disputes to resolve on Wikipedia because many people, places, and things are well known by different names. So it is almost impossible to make everyone feel good about the final decision. Plus there is constantly a large incoming group of people who reopen the dispute.
Deciding on a name that is most widely associated with the person, place, and thing is a reasonably good way to resolve the dispute and explain it to the next group of people who question the title. So it is customary to use most widely known name when deciding on a title of an article.
That said, Biographies of Living People need to be handled with extra care. I'm in favor of taking into consideration the views of the person if it does not violate other core policies. For example the name must be verifiable in reliable sources. This is a general issue beyond transgender naming rules.
Part of the problem is the high profile nature of the person behind this article and the dramatic way the announcement took place.
If I saw a request by a living person to rename an article that was verifiable I would change it and most of the time no one would care. Documenting the reason on the talk page would be adequate.
This particular article dispute is troubling to me because it seems to highlight the systemic bias in Wikipedia. The talk page discussions had many I unenlightened comments that were offensive.
I'm most worried that we are going enshrine in a revised policy a rigid naming convention that will cause distress to lesser known people who are trying to make their way in the world as they transition to their prefer gender identity.
I, too, support giving a living person a voice in deciding. and I see no harm in using the gender pronouns and name that they prefer.
Hope that helps explain why using re-directs is not the first way editors think to resolve this and other similar disputes.
Sydney Poore User:FloNight
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 5, 2013, at 6:16 PM, Valerie Aurora valerie@adainitiative.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Actually you would be surprised at the nature of some of the renaming debates on Wikipedia in the area of artists like the one you mention, but also artists from the 17th-century. One could probably write a funny book about renaming debates on Wikipedia. I do think the Shirley Temple article should be named Shirley Temple for the notability issue. In the second screen effect, during a Shirley Temple movie, people will google Shirley Temple and not Shirley Temple Black.
Okay, I've been wondering about this argument for a while - "It's what people search for so we have to keep that as the name of the article." As far as I can tell, that's what redirects are for: search for "Shirley Temple" and you can get a page named "Shirley Temple Black" with a little note at the top that says "Redirected from Shirley Temple."
Can someone with more WP experience explain why redirects aren't sufficient for the "what people search for" argument?
(FYI I'm on the "call people what they want to be called, including pronouns" side of the question.)
-VAL
-- You can help increase the participation of women in open technology and culture! Donate today at http://adainitiative.org/donate/
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I think the details of this dispute make it particularly prone to emotional positions on both sides, not unlike many other naming disputes (which have historically been some of the most intractable, although usually for reasons of nationalism). Sue and others make a good point about the existence of expertise on trans issues and gender identity in academia, but... This is an editorial decision, despite the academic and moral positions many have staked out.
Wikipedia is ultimately a reference work, and its principal mission is to provide a useful reference to potential readers. In the tension between "do no harm to living people" and "best serve our educational mission", we often come down in favor of the mission. If you don't think this is the case, you should re-familiarize yourself with the many situations in which we partly ignore complaints by living people and retain well-verified but potentially negative content. There is a legitimate debate to be made about the judgment on where to draw the line in each unique set of circumstances... but it isn't as clear cut as some, including Sue, have asserted.
My opinion is that it makes sense to continue to host the article at [[Bradley Manning]], and to avoid trying to preempt or influence coverage in favor of using Chelsea Manning's preferred identity. I believe that over time the weight of coverage will change in favor of her preference, and our article can evolve accordingly. The administrators who jumped at the chance to make controversial changes without even an attempt at discussion or consensus have been justly criticized, and while rigid policies that proscribe attempts to arrive at a consensus judgment on a case by case basis is the wrong solution, it is sensible to try address the poor conduct of several administrators in this case.
On 06.09.2013, at 01:43, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
My opinion is that it makes sense to continue to host the article at [[Bradley Manning]], and to avoid trying to preempt or influence coverage in favor of using Chelsea Manning's preferred identity.
So you're influencing coverage in favor of using “Bradley”.
I believe that over time the weight of coverage will change in favor of her preference, and our article can evolve accordingly.
Since when is Wikipedia about beliefs?
On Sep 5, 2013, at 11:34 PM, Helga Hansen mail@helgahansen.de wrote:
Since when is Wikipedia about beliefs?
The question of what policy to follow regarding article names, in general, has no externally valid single right answer. "Cat"? "Felis Silvestrus Catus"? "Kitties!"? "Neko"?
The default standard is the most widely used common (not jargon) name for the thing. The logic is, that's the most likely search start, particularly for non experts.
That is intentionally biased; towards a perceived norm, rather than an academic or technically more correct answer, towards internet search results as a proxy for popularity, towards the US as the most likely source of a first consensus on common name, etc.
Which of these biases to adopt as default was a value or belief system judgement. We know that, intellectually. But there was no other framework in which to decide.
Sent from Kangphone
I believe that over time the weight of coverage will change in favor of her preference, and our article can evolve accordingly.
Since when is Wikipedia about beliefs?
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change
Daniel Case
Actually you would be surprised at the nature of some of the renaming debates on Wikipedia in the area of artists like the one you mention, but also artists from the 17th-century. One could probably write a funny book about renaming debates on Wikipedia.
You could start by expanding the relevant entries from this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars/Names
For one of the most famous recent examples, look at Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness, up to about Archive 7. Or the way it's best summarized here: http://xkcd.com/1167/
And, at the bottom of the current talk page, someone almost inadvertently revived it.
Daniel Case
My thought was on reading your comment was something like... it didn't seem at all a sexist comment, and wondering why you were focusing on the word "body" and ingnoring "mind".
It struck me as somewhat odd, pleasant, sweet post which elicited an unpleasant reaction.
I'd suggest probably to anyone reading it.. the reaction is what might put them off Wikipedia. Because after all, a friendly posting on a noticeboard getting flamed is the sort of environment we *know* is offputting to people.
Tom
On 18 July 2013 16:10, Katherine Casey fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
But I did all those things, Powers. I said that I knew it was supposed to be humourous and that LoS might not personally mind it, and I said that my concern was for other people reading it. And the responses I've gotten, both directed at me and among people not talking to me, were pretty horrible. All of them alleged that I had no right to speak at all, and certainly not a right to ruin the fun other editors were having with my silly old "women are equal" crap.
I see a large part - maybe the bigger part - of the problem here as the fact that men perceive my intervention as "humorless scolding" that's just out to ruin their good, clean fun (fun that was totally humorous and in no way in need of correction, of course), and that they feel the appropriate response to that is to jeer, laugh, and insult me freely, the better to make sure no woman dares speak up next time.
As a thought experiment, Powers, consider: would you ever tell a male editor that their behavior came off as "scolding"? I suspect the answer is no; that's a term almost exclusively reserved for use against women.
-Fluff
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Powers LtPowers_Wiki@rochester.rr.comwrote:
I think your approach was well-intentioned but flawed, much like Drmies’ initial post.
Unfortunately, your admonition came off like the stereotypical “that’s so sexist to comment on a woman’s body” approach, which triggered defenses that focused on the fact that it was just a joke, Drmies and LoS are friends, why don’t you people have a sense of humor?
If, instead, you’d acknowledged the humor (rather than just an attempt at humor), acknowledged that LoS herself likely would not find it offensive, nor that Drmies intended it as such… and then explained that your concern was for other editors who might come across the comment and, not knowing the relationships involved, tick Wikipedia down yet another mental notch in “welcomingness”.
Instead you came across as humorless and scolding, which rarely garners productive responses.
Powers &8^]
-----Original Message----- *From:* Katherine Casey [mailto:fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday 17 July 2013 14:24 *To:* Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects *Subject:* [Gendergap] Casual sexism on en.wp
Another day, another examplehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=564679884&oldid=564678700of casual sexism exhibited by en.wikipedia editors who mean absolutely no harm, but simply don't understand how they could cause harm while meaning none. I seem to havehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Another_admin_issuecaused significant alarm and offense to a number of male editors be publicly pointing out that I found the comment inappropriate.
Was there a better way to handle this? I can't help feeling that saying nothing or hatting the section would have been supporting the notion that it's either not a problem or not remarkable for male editors to make comments encouraging others to comment on female editors' bodies.
-Fluff
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
On Jul 18, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
My thought was on reading your comment was something like... it didn't seem at all a sexist comment, and wondering why you were focusing on the word "body" and ingnoring "mind".
Of course it was sexist. Would Drmies have made a joke about complimenting the editor's body if the editor had been male? Not a chance in hell. Just because something isn't blatantly offensive doesn't mean it isn't sexist.
Ryan Kaldari
It struck me as somewhat odd, pleasant, sweet post which elicited an unpleasant reaction.
I'd suggest probably to anyone reading it.. the reaction is what might put them off Wikipedia. Because after all, a friendly posting on a noticeboard getting flamed is the sort of environment we *know* is offputting to people.
Tom
On 18 July 2013 16:10, Katherine Casey fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
But I did all those things, Powers. I said that I knew it was supposed to be humourous and that LoS might not personally mind it, and I said that my concern was for other people reading it. And the responses I've gotten, both directed at me and among people not talking to me, were pretty horrible. All of them alleged that I had no right to speak at all, and certainly not a right to ruin the fun other editors were having with my silly old "women are equal" crap.
I see a large part - maybe the bigger part - of the problem here as the fact that men perceive my intervention as "humorless scolding" that's just out to ruin their good, clean fun (fun that was totally humorous and in no way in need of correction, of course), and that they feel the appropriate response to that is to jeer, laugh, and insult me freely, the better to make sure no woman dares speak up next time.
As a thought experiment, Powers, consider: would you ever tell a male editor that their behavior came off as "scolding"? I suspect the answer is no; that's a term almost exclusively reserved for use against women.
-Fluff
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Powers LtPowers_Wiki@rochester.rr.com wrote:
I think your approach was well-intentioned but flawed, much like Drmies’ initial post.
Unfortunately, your admonition came off like the stereotypical “that’s so sexist to comment on a woman’s body” approach, which triggered defenses that focused on the fact that it was just a joke, Drmies and LoS are friends, why don’t you people have a sense of humor?
If, instead, you’d acknowledged the humor (rather than just an attempt at humor), acknowledged that LoS herself likely would not find it offensive, nor that Drmies intended it as such… and then explained that your concern was for other editors who might come across the comment and, not knowing the relationships involved, tick Wikipedia down yet another mental notch in “welcomingness”.
Instead you came across as humorless and scolding, which rarely garners productive responses.
Powers &8^]
-----Original Message----- From: Katherine Casey [mailto:fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday 17 July 2013 14:24 To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects Subject: [Gendergap] Casual sexism on en.wp
Another day, another example of casual sexism exhibited by en.wikipedia editors who mean absolutely no harm, but simply don't understand how they could cause harm while meaning none. I seem to have caused significant alarm and offense to a number of male editors be publicly pointing out that I found the comment inappropriate.
Was there a better way to handle this? I can't help feeling that saying nothing or hatting the section would have been supporting the notion that it's either not a problem or not remarkable for male editors to make comments encouraging others to comment on female editors' bodies.
-Fluff
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
He almost certainly would have :)
There is nothing inappropriate about the phrase mind and body.
What is inappropriate is nerd rage. That's what puts of people (of all sorts) from contributing.
But I know I am in a minority singing from the sensible hymn sheet around here so I'll put up ;) hopefully having made a point that might cause at least one person to think carefully.
Tom On 18 Jul 2013 17:49, "Ryan Kaldari" rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Jul 18, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
My thought was on reading your comment was something like... it didn't seem at all a sexist comment, and wondering why you were focusing on the word "body" and ingnoring "mind".
Of course it was sexist. Would Drmies have made a joke about complimenting the editor's body if the editor had been male? Not a chance in hell. Just because something isn't blatantly offensive doesn't mean it isn't sexist.
Ryan Kaldari
It struck me as somewhat odd, pleasant, sweet post which elicited an unpleasant reaction.
I'd suggest probably to anyone reading it.. the reaction is what might put them off Wikipedia. Because after all, a friendly posting on a noticeboard getting flamed is the sort of environment we *know* is offputting to people.
Tom
On 18 July 2013 16:10, Katherine Casey fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.comwrote:
But I did all those things, Powers. I said that I knew it was supposed to be humourous and that LoS might not personally mind it, and I said that my concern was for other people reading it. And the responses I've gotten, both directed at me and among people not talking to me, were pretty horrible. All of them alleged that I had no right to speak at all, and certainly not a right to ruin the fun other editors were having with my silly old "women are equal" crap.
I see a large part - maybe the bigger part - of the problem here as the fact that men perceive my intervention as "humorless scolding" that's just out to ruin their good, clean fun (fun that was totally humorous and in no way in need of correction, of course), and that they feel the appropriate response to that is to jeer, laugh, and insult me freely, the better to make sure no woman dares speak up next time.
As a thought experiment, Powers, consider: would you ever tell a male editor that their behavior came off as "scolding"? I suspect the answer is no; that's a term almost exclusively reserved for use against women.
-Fluff
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Powers LtPowers_Wiki@rochester.rr.comwrote:
I think your approach was well-intentioned but flawed, much like Drmies’ initial post.
Unfortunately, your admonition came off like the stereotypical “that’s so sexist to comment on a woman’s body” approach, which triggered defenses that focused on the fact that it was just a joke, Drmies and LoS are friends, why don’t you people have a sense of humor?
If, instead, you’d acknowledged the humor (rather than just an attempt at humor), acknowledged that LoS herself likely would not find it offensive, nor that Drmies intended it as such… and then explained that your concern was for other editors who might come across the comment and, not knowing the relationships involved, tick Wikipedia down yet another mental notch in “welcomingness”.
Instead you came across as humorless and scolding, which rarely garners productive responses.
Powers &8^]
-----Original Message----- *From:* Katherine Casey [mailto:fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday 17 July 2013 14:24 *To:* Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects *Subject:* [Gendergap] Casual sexism on en.wp
Another day, another examplehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=564679884&oldid=564678700of casual sexism exhibited by en.wikipedia editors who mean absolutely no harm, but simply don't understand how they could cause harm while meaning none. I seem to havehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Another_admin_issuecaused significant alarm and offense to a number of male editors be publicly pointing out that I found the comment inappropriate.
Was there a better way to handle this? I can't help feeling that saying nothing or hatting the section would have been supporting the notion that it's either not a problem or not remarkable for male editors to make comments encouraging others to comment on female editors' bodies.
-Fluff
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
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Quoth Tom Morton:* "But I know I am in a minority singing from the sensible hymn sheet around here so I'll put up ;) hopefully having made a point that might cause at least one person to think carefully."*
Well, you've certainly made me think carefully about whether this list is actually a safe space to discuss sexism- and gender-related issues.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Thomas Morton < morton.thomas@googlemail.com> wrote:
He almost certainly would have :)
There is nothing inappropriate about the phrase mind and body.
What is inappropriate is nerd rage. That's what puts of people (of all sorts) from contributing.
But I know I am in a minority singing from the sensible hymn sheet around here so I'll put up ;) hopefully having made a point that might cause at least one person to think carefully.
Tom On 18 Jul 2013 17:49, "Ryan Kaldari" rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Jul 18, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
My thought was on reading your comment was something like... it didn't seem at all a sexist comment, and wondering why you were focusing on the word "body" and ingnoring "mind".
Of course it was sexist. Would Drmies have made a joke about complimenting the editor's body if the editor had been male? Not a chance in hell. Just because something isn't blatantly offensive doesn't mean it isn't sexist.
Ryan Kaldari
It struck me as somewhat odd, pleasant, sweet post which elicited an unpleasant reaction.
I'd suggest probably to anyone reading it.. the reaction is what might put them off Wikipedia. Because after all, a friendly posting on a noticeboard getting flamed is the sort of environment we *know* is offputting to people.
Tom
On 18 July 2013 16:10, Katherine Casey fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.comwrote:
But I did all those things, Powers. I said that I knew it was supposed to be humourous and that LoS might not personally mind it, and I said that my concern was for other people reading it. And the responses I've gotten, both directed at me and among people not talking to me, were pretty horrible. All of them alleged that I had no right to speak at all, and certainly not a right to ruin the fun other editors were having with my silly old "women are equal" crap.
I see a large part - maybe the bigger part - of the problem here as the fact that men perceive my intervention as "humorless scolding" that's just out to ruin their good, clean fun (fun that was totally humorous and in no way in need of correction, of course), and that they feel the appropriate response to that is to jeer, laugh, and insult me freely, the better to make sure no woman dares speak up next time.
As a thought experiment, Powers, consider: would you ever tell a male editor that their behavior came off as "scolding"? I suspect the answer is no; that's a term almost exclusively reserved for use against women.
-Fluff
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Powers LtPowers_Wiki@rochester.rr.comwrote:
I think your approach was well-intentioned but flawed, much like Drmies’ initial post.
Unfortunately, your admonition came off like the stereotypical “that’s so sexist to comment on a woman’s body” approach, which triggered defenses that focused on the fact that it was just a joke, Drmies and LoS are friends, why don’t you people have a sense of humor?
If, instead, you’d acknowledged the humor (rather than just an attempt at humor), acknowledged that LoS herself likely would not find it offensive, nor that Drmies intended it as such… and then explained that your concern was for other editors who might come across the comment and, not knowing the relationships involved, tick Wikipedia down yet another mental notch in “welcomingness”.
Instead you came across as humorless and scolding, which rarely garners productive responses.
Powers &8^]
-----Original Message----- *From:* Katherine Casey [mailto:fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday 17 July 2013 14:24 *To:* Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects *Subject:* [Gendergap] Casual sexism on en.wp
Another day, another examplehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=564679884&oldid=564678700of casual sexism exhibited by en.wikipedia editors who mean absolutely no harm, but simply don't understand how they could cause harm while meaning none. I seem to havehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Another_admin_issuecaused significant alarm and offense to a number of male editors be publicly pointing out that I found the comment inappropriate.
Was there a better way to handle this? I can't help feeling that saying nothing or hatting the section would have been supporting the notion that it's either not a problem or not remarkable for male editors to make comments encouraging others to comment on female editors' bodies.
-Fluff
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
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
Ugh. So is "safe" merely a synonym for echo chamber?
I obviously apologise if you feel threatened. It was not my intention.
Tom On 18 Jul 2013 17:58, "Katherine Casey" fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Quoth Tom Morton:* "But I know I am in a minority singing from the sensible hymn sheet around here so I'll put up ;) hopefully having made a point that might cause at least one person to think carefully."*
Well, you've certainly made me think carefully about whether this list is actually a safe space to discuss sexism- and gender-related issues.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Thomas Morton < morton.thomas@googlemail.com> wrote:
He almost certainly would have :)
There is nothing inappropriate about the phrase mind and body.
What is inappropriate is nerd rage. That's what puts of people (of all sorts) from contributing.
But I know I am in a minority singing from the sensible hymn sheet around here so I'll put up ;) hopefully having made a point that might cause at least one person to think carefully.
Tom On 18 Jul 2013 17:49, "Ryan Kaldari" rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Jul 18, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
My thought was on reading your comment was something like... it didn't seem at all a sexist comment, and wondering why you were focusing on the word "body" and ingnoring "mind".
Of course it was sexist. Would Drmies have made a joke about complimenting the editor's body if the editor had been male? Not a chance in hell. Just because something isn't blatantly offensive doesn't mean it isn't sexist.
Ryan Kaldari
It struck me as somewhat odd, pleasant, sweet post which elicited an unpleasant reaction.
I'd suggest probably to anyone reading it.. the reaction is what might put them off Wikipedia. Because after all, a friendly posting on a noticeboard getting flamed is the sort of environment we *know* is offputting to people.
Tom
On 18 July 2013 16:10, Katherine Casey fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.comwrote:
But I did all those things, Powers. I said that I knew it was supposed to be humourous and that LoS might not personally mind it, and I said that my concern was for other people reading it. And the responses I've gotten, both directed at me and among people not talking to me, were pretty horrible. All of them alleged that I had no right to speak at all, and certainly not a right to ruin the fun other editors were having with my silly old "women are equal" crap.
I see a large part - maybe the bigger part - of the problem here as the fact that men perceive my intervention as "humorless scolding" that's just out to ruin their good, clean fun (fun that was totally humorous and in no way in need of correction, of course), and that they feel the appropriate response to that is to jeer, laugh, and insult me freely, the better to make sure no woman dares speak up next time.
As a thought experiment, Powers, consider: would you ever tell a male editor that their behavior came off as "scolding"? I suspect the answer is no; that's a term almost exclusively reserved for use against women.
-Fluff
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Powers <LtPowers_Wiki@rochester.rr.com
wrote:
I think your approach was well-intentioned but flawed, much like Drmies’ initial post.
Unfortunately, your admonition came off like the stereotypical “that’s so sexist to comment on a woman’s body” approach, which triggered defenses that focused on the fact that it was just a joke, Drmies and LoS are friends, why don’t you people have a sense of humor?
If, instead, you’d acknowledged the humor (rather than just an attempt at humor), acknowledged that LoS herself likely would not find it offensive, nor that Drmies intended it as such… and then explained that your concern was for other editors who might come across the comment and, not knowing the relationships involved, tick Wikipedia down yet another mental notch in “welcomingness”.
Instead you came across as humorless and scolding, which rarely garners productive responses.
Powers &8^]
-----Original Message----- *From:* Katherine Casey [mailto:fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday 17 July 2013 14:24 *To:* Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects *Subject:* [Gendergap] Casual sexism on en.wp
Another day, another examplehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=564679884&oldid=564678700of casual sexism exhibited by en.wikipedia editors who mean absolutely no harm, but simply don't understand how they could cause harm while meaning none. I seem to havehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Another_admin_issuecaused significant alarm and offense to a number of male editors be publicly pointing out that I found the comment inappropriate.
Was there a better way to handle this? I can't help feeling that saying nothing or hatting the section would have been supporting the notion that it's either not a problem or not remarkable for male editors to make comments encouraging others to comment on female editors' bodies.
-Fluff
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
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
Tom, I get you didn't intend that. And yet, by saying you held down the "minority" and "sensible" place, there's the subtle implication that other perspectives and most other people aren't sensible. :)
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Thomas Morton < morton.thomas@googlemail.com> wrote:
Ugh. So is "safe" merely a synonym for echo chamber?
I obviously apologise if you feel threatened. It was not my intention.
Tom On 18 Jul 2013 17:58, "Katherine Casey" fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Quoth Tom Morton:* "But I know I am in a minority singing from the sensible hymn sheet around here so I'll put up ;) hopefully having made a point that might cause at least one person to think carefully."*
Well, you've certainly made me think carefully about whether this list is actually a safe space to discuss sexism- and gender-related issues.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Thomas Morton < morton.thomas@googlemail.com> wrote:
He almost certainly would have :)
There is nothing inappropriate about the phrase mind and body.
What is inappropriate is nerd rage. That's what puts of people (of all sorts) from contributing.
But I know I am in a minority singing from the sensible hymn sheet around here so I'll put up ;) hopefully having made a point that might cause at least one person to think carefully.
Tom On 18 Jul 2013 17:49, "Ryan Kaldari" rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Jul 18, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Thomas Morton < morton.thomas@googlemail.com> wrote:
My thought was on reading your comment was something like... it didn't seem at all a sexist comment, and wondering why you were focusing on the word "body" and ingnoring "mind".
Of course it was sexist. Would Drmies have made a joke about complimenting the editor's body if the editor had been male? Not a chance in hell. Just because something isn't blatantly offensive doesn't mean it isn't sexist.
Ryan Kaldari
It struck me as somewhat odd, pleasant, sweet post which elicited an unpleasant reaction.
I'd suggest probably to anyone reading it.. the reaction is what might put them off Wikipedia. Because after all, a friendly posting on a noticeboard getting flamed is the sort of environment we *know* is offputting to people.
Tom
On 18 July 2013 16:10, Katherine Casey fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.comwrote:
But I did all those things, Powers. I said that I knew it was supposed to be humourous and that LoS might not personally mind it, and I said that my concern was for other people reading it. And the responses I've gotten, both directed at me and among people not talking to me, were pretty horrible. All of them alleged that I had no right to speak at all, and certainly not a right to ruin the fun other editors were having with my silly old "women are equal" crap.
I see a large part - maybe the bigger part - of the problem here as the fact that men perceive my intervention as "humorless scolding" that's just out to ruin their good, clean fun (fun that was totally humorous and in no way in need of correction, of course), and that they feel the appropriate response to that is to jeer, laugh, and insult me freely, the better to make sure no woman dares speak up next time.
As a thought experiment, Powers, consider: would you ever tell a male editor that their behavior came off as "scolding"? I suspect the answer is no; that's a term almost exclusively reserved for use against women.
-Fluff
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Powers < LtPowers_Wiki@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
I think your approach was well-intentioned but flawed, much like Drmies’ initial post.
Unfortunately, your admonition came off like the stereotypical “that’s so sexist to comment on a woman’s body” approach, which triggered defenses that focused on the fact that it was just a joke, Drmies and LoS are friends, why don’t you people have a sense of humor?
If, instead, you’d acknowledged the humor (rather than just an attempt at humor), acknowledged that LoS herself likely would not find it offensive, nor that Drmies intended it as such… and then explained that your concern was for other editors who might come across the comment and, not knowing the relationships involved, tick Wikipedia down yet another mental notch in “welcomingness”.
Instead you came across as humorless and scolding, which rarely garners productive responses.
Powers &8^]
-----Original Message----- *From:* Katherine Casey [mailto:fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday 17 July 2013 14:24 *To:* Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects *Subject:* [Gendergap] Casual sexism on en.wp
Another day, another examplehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=564679884&oldid=564678700of casual sexism exhibited by en.wikipedia editors who mean absolutely no harm, but simply don't understand how they could cause harm while meaning none. I seem to havehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Another_admin_issuecaused significant alarm and offense to a number of male editors be publicly pointing out that I found the comment inappropriate.
Was there a better way to handle this? I can't help feeling that saying nothing or hatting the section would have been supporting the notion that it's either not a problem or not remarkable for male editors to make comments encouraging others to comment on female editors' bodies.
-Fluff
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
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
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Ok I get what you mean. That wasn't phrased too well. :)
Sorry!
Tom On 18 Jul 2013 18:13, "Gayle Karen Young" gyoung@wikimedia.org wrote:
Tom, I get you didn't intend that. And yet, by saying you held down the "minority" and "sensible" place, there's the subtle implication that other perspectives and most other people aren't sensible. :)
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Thomas Morton < morton.thomas@googlemail.com> wrote:
Ugh. So is "safe" merely a synonym for echo chamber?
I obviously apologise if you feel threatened. It was not my intention.
Tom On 18 Jul 2013 17:58, "Katherine Casey" fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Quoth Tom Morton:* "But I know I am in a minority singing from the sensible hymn sheet around here so I'll put up ;) hopefully having made a point that might cause at least one person to think carefully."*
Well, you've certainly made me think carefully about whether this list is actually a safe space to discuss sexism- and gender-related issues.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Thomas Morton < morton.thomas@googlemail.com> wrote:
He almost certainly would have :)
There is nothing inappropriate about the phrase mind and body.
What is inappropriate is nerd rage. That's what puts of people (of all sorts) from contributing.
But I know I am in a minority singing from the sensible hymn sheet around here so I'll put up ;) hopefully having made a point that might cause at least one person to think carefully.
Tom On 18 Jul 2013 17:49, "Ryan Kaldari" rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Jul 18, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Thomas Morton < morton.thomas@googlemail.com> wrote:
My thought was on reading your comment was something like... it didn't seem at all a sexist comment, and wondering why you were focusing on the word "body" and ingnoring "mind".
Of course it was sexist. Would Drmies have made a joke about complimenting the editor's body if the editor had been male? Not a chance in hell. Just because something isn't blatantly offensive doesn't mean it isn't sexist.
Ryan Kaldari
It struck me as somewhat odd, pleasant, sweet post which elicited an unpleasant reaction.
I'd suggest probably to anyone reading it.. the reaction is what might put them off Wikipedia. Because after all, a friendly posting on a noticeboard getting flamed is the sort of environment we *know* is offputting to people.
Tom
On 18 July 2013 16:10, Katherine Casey fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.comwrote:
But I did all those things, Powers. I said that I knew it was supposed to be humourous and that LoS might not personally mind it, and I said that my concern was for other people reading it. And the responses I've gotten, both directed at me and among people not talking to me, were pretty horrible. All of them alleged that I had no right to speak at all, and certainly not a right to ruin the fun other editors were having with my silly old "women are equal" crap.
I see a large part - maybe the bigger part - of the problem here as the fact that men perceive my intervention as "humorless scolding" that's just out to ruin their good, clean fun (fun that was totally humorous and in no way in need of correction, of course), and that they feel the appropriate response to that is to jeer, laugh, and insult me freely, the better to make sure no woman dares speak up next time.
As a thought experiment, Powers, consider: would you ever tell a male editor that their behavior came off as "scolding"? I suspect the answer is no; that's a term almost exclusively reserved for use against women.
-Fluff
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Powers < LtPowers_Wiki@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> I think your approach was well-intentioned but flawed, much like > Drmies’ initial post. > > > > Unfortunately, your admonition came off like the stereotypical > “that’s so sexist to comment on a woman’s body” approach, which triggered > defenses that focused on the fact that it was just a joke, Drmies and LoS > are friends, why don’t you people have a sense of humor? > > > > If, instead, you’d acknowledged the humor (rather than just an > attempt at humor), acknowledged that LoS herself likely would not find it > offensive, nor that Drmies intended it as such… and then explained that > your concern was for other editors who might come across the comment and, > not knowing the relationships involved, tick Wikipedia down yet another > mental notch in “welcomingness”. > > > > Instead you came across as humorless and scolding, which rarely > garners productive responses. > > > > > > Powers &8^] > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Katherine Casey [mailto:fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday 17 July 2013 14:24 > *To:* Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects > *Subject:* [Gendergap] Casual sexism on en.wp > > > > Another day, another examplehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=564679884&oldid=564678700of casual sexism exhibited by en.wikipedia editors who mean absolutely no > harm, but simply don't understand how they could cause harm while meaning > none. I seem to havehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Another_admin_issuecaused significant alarm and offense to a number of male editors be > publicly pointing out that I found the comment inappropriate. > > > > Was there a better way to handle this? I can't help feeling that > saying nothing or hatting the section would have been supporting the notion > that it's either not a problem or not remarkable for male editors to make > comments encouraging others to comment on female editors' bodies. > > > > -Fluff > > _______________________________________________ > 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
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
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- Gayle Karen K. Young Chief Talent and Culture Officer Wikimedia Foundation 415.310.8416 www.wikimediafoundation.org
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas@googlemail.com
wrote:
He almost certainly would have :)
There is nothing inappropriate about the phrase mind and body.
What is inappropriate is nerd rage. That's what puts of people (of all sorts) from contributing.
But I know I am in a minority singing from the sensible hymn sheet around here so I'll put up ;) hopefully having made a point that might cause at least one person to think carefully.
Tom
Hi Tom,
When a woman sincerely alleges that something is sexist, or a black person that something is racist, or a gay person that something is homophobic, there's no point in a male/white/straight person rejecting it out of hand. The only way discrimination will ever end is if we admit we have blind spots, then try to work out whether one of them just kicked in.
That Fluff was attacked onwiki was predictable, and that's why most people wouldn't have said anything, but it would be great if members of this list would try to get the point she was making.
Sarah
Hi Sarah,
I hope you're not implying I was rejecting it out of hand :) I'm being fairly thoughtful about this, but I think Katherine didn't handle her concerns well, and I wanted to communicate that as pleasantly as I could.
I disagree with the approach you seem to be suggesting, which is to take any allegation of sexism (or etc.) and assume it to be both reasonable and accurate. Instead what I suggest is that it is perfectly fine (and actually a good thing) ot turn around and say "actually I don't think that was X", whilst still being sensitive of what that individual feels.
And, no, I don't think it was sexist. I thought it was a sweet and pleasant comment. Had the reference only been to body then I would almost certainly have been in agreement with others here.
The name of this list doesn't talk about sexism, per se, but does specifically talk about increasing participation of women within Wikimedia projects. One of the key problems that puts people off editing, women included, is how pleasant if kooky messages turn into unpleasant interactions (To be honest, AQFK started that problem with his first, quite hostile response).
I'm going to be controversial and say that 99.999% of the world, women included, would have read that comment and not considered it inappropriate, sexist of offputting. At least in my experience. That's not to say those that do have a problem with it should remain quiet, but I suggest the way to approach the topic is:
a) address drmies directly first b) avoid a lecturing tone (and I appreciate Katherine's initial note was not unpleasant, but I can see how it could be - and was - interpreted as patronising and lecturing. In the same way I see how Katherine sees the Drmies note as sexist)
Because the comment that was made in response to this, I believe, caused something which is more off-putting to new editors. The core problem we have as a community is that someone *always* seems to react negatively to *everything*. And I believe that is the key problem that puts women, and others, off Wikipedia as opposed to comments that could (or could not) be viewed as sexist.
I support and encourage people to voice their concerns. But what I suggest is that there is a way to voice concerns constructively, in ways that don't compound the problem! By approaching Drmies directly Katherine might have been able to explain her viewpoint to him and convince him of the issue that she saw. And he may then have edited the comment, or apologised. And he may then have begun to reconsider future comments in that context.
So that is why I think it's worth highlighting the matter from a different perspective :)
Tom
On 18 July 2013 21:44, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Thomas Morton < morton.thomas@googlemail.com> wrote:
He almost certainly would have :)
There is nothing inappropriate about the phrase mind and body.
What is inappropriate is nerd rage. That's what puts of people (of all sorts) from contributing.
But I know I am in a minority singing from the sensible hymn sheet around here so I'll put up ;) hopefully having made a point that might cause at least one person to think carefully.
Tom
Hi Tom,
When a woman sincerely alleges that something is sexist, or a black person that something is racist, or a gay person that something is homophobic, there's no point in a male/white/straight person rejecting it out of hand. The only way discrimination will ever end is if we admit we have blind spots, then try to work out whether one of them just kicked in.
That Fluff was attacked onwiki was predictable, and that's why most people wouldn't have said anything, but it would be great if members of this list would try to get the point she was making.
Sarah
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 7/19/2013 4:35 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
Hi Sarah,
I hope you're not implying I was rejecting it out of hand :) I'm being fairly thoughtful about this, but I think Katherine didn't handle her concerns well, and I wanted to communicate that as pleasantly as I could.
Most sexism is so subtle that it's hard to react to unless there's an obvious possible indicator, like the mention of the word "body" . It is more often practiced as ignoring comments and especially criticism from an editor perceived as female, being more hostile to comments from editor perceived as female than one perceived as male, claiming an editor perceived as female is being hostile for even the tiniest bit of insensitivity or even levity while ignoring or even supporting rank hostility from editors perceived as male, finding some absurd excuse to claim the editor perceived as female is sexist if she tries to point out sexism, etc. ( "either they ignore you or attack you syndrome...")
It's a delightful relief when (usually a newbie) engages in rank sexism because finally you have something to complain about they can't just "pooh pooh" away!
Recently during a WP:ANI an editor being criticized mistakenly (or maybe not in that editor's case) identified another editor who has an easily misunderstood user name as "she" while making a rather condescending remark. The guy had a fit and declared to the world in no uncertain terms that he was not a female and don't you dare insult me again. Since he and I were generally in agreement on the issues at hand, I saw it as more amusing than upsetting. But it certainly was indicative that some males feel they will be less credible if perceived as female.
Of course, at least with anonymous names you can call an editor him/her and "S/he" all you want, so at least they'll be in the same boat as us, if they do not make a disclaimer. Hmm, would it be naughty to call all editors "she" from now on til they claim otherwise?? (I've done it a few times to a couple editors with no response. Need a larger sample.)
CM
So..
That means...myself, and about 10 other people or however many have replied to this saying it is sexist are the .01% of women (and a of men) who are the absolute minority in feeling it was sexist regardless of the "level" of sexism. We are that sample. Wow. I can't believe we are all on this one mailing list! (Smirk)
Most of the comments (maybe all) have been made by Americans, too. So maybe it's us being the sensitive ones, too. (Slight sarcasm but not) I know some countries and cultures are more accepting of things like this - but that doesn't mean it's OK.
I call it "madmen sexism" (a US TV show about rather slimy advertising execs in the 1960s)...the kind of boardroom humor being made by men in power for decades.
However well intentioned something is its all about how the person it was directed at felt. Karen felt it is sexist.
So just accept it and stop the patronizing kindness and telling the person who experienced the uncomfortable situation most men will never experience how to "deal" with it better. Your emails, no matter how many smiley faces, have lecturing tones of a father telling his "sensitive" daughter how to cope with a delicate flower of a boy who said something inappropriate in the classroom. This is something that is so painful for me, no matter how "good faith."
Also, research has shown that many women hate confrontation. We hate it. The idea of going to someone who has made me uncomfortable and said something that made me feel uncomfortable makes me so...uncomfortable. Even as a person who prides myself on "telling it like it is" I fear further attacks, ostracization and more pain than finding a receptive person.
That is often more of a reason women don't contribute to male dominated online spaces as much. And being told that things get blown out of proportion is absurd. Do you know how much stuff doesn't get talked about that happens on Wikipedia or relation to it?
Weekly I deal with something. And I am being serious. So many things just don't get talked about.
But I'm typing on my phone and not capable time wise to get into theory, research and concepts onto why this is all so messed up.
Sarah
Sarah (Stierch)
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 19, 2013, at 1:35 AM, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Sarah,
I hope you're not implying I was rejecting it out of hand :) I'm being fairly thoughtful about this, but I think Katherine didn't handle her concerns well, and I wanted to communicate that as pleasantly as I could.
I disagree with the approach you seem to be suggesting, which is to take any allegation of sexism (or etc.) and assume it to be both reasonable and accurate. Instead what I suggest is that it is perfectly fine (and actually a good thing) ot turn around and say "actually I don't think that was X", whilst still being sensitive of what that individual feels.
And, no, I don't think it was sexist. I thought it was a sweet and pleasant comment. Had the reference only been to body then I would almost certainly have been in agreement with others here.
The name of this list doesn't talk about sexism, per se, but does specifically talk about increasing participation of women within Wikimedia projects. One of the key problems that puts people off editing, women included, is how pleasant if kooky messages turn into unpleasant interactions (To be honest, AQFK started that problem with his first, quite hostile response).
I'm going to be controversial and say that 99.999% of the world, women included, would have read that comment and not considered it inappropriate, sexist of offputting. At least in my experience. That's not to say those that do have a problem with it should remain quiet, but I suggest the way to approach the topic is:
a) address drmies directly first b) avoid a lecturing tone (and I appreciate Katherine's initial note was not unpleasant, but I can see how it could be - and was - interpreted as patronising and lecturing. In the same way I see how Katherine sees the Drmies note as sexist)
Because the comment that was made in response to this, I believe, caused something which is more off-putting to new editors. The core problem we have as a community is that someone *always* seems to react negatively to *everything*. And I believe that is the key problem that puts women, and others, off Wikipedia as opposed to comments that could (or could not) be viewed as sexist.
I support and encourage people to voice their concerns. But what I suggest is that there is a way to voice concerns constructively, in ways that don't compound the problem! By approaching Drmies directly Katherine might have been able to explain her viewpoint to him and convince him of the issue that she saw. And he may then have edited the comment, or apologised. And he may then have begun to reconsider future comments in that context.
So that is why I think it's worth highlighting the matter from a different perspective :)
Tom
On 18 July 2013 21:44, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
He almost certainly would have :)
There is nothing inappropriate about the phrase mind and body.
What is inappropriate is nerd rage. That's what puts of people (of all sorts) from contributing.
But I know I am in a minority singing from the sensible hymn sheet around here so I'll put up ;) hopefully having made a point that might cause at least one person to think carefully.
Tom
Hi Tom,
When a woman sincerely alleges that something is sexist, or a black person that something is racist, or a gay person that something is homophobic, there's no point in a male/white/straight person rejecting it out of hand. The only way discrimination will ever end is if we admit we have blind spots, then try to work out whether one of them just kicked in.
That Fluff was attacked onwiki was predictable, and that's why most people wouldn't have said anything, but it would be great if members of this list would try to get the point she was making.
Sarah
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
For those who don't quite get it, let's parse this original post, from a sample of possible viewpoints of various female or males users coming across this and trying to interpret it:
1. "Another admin issue": Hmm, what could this be? What is this B.S.? 2. "Today {{U|LadyofShalott}}, ''administratrice extraordinaire'', turns 25 yet again. " Birthday greetings, is that appropriate? Why is he inferring she's lying about her age? That b*tch is lying about her age? I hate women admins. 3. "She likes champagne and chocolate, and giftcards for the iTunes store. She graciously accepts compliments about the beauty of her mind and her body." Isn't that a bit personal and intrusive? Is he trying to make her look like a gold digger? She's an attention whore?? A real slut? Is she coming to the next wikimania? etc. 4. Edit summary: " we can hit her up in French, je pense) " Borrow money from her? French kiss her? Fuck her?
Pardon the crude language, but given the constant arguing back on this, I think we need to be explicit about what kind of thoughts such a message will engender. Doubters are quite naive if they think some horny young guys (who abound on Wikipedia) - not to mention any active misogynists*//* https://www.google.com/search?num=40&newwindow=1&client=firefox-a&hs=5uv&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=misogynists&spell=1&sa=X&ei=ZoDpUfKjH_Ti4AP-14CACw&ved=0CC0QvwUoAA - did not read negative or suggestive interpretations into that message!!
Note again that the woman it was addressed to explains it was from a friend and ok but also writes: "I also understand the concerns that others have raised. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Another...
Some people will take it as being sexualized or abusive; others will get off on it and see an excuse for writing sexually abusive things about women editors they do not know. And many women will worry that editors who are giving them problems may feel free to leave such strange messages in public places about them...
Understand now,??
On 7/19/2013 11:34 AM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
So..
That means...myself, and about 10 other people or however many have replied to this saying it is sexist are the .01% of women (and a of men) who are the absolute minority in feeling it was sexist regardless of the "level" of sexism. We are that sample. Wow. I can't believe we are all on this one mailing list! (Smirk)
Most of the comments (maybe all) have been made by Americans, too. So maybe it's us being the sensitive ones, too. (Slight sarcasm but not) I know some countries and cultures are more accepting of things like this - but that doesn't mean it's OK. ...
That's an incredibly extreme interpretation of it. And in my experience, fortunately, most of the world doesn't work that way.
In fact, Id suggest only the people here are interpreting it that way.
Which I've always found one of the key difficulties combatting sexism (same for lgbt issues).
As to the whole being too nicey issue: the alternative is to speak like I do to everyone else on every other list, which in the past got me accused of being sexist and unpleasant.
I'll say again; I know some people could view it as sexist. And they should properly voice their concerns to educate those they see as offenders. But they may also be wrong, and in this case I think you are. And in doing so caused the sort of environment that really does put people off.
But I am so disappointed with people on this list that I thought to be measured and thoughtful I really can't be bothered with you anymore. Sorry.
Tom On 19 Jul 2013 19:22, "Carol Moore dc" carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
For those who don't quite get it, let's parse this original post, from a sample of possible viewpoints of various female or males users coming across this and trying to interpret it:
- "Another admin issue": Hmm, what could this be? What is this B.S.?
- "Today {{U|LadyofShalott}}, ''administratrice extraordinaire'', turns
25 yet again. " Birthday greetings, is that appropriate? Why is he inferring she's lying about her age? That b*tch is lying about her age? I hate women admins. 3. "She likes champagne and chocolate, and giftcards for the iTunes store. She graciously accepts compliments about the beauty of her mind and her body." Isn't that a bit personal and intrusive? Is he trying to make her look like a gold digger? She's an attention whore?? A real slut? Is she coming to the next wikimania? etc. 4. Edit summary: " we can hit her up in French, je pense) " Borrow money from her? French kiss her? Fuck her?
Pardon the crude language, but given the constant arguing back on this, I think we need to be explicit about what kind of thoughts such a message will engender. Doubters are quite naive if they think some horny young guys (who abound on Wikipedia) - not to mention any active misogynists**https://www.google.com/search?num=40&newwindow=1&client=firefox-a&hs=5uv&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=misogynists&spell=1&sa=X&ei=ZoDpUfKjH_Ti4AP-14CACw&ved=0CC0QvwUoAA- did not read negative or suggestive interpretations into that message!!
Note again that the woman it was addressed to explains it was from a friend and ok but also writes: "I also understand the concerns that others have raised. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Another...
Some people will take it as being sexualized or abusive; others will get off on it and see an excuse for writing sexually abusive things about women editors they do not know. And many women will worry that editors who are giving them problems may feel free to leave such strange messages in public places about them...
Understand now,??
On 7/19/2013 11:34 AM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
So..
That means...myself, and about 10 other people or however many have replied to this saying it is sexist are the .01% of women (and a of men) who are the absolute minority in feeling it was sexist regardless of the "level" of sexism. We are that sample. Wow. I can't believe we are all on this one mailing list! (Smirk)
Most of the comments (maybe all) have been made by Americans, too. So maybe it's us being the sensitive ones, too. (Slight sarcasm but not) I know some countries and cultures are more accepting of things like this - but that doesn't mean it's OK. ...
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 7/19/2013 2:31 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
That's an incredibly extreme interpretation of it.
If one has led an incredibly sheltered life, it might seem so. But in the real world today...
And it only takes 1 out of 20 users getting their jollies from it to lead to 1 out of 5 of them acting out on it - so you are encouraging 1% of editors to be sexual harassers. (Or maybe 4 or 5%?) Now how many thousands of editors is that? So every time an editor thinks twice and does NOT make a post that can be misinterpreted, it lessens the chance of giving that 1% "permission" to act out.
Again, talking about possible double standards as to what is considered "untoward".
The one time I got blocked it was because (after incredible harassment on one article for sticking to policy when several editors were pushing OR) I lost my temper at another editor who was giving me a hard time at a noticeboard thread about the topic. I asked at his/her user page if the fact that s/he was being so aggressive with me was related to the fact most of the articles s/he dealt with were related to various forms of women in bondage. (I also posted it on the feminism wikia.com which I incorrectly thought was part of wikipedia; this was pre-Gender gap activism. The editor soon quit Wikipedia claiming something like it was not a safe place to edit.)
When s/he complained at ANI, did an admin just pooh pooh it as no big deal? As the editor having an extreme interpretation of what is a personal attack? Or did I get a six month block? .
.
. I won't keep you guessing; a six month block brought down to one week after I realized that asking questions based on editing habits was not right and apologized. Plus a bunch of editors said the fact I was being harassed and Wikiquette complaints had not stopped it were mitigating circumstances.
However, in a 30-40% women wikipedia world the harassment might have ended sooner - and it might not be considered untoward to ask that editor what the heck s/he was up to and ask for opinions here...
CM
Sarah. As a parting note. You mention how women dislike confrontation.
And yet I find your email incredibly confrontational.
So colour me unconvinced. Ive met plenty of people of either sex who hate confrontation. And vice versa.
For me I don't view the world divided by gender in the way many on this list have done.
Which is why I am bowing out because THAT is the true casual sexism we need to combat.
Tom On 19 Jul 2013 16:35, "Sarah Stierch" sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
So..
That means...myself, and about 10 other people or however many have replied to this saying it is sexist are the .01% of women (and a of men) who are the absolute minority in feeling it was sexist regardless of the "level" of sexism. We are that sample. Wow. I can't believe we are all on this one mailing list! (Smirk)
Most of the comments (maybe all) have been made by Americans, too. So maybe it's us being the sensitive ones, too. (Slight sarcasm but not) I know some countries and cultures are more accepting of things like this - but that doesn't mean it's OK.
I call it "madmen sexism" (a US TV show about rather slimy advertising execs in the 1960s)...the kind of boardroom humor being made by men in power for decades.
However well intentioned something is its all about how the person it was directed at felt. Karen felt it is sexist.
So just accept it and stop the patronizing kindness and telling the person who experienced the uncomfortable situation most men will never experience how to "deal" with it better. Your emails, no matter how many smiley faces, have lecturing tones of a father telling his "sensitive" daughter how to cope with a delicate flower of a boy who said something inappropriate in the classroom. This is something that is so painful for me, no matter how "good faith."
Also, research has shown that many women hate confrontation. We hate it. The idea of going to someone who has made me uncomfortable and said something that made me feel uncomfortable makes me so...uncomfortable. Even as a person who prides myself on "telling it like it is" I fear further attacks, ostracization and more pain than finding a receptive person.
That is often more of a reason women don't contribute to male dominated online spaces as much. And being told that things get blown out of proportion is absurd. Do you know how much stuff doesn't get talked about that happens on Wikipedia or relation to it?
Weekly I deal with something. And I am being serious. So many things just don't get talked about.
But I'm typing on my phone and not capable time wise to get into theory, research and concepts onto why this is all so messed up.
Sarah
Sarah (Stierch)
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 19, 2013, at 1:35 AM, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Sarah,
I hope you're not implying I was rejecting it out of hand :) I'm being fairly thoughtful about this, but I think Katherine didn't handle her concerns well, and I wanted to communicate that as pleasantly as I could.
I disagree with the approach you seem to be suggesting, which is to take any allegation of sexism (or etc.) and assume it to be both reasonable and accurate. Instead what I suggest is that it is perfectly fine (and actually a good thing) ot turn around and say "actually I don't think that was X", whilst still being sensitive of what that individual feels.
And, no, I don't think it was sexist. I thought it was a sweet and pleasant comment. Had the reference only been to body then I would almost certainly have been in agreement with others here.
The name of this list doesn't talk about sexism, per se, but does specifically talk about increasing participation of women within Wikimedia projects. One of the key problems that puts people off editing, women included, is how pleasant if kooky messages turn into unpleasant interactions (To be honest, AQFK started that problem with his first, quite hostile response).
I'm going to be controversial and say that 99.999% of the world, women included, would have read that comment and not considered it inappropriate, sexist of offputting. At least in my experience. That's not to say those that do have a problem with it should remain quiet, but I suggest the way to approach the topic is:
a) address drmies directly first b) avoid a lecturing tone (and I appreciate Katherine's initial note was not unpleasant, but I can see how it could be - and was - interpreted as patronising and lecturing. In the same way I see how Katherine sees the Drmies note as sexist)
Because the comment that was made in response to this, I believe, caused something which is more off-putting to new editors. The core problem we have as a community is that someone *always* seems to react negatively to *everything*. And I believe that is the key problem that puts women, and others, off Wikipedia as opposed to comments that could (or could not) be viewed as sexist.
I support and encourage people to voice their concerns. But what I suggest is that there is a way to voice concerns constructively, in ways that don't compound the problem! By approaching Drmies directly Katherine might have been able to explain her viewpoint to him and convince him of the issue that she saw. And he may then have edited the comment, or apologised. And he may then have begun to reconsider future comments in that context.
So that is why I think it's worth highlighting the matter from a different perspective :)
Tom
On 18 July 2013 21:44, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Thomas Morton < morton.thomas@googlemail.com> wrote:
He almost certainly would have :)
There is nothing inappropriate about the phrase mind and body.
What is inappropriate is nerd rage. That's what puts of people (of all sorts) from contributing.
But I know I am in a minority singing from the sensible hymn sheet around here so I'll put up ;) hopefully having made a point that might cause at least one person to think carefully.
Tom
Hi Tom,
When a woman sincerely alleges that something is sexist, or a black person that something is racist, or a gay person that something is homophobic, there's no point in a male/white/straight person rejecting it out of hand. The only way discrimination will ever end is if we admit we have blind spots, then try to work out whether one of them just kicked in.
That Fluff was attacked onwiki was predictable, and that's why most people wouldn't have said anything, but it would be great if members of this list would try to get the point she was making.
Sarah
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
On Jul 19, 2013 2:35 PM, "Thomas Morton" morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
Sarah. As a parting note. You mention how women dislike confrontation.
And yet I find your email incredibly confrontational.
So colour me unconvinced. Ive met plenty of people of either sex who hate
confrontation. And vice versa.
I think the point was that women may dislike confrontation more often than men and even when someone does decide to confront another person, then typically women doing so are more likely than men to be confronting reluctantly or it make take a greater emotional or psychological toll than for the typical man.
(run on sentence, sorry. at least I have a small excuse: typing on a phone!)
I don't think anyone was claiming that women would never be confrontational and not that they would never make a strong statement when they did confront someone.
-Jeremy
On 7/19/2013 2:35 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
Sarah. As a parting note. You mention how women dislike confrontation.
And yet I find your email incredibly confrontational.
So colour me unconvinced. Ive met plenty of people of either sex who hate confrontation. And vice versa.
For me I don't view the world divided by gender in the way many on this list have done.
Which is why I am bowing out because THAT is the true casual sexism we need to combat.
Tom
Study the concept of overlapping Bell Curves, with more women on the less confrontational side and more men on the more confrontational side. (Though men on the less confrontational side are probably called nasty names less than women on the more confrontation side are.)
Even as a quite assertive woman (except for brief periods when I've been really beaten down for it and retreat to heal) it took me two years on wikipedia before I went to just a regular noticeboard with an issue and another year or two before took anyone to ANI. And those are big steps up from just defending an edit on a talk page against 2 or 3 highly partisan and/or aggressive editors, which a lot of women (and men) prefer not to do.
And even I have now decided that articles where there's a lot of conflict (or gameplayers who noticeboards just don't deal with properly) aren't worth my time and energy any more and I've unwatched almost all of them...
CM
I think it would generally be wise to avoid jumping to conclusions. There was a great Guardian advert about this once:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SsccRkLLzU
LadyofShalott and Drmies are *friends*. She has 1200 edits to his talk page, he has 400 to hers.
Andreas
On 7/19/13 1:35 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
99.999% of the world, women included, would have read that comment and not considered it inappropriate, sexist...
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'm afraid I just can't agree with that. Commenting on a woman's body in an unexpected or inappropriate context is a very common and straightforward form of sexism. This isn't some obscure form of political correctness that only hardcore feminists are going to understand. I also find it hard to believe that you think Drmies would have been equally likely to make a comment about the beauty of a male editor's body on the Administrator's noticeboard. There are "blind spots" and then there's "putting one's head in the sand". I have to wonder which is the case here.
On a related note, I was also surprised that en.wiki chose not to feature the George Zimmerman verdict on In The News, even though it was topping U.S. headlines for a week, and many international news sources. There was rioting here in Oakland, so clearly this was a culturally significant event. I have to wonder how often our "NPOV" content decisions are actually a result of Wikipedia's skewed demographics.
Ryan Kaldari
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Thomas Morton <morton.thomas@googlemail.com
wrote:
Hi Sarah,
I hope you're not implying I was rejecting it out of hand :) I'm being fairly thoughtful about this, but I think Katherine didn't handle her concerns well, and I wanted to communicate that as pleasantly as I could.
I disagree with the approach you seem to be suggesting, which is to take any allegation of sexism (or etc.) and assume it to be both reasonable and accurate. Instead what I suggest is that it is perfectly fine (and actually a good thing) ot turn around and say "actually I don't think that was X", whilst still being sensitive of what that individual feels.
Hi Tom, if a person who has been the target of a certain prejudice all their lives alleges that something is an example of that prejudice, it's worth assuming that they have a point given their long experience of it.
That doesn't mean they're necessarily right, but their perspective is hard-earned, so we have to listen and really try to embrace it when we're not members of the target group ourselves. Otherwise the blind spots just go on.
Putting ourselves in someone else's shoes doesn't mean: "if I, with my own life history, beliefs and characteristics, were in that person's position, would I see this as sexist/racist/homophobic?" Rather, it means: "can I imagine how would I see things if I really were that person, with that person's history?"
Sarah