On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:55 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
I remember Robert Harris once saying to me, in an e-mail, something to the effect that one of the main reasons Wikimedia does so poorly at curating sexual content responsibly is its gender imbalance. He expressed the view that the only way this was ever going to change was by Wikimedia having a healthier gender ratio. I thought he was absolutely right.
Yes, that would be an over riding point we came to at WikiWomenCamp.
Want to know what a point of discussion was?
Pornography.
http://www.ludost.org/content/wikipedia-why-few-women-edit
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/WikiWomenCamp_day_2_011.j...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Video_from_WikiWomenCamp_2012
http://ozziesport.com/2011/07/why-dont-people-edit-wikipedia-small-survey-re...
So yes, systematic bias can be overcome by encouraging the growth of female contributors. The failure to attract women contributors to editing Wikipedia across various languages has little to do with that.
For an example of a woman exasperated by Wikipedia's handling of sexual content, see this post http://www.junkland.net/2011/11/donkey-punch-or-how-i-tried-to-fight.html by blogger Penny Sociologist, which my wife somehow came across.
This has whut to do with the issue? Misogyny and pornography are not the same thing. I'll take the opinion of a global group of women who came to the conclusion on their own that this is a red herring issue that does NOT work in terms of addressing the gendergap by trying to eliminate pornographic material from one white woman from the United States, which I previously stated was a consensus view at an internationally attended conference for addressing the gender gap was not an issue.
If you passionately believe in this issue, I would suggest forking and creating a separate list to remove pornographic material. If you passionately believe this is a FACTUAL issue that makes it harder for global participation of women in Wikimedia because they are offended by the pornographic material, I would suggest you do the research... show this is a problem and that women really are not contributing to Wikipedia in Indonesia, Brasil, Argentina, Cambodia, South Africa, Australia, Germany, Spain, Portugal, India, Canada and Russia amongst other places because of it. I'd guess that if you seriously did the research, you would find pornography falls extremely low on the reasons why women do not contribute to Wikipedia. I'd be extremely delighted to help you with this as I think there is a tremendous opportunity for understanding why women do not contribute to Wikipedia and why women SHOULD edit Wikipedia.
(And pardon for my terseness. It is 4:14am and I'm still jet lagged from my trip to Buenoes Aires where I got to meet some truly wonderful women, and discuss many of these issues for about five days. The ascyrhonous nature of coming back to the list where the discussion is so out of line with all these conversations from those actively involved in the movement is a bit jarring on the brain.)
I believe issues relating to pornography are germane to a list discussing the gender gap, and I'm happy to be informed about them (as with Andreas' initial post) on this list. It's one of the reasons I subscribe to this list.
Laura, if there was consensus around a different point of view at your conference, that's fine; but it's not binding on anybody who wasn't part of that consensus.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On May 30, 2012, at 11:16 AM, Laura Hale wrote:
This has whut to do with the issue?
Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com 503-383-9454 mobile
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:28 AM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
I believe issues relating to pornography are germane to a list discussing the gender gap, and I'm happy to be informed about them (as with Andreas' initial post) on this list. It's one of the reasons I subscribe to this list.
Laura, if there was consensus around a different point of view at your conference, that's fine; but it's not binding on anybody who wasn't part of that consensus.
Pete,
As a woman, can you tell me if you regularly find pornography on Wikipedia and you are offended by it?
This is not an issue of "my conference" but an issue of a group of women involved in the global movement were together for several days and discussed these issues almost all the time. This was the first WMF gender gap conference. It was the first WMF women's only event. Do you realise how offensive it is to dismiss us this way? Seriously, it is greatly offensive to dismiss the conference and our outcomes and our conversations like you just did. Can you please apologise for your incivility in dismissing us this way?
Do you know why the issue even came up to begin with? Because I saw the conversation appear here so often that I thought "Surely pornography must be an important global issue that makes it difficult for women to contribute." I was point blank told: "This is a problem for women from the USA and is used to derail important conversations." Beyond that, the issue of pornography was so unimportant as not to be discussed.
If people on this list feel it is a meaningful issue that is one of the primary reasons why women do not contribute on a global level, I want to see some evidence of it. Sue Gardner got up and spoke to us about the challenges of women contributing to Wikipedia and she did not mention it. I've yet to talk to a single woman who has said the primary reason she does not contribute is because of the presence of pornography on Wikipedia. If this is an issue, work with me and others to do the serious research to look into it.
In the mean time, please stop dismissing us and discounting our opinions.
On May 30, 2012, at 11:37 AM, Laura Hale wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:28 AM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote: I believe issues relating to pornography are germane to a list discussing the gender gap, and I'm happy to be informed about them (as with Andreas' initial post) on this list. It's one of the reasons I subscribe to this list.
Laura, if there was consensus around a different point of view at your conference, that's fine; but it's not binding on anybody who wasn't part of that consensus.
In the mean time, please stop dismissing us and discounting our opinions.
Laura, I think you're hearing things I didn't say. I'm not dismissing anybody's opinions; I am very interested, in fact, in what was discussed and what the outcomes were from the WikiWomenCamp.
My point is this, and this only: I think if members of this list feel there are issues worth bringing up, relating to pornography on Wikipedia, that it's within the remit of the list. It's the sort of thing I'm here to hear about.
I don't know that it's a primary reason; and I don't think Andreas said it is. I don't believe it has to be a primary reason to be worthy of mention.
That's all I have to say about it -- I don't have anything to add to what Andreas said, or to what you said. I just want to assert that in my opinion, it's reasonable for Andreas to bring up this topic on this list.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:40 AM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
On May 30, 2012, at 11:37 AM, Laura Hale wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:28 AM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.comwrote:
I believe issues relating to pornography are germane to a list discussing the gender gap, and I'm happy to be informed about them (as with Andreas' initial post) on this list. It's one of the reasons I subscribe to this list.
Laura, if there was consensus around a different point of view at your conference, that's fine; but it's not binding on anybody who wasn't part of that consensus.
In the mean time, please stop dismissing us and discounting our opinions.
Laura, I think you're hearing things I didn't say. I'm not dismissing anybody's opinions; I am very interested, in fact, in what was discussed and what the outcomes were from the WikiWomenCamp.
Pete,
I read it and re-read it and I'm pretty clear you referred to WikiWomenCamp as "your conference." This was not Laura Hale's conference. Every woman on this list was invited to attend. You were invited to WikiGenero pete and didn't attend either. WikiGenero was not Laura Hale's conference either. (And the community in attendance did not discuss pornography as a reason women failed to contribute to Wikipedia.) This was a conference you could have attended, as one male speaker did get a grant to attend and present.
If it looks like I've been speaking a lot about this, it is because I was, outside of Sue, the only native English speaker in attendance. This puts a large burden on me as I have to be the face of the conference in some ways when interacting with the largely native speaking, largely USA based population on the list. It is also a bit uncomfortable because several women at the conference were not really impressed with this list and had left this list because of irrelevant discussions like the pornography one, the fact that women's voices were not being heard and the list was not action oriented.
So Pete, can you please apologize for dismissing WikiWomenCamp by referring to it as my conference? This sort of issue, where you put down our outcomes by making it less important, is the sort of systematic bias in language that we discussed. This statement, where you openly dismissed WikiWomenCamp by referring to it as "my conference" upset me greatly. It was not my conference. It was a community conference that several organisations put over $25,000 total towards making happen, where we had Sue Gardner in attendance, had women from many countries in attendance, worked to be inclusive by being bilinugal, used open space to make sure everyone's voice was heard, allowed anyone who identified as female to attend, where people traveled over 24 hours to attend, where we spent hours discussing these issues.... which you easily dismissed. Please simply apologise for this statement because it was hostile and dismissive and belittled the many female chapter members, women running workshops, women running other projects, etc. who attended when you labeled it "your conference."
Sincerely, Laura Hale
On May 30, 2012, at 1:03 PM, Laura Hale wrote:
I read it and re-read it and I'm pretty clear you referred to WikiWomenCamp as "your conference."
Yes -- it was meant as a nod to the fact that you have put in substantial effort in planning, promoting, and executing the conference. For which I commend you. There was no hostility behind my choice of those words -- quite the opposite, in fact.
-Pete
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:28 AM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
I believe issues relating to pornography are germane to a list discussing the gender gap, and I'm happy to be informed about them (as with Andreas' initial post) on this list. It's one of the reasons I subscribe to this list.
Laura, if there was consensus around a different point of view at your conference, that's fine; but it's not binding on anybody who wasn't part of that consensus.
Pete,
As a woman, can you tell me if you regularly find pornography on Wikipedia and you are offended by it?
This is not an issue of "my conference" but an issue of a group of women involved in the global movement were together for several days and discussed these issues almost all the time. This was the first WMF gender gap conference. It was the first WMF women's only event. Do you realise how offensive it is to dismiss us this way? Seriously, it is greatly offensive to dismiss the conference and our outcomes and our conversations like you just did. Can you please apologise for your incivility in dismissing us this way?
Do you know why the issue even came up to begin with? Because I saw the conversation appear here so often that I thought "Surely pornography must be an important global issue that makes it difficult for women to contribute." I was point blank told: "This is a problem for women from the USA and is used to derail important conversations." Beyond that, the issue of pornography was so unimportant as not to be discussed.
I can understand the viewpoint that inappropriate pornography is only an important barrier to a subset of potential or current Wikipedia editors, and that it can be frustrating when people succeed in derailing a discussion about the worldwide gender gap by changing the topic to prudery.
However, my personal approach is to work hard to combat derailing rather than avoid the topic that triggers derailing - that is, it's the people doing the derailing that is the problem, not the topic of discussion. For example, responding with "Please don't derail the conversation" and a link to the definition of derailing can help, as well as general education on the original topic. I'm not sure how to make progress on the gender gap while also avoiding topics that are targets for derailing.
My personal approach to people using pornography in a manner that creates a hostile environment is to educate people on the effect of a sexualized environment on how women are perceived and treated:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Sexualized_environment
I find that most people simply don't realize that pornography produced for a certain specific audience doesn't produce the same feelings of happiness and pleasure in everyone who views it, or that it only does so in appropriate contexts. After all, even if a person enjoys this specific kind of pornography, many people aren't interested in becoming sexually aroused in, e.g., a public auditorium at a technical conference, or while doing research for a non-pornographic topic.
-VAL
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com wrote:
So yes, systematic bias can be overcome by encouraging the growth of female contributors. The failure to attract women contributors to editing Wikipedia across various languages has little to do with that.
I am actually in agreement with you on both points. The linkage I postulated was a far more indirect one – I postulated an effect on *male* demographics, and how it may affect the behaviour of *male* contributors on Wikimedia sites.
This has whut to do with the issue? Misogyny and pornography are not the
same thing. I'll take the opinion of a global group of women who came to the conclusion on their own that this is a red herring issue that does NOT work in terms of addressing the gendergap by trying to eliminate pornographic material from one white woman from the United States, which I previously stated was a consensus view at an internationally attended conference for addressing the gender gap was not an issue.
Thanks for your links. If I may, I'd like to offer some thoughts on the first two links you provided.
The first of these was
http://www.ludost.org/content/wikipedia-why-few-women-edit
It mentioned, among other things, that –
the specific jargon, aggressive behaviours, strict rules and meritocracy are factors pushing away certain users ... there is harassment & aggressivity towards women ... lack of mentorship ... special jargon, unwritten rules ...
The other link was the pinboard image:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/WikiWomenCamp_day_2_011.j...
It includes such points as these five:
– baja autoestima (low self-esteem), – La opinión de los hombres vale mas que la de las mujeres (men's opinions count more than women's opinions), – harassment on the mailing list and on the wiki, – La comunidad hace que te sientes incompetente (the community makes you feel incompetent) – Es un contexto agresivo? (is it an aggressive environment?)
Of course, there are many other points mentioned on the pinboard as well, such as women having less time for volunteer work (beyond our means to fix), or lack of mentorship/lack of community building compared to content building (something the Tea House is designed to address, for example). So clearly there are other important factors, and what I am talking about is just one element in the overall equation.
But I believe the items I highlighted above relate to what I was driving at.
The fact is that certain male behaviours are only found in environments like locker rooms or building sites where men feel that they are "among themselves" and need not consider women's opinions.
Locker-room type imagery (as reflected in en:WP articles like "tit torture" or "hogtie bondage" for example, which are transparently and needlessly designed to serve the male gaze) psychologically *signals* to men that they are in a male environment and are free to behave in that way. I believe this explains something of the vehemence with which some male editors defend articles illustrated like this: for some of them it is not so much about censorship, it is really about defending the vision that *Wikipedia is owned by men*.
A woman passing by a men-only building site has a greater chance of being teased, cat-called, harassed, disparaged, put down, or belittled than a woman passing a mixed-gender group standing by the road. A single woman entering a male locker room is less likely to be treated respectfully than a woman serving a male customer at a bank, or a woman being served by a male shop employee.
This sense of being belittled, discounted, harassed and aggressed is what is reflected in the pinboard statements above. Every woman entering Wikipedia is surrounded by nine men who feel the place belongs to them.
It is no coincidence that banks and shops do not have calendars with naked women (or men) on the walls, and that there are rules against displaying such imagery in many workplaces. These rules open workplaces up to women. Wikipedia's porn has a significance to the gender gap that goes far beyond its capacity to turn off individual women encountering it.
(And pardon for my terseness. It is 4:14am and I'm still jet lagged from my trip to Buenoes Aires where I got to meet some truly wonderful women, and discuss many of these issues for about five days. The ascyrhonous nature of coming back to the list where the discussion is so out of line with all these conversations from those actively involved in the movement is a bit jarring on the brain.)
No worries. I hope you have a good rest ... I (and I am sure everybody else here) would love to hear more from you about the conference when you are rested. It sounds exciting!
Andreas