Hey folks,
On my phone, so I haven't read the talk page in question. But it looks like a new female editor might be having a tough time on this article: maybe somebody has time to step in and take a look?
Thanks, Sue
http://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/using-wikipedia-in-the-classr...
This now has gotten significant on-wiki attention.
List relevant but less important on-wiki (I hope) complicating factor - the editor who was felt to possibly be OWNing the article is User:Malke 2010", a female Wikipedian...
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey folks,
On my phone, so I haven't read the talk page in question. But it looks like a new female editor might be having a tough time on this article: maybe somebody has time to step in and take a look?
Thanks, Sue
http://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/using-wikipedia-in-the-classr...
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
The discussion is located at the talk page for the article in question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Super-spreader
Just to clear up where the significant on-wiki attention took place at (my first guess was User Talk:Malke 2010).
Thank you,
Derric Atzrott
From: gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of George Herbert Sent: 06 May 2014 01:03 To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation of women within Wikimedia projects. Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Article about super-spreader might need help (enWP)
This now has gotten significant on-wiki attention.
List relevant but less important on-wiki (I hope) complicating factor - the editor who was felt to possibly be OWNing the article is User:Malke 2010", a female Wikipedian...
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey folks,
On my phone, so I haven't read the talk page in question. But it looks like a new female editor might be having a tough time on this article: maybe somebody has time to step in and take a look?
Thanks, Sue
http://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/using-wikipedia-in-the-classr...
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Thanks for the links! I find this interesting since I was having a lot of trouble understanding an IEG proposal that I was reviewing: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Stepwise_Disclosure_Edition:_Wiki...
Most people on the English Wikipedia have no problem hitting the edit button, and a quick review of the talk page on Superspreader shows that all of the people posting comments there feel totally comfortable doing just that *except* for the student whose edits are under review. Thanks to this case, I am now able to imagine a situation where this IEG proposal functionality could be relevant. I believe this particular superspreader case proves that publishing in "one blob" like the student has done can potentially be disruptive, which is interesting and puts that proposal into a totally new perspective for me.
I would in fact say that this case proves that the functionality in the IEG proposal is, in fact, undesirable.
2014-05-06 14:17 GMT+02:00, Derric Atzrott datzrott@alizeepathology.com:
The discussion is located at the talk page for the article in question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Super-spreader
Just to clear up where the significant on-wiki attention took place at (my first guess was User Talk:Malke 2010).
Thank you,
Derric Atzrott
From: gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of George Herbert Sent: 06 May 2014 01:03 To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation of women within Wikimedia projects. Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Article about super-spreader might need help (enWP)
This now has gotten significant on-wiki attention.
List relevant but less important on-wiki (I hope) complicating factor - the editor who was felt to possibly be OWNing the article is User:Malke 2010", a female Wikipedian...
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey folks,
On my phone, so I haven't read the talk page in question. But it looks like a new female editor might be having a tough time on this article: maybe somebody has time to step in and take a look?
Thanks, Sue
http://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/using-wikipedia-in-the-classr...
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
Hi Jane,
(Perhaps we should have this discussion on the grant page itself as well but) I do want to say that I disagree that this situation proves that step-wise editing might not help shy people.
The student in this case chose to do their editing in a way which was comfortable for them. And the way they were comfortable editing was to do so in a sandbox. I think this is proof of concept that some "shy" people prefer to work in this manner and that accommodating them might help bring this population into the editor pool.
I won't disagree that the *result* of this type of editing was a spectacular flame/reversion war that ultimately (probably) scared away a new editor; but was the fault 100% with *their* process (blob additions) or could some blame also be applied to the current culture of editing that disparages these kinds of additions?
If we implicitly encourage this kind of editing by adding support for it, might this not change of the culture of wikipedia to make these kinds of edits (that shy people may prefer) more welcome, and potentially avert a culture clash like this in the future?
While I personally do not like editing in this manner whatsoever, and I agree it carries some inherent problems, I think it's important to remember that since we personally are all editors, we're exactly NOT the kind of person we need to be recruiting- we have those kind of people already! Even if the vast majority of *current* Wikipedia editors dislike and wouldn't use these features, that doesn't mean it could potentially have a major impact on converting novice and "shy" editors.
By the way, is there any plan to formally reach out to the teacher and student?
-mvolz
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the links! I find this interesting since I was having a lot of trouble understanding an IEG proposal that I was reviewing: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Stepwise_Disclosure_Edition:_Wiki...
Most people on the English Wikipedia have no problem hitting the edit button, and a quick review of the talk page on Superspreader shows that all of the people posting comments there feel totally comfortable doing just that *except* for the student whose edits are under review. Thanks to this case, I am now able to imagine a situation where this IEG proposal functionality could be relevant. I believe this particular superspreader case proves that publishing in "one blob" like the student has done can potentially be disruptive, which is interesting and puts that proposal into a totally new perspective for me.
I would in fact say that this case proves that the functionality in the IEG proposal is, in fact, undesirable.
2014-05-06 14:17 GMT+02:00, Derric Atzrott datzrott@alizeepathology.com:
The discussion is located at the talk page for the article in question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Super-spreader
Just to clear up where the significant on-wiki attention took place at (my first guess was User Talk:Malke 2010).
Thank you,
Derric Atzrott
From: gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of George Herbert Sent: 06 May 2014 01:03 To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation of women within Wikimedia projects. Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Article about super-spreader might need help (enWP)
This now has gotten significant on-wiki attention.
List relevant but less important on-wiki (I hope) complicating factor - the editor who was felt to possibly be OWNing the article is User:Malke 2010", a female Wikipedian...
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey folks,
On my phone, so I haven't read the talk page in question. But it looks like a new female editor might be having a tough time on this article: maybe somebody has time to step in and take a look?
Thanks, Sue
http://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/using-wikipedia-in-the-classr...
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Marielle, Good point and I will include the links to the blog and the superspreader talk page on the proposal talk page for reference.
I am definitely not discounting the IEG proposal completely, as I can imagine the "edit button allergy" must be a problem for people who use Wikipedia in the classroom. However, though it may seem important to recruit new editors, or to expand our activities in the classroom, we must remain loyal to our current editors, who are doing lots of work right now. Editor retention is in this case more important than getting those shy editors on board. If someone is too nervous about hitting the edit button, they will probably be scared off as soon as they bump up against the daily wikidramas that pop up regularly.
I was interested to read the comments on the blog that questioned the "blob paste" approach.
Jane
2014-05-08 13:38 GMT+02:00, Marielle Volz marielle.volz@gmail.com:
Hi Jane,
(Perhaps we should have this discussion on the grant page itself as well but) I do want to say that I disagree that this situation proves that step-wise editing might not help shy people.
The student in this case chose to do their editing in a way which was comfortable for them. And the way they were comfortable editing was to do so in a sandbox. I think this is proof of concept that some "shy" people prefer to work in this manner and that accommodating them might help bring this population into the editor pool.
I won't disagree that the *result* of this type of editing was a spectacular flame/reversion war that ultimately (probably) scared away a new editor; but was the fault 100% with *their* process (blob additions) or could some blame also be applied to the current culture of editing that disparages these kinds of additions?
If we implicitly encourage this kind of editing by adding support for it, might this not change of the culture of wikipedia to make these kinds of edits (that shy people may prefer) more welcome, and potentially avert a culture clash like this in the future?
While I personally do not like editing in this manner whatsoever, and I agree it carries some inherent problems, I think it's important to remember that since we personally are all editors, we're exactly NOT the kind of person we need to be recruiting- we have those kind of people already! Even if the vast majority of *current* Wikipedia editors dislike and wouldn't use these features, that doesn't mean it could potentially have a major impact on converting novice and "shy" editors.
By the way, is there any plan to formally reach out to the teacher and student?
-mvolz
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the links! I find this interesting since I was having a lot of trouble understanding an IEG proposal that I was reviewing: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Stepwise_Disclosure_Edition:_Wiki...
Most people on the English Wikipedia have no problem hitting the edit button, and a quick review of the talk page on Superspreader shows that all of the people posting comments there feel totally comfortable doing just that *except* for the student whose edits are under review. Thanks to this case, I am now able to imagine a situation where this IEG proposal functionality could be relevant. I believe this particular superspreader case proves that publishing in "one blob" like the student has done can potentially be disruptive, which is interesting and puts that proposal into a totally new perspective for me.
I would in fact say that this case proves that the functionality in the IEG proposal is, in fact, undesirable.
2014-05-06 14:17 GMT+02:00, Derric Atzrott datzrott@alizeepathology.com:
The discussion is located at the talk page for the article in question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Super-spreader
Just to clear up where the significant on-wiki attention took place at (my first guess was User Talk:Malke 2010).
Thank you,
Derric Atzrott
From: gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of George Herbert Sent: 06 May 2014 01:03 To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation of women within Wikimedia projects. Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Article about super-spreader might need help (enWP)
This now has gotten significant on-wiki attention.
List relevant but less important on-wiki (I hope) complicating factor - the editor who was felt to possibly be OWNing the article is User:Malke 2010", a female Wikipedian...
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey folks,
On my phone, so I haven't read the talk page in question. But it looks like a new female editor might be having a tough time on this article: maybe somebody has time to step in and take a look?
Thanks, Sue
http://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/using-wikipedia-in-the-classr...
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Hi All,
Over the past 2-3 years, I've organized a number of edit-a-thons here at Barnard College (an all women's college) in order to promote women in the content of Wikipedia's articles and in its community of editors. In my work as a librarian, I've come to believe that Wikipedia is one of the best sites for teaching information literacy skills, so I was absolutely thrilled when a faculty member contacted me about creating a Wikipedia assignment for her seminar on Ntozake Shange this spring. However, the administration was less than enthusiastic about this assignment and is watching it closely.
To address some of the points raised in this thread -- We strongly encourage students to begin editing in their sandbox. While, yes, some students may be shy about editing Wikipedia (in fact, most are), we made this decision out of respect to the existing community. Contributing to Wikipedia teaches students about writing from a neutral point of view, when and how to cite, how to find and use sources about underrepresented groups, thereby challenging the existing cannon, etc. etc.. It's an amazing experience for all, but even our most advanced students struggle with these skills. And no matter how many times we discuss these issues in a workshop, students don't fully engage with them until they start their assignment. Encouraging them to play in the sandbox not only allows them to move forward with confidence, but also allows those supporting them to identify any issues that may be of concern to the existing community. This creates a more positive experience for all.
*If we are truly committed to encouraging women editors, it's imperative that we bring Wikipedia into the classroom. *(Unsure? Check out Ester Hargittai and Aaron Shaw's talk at the Berkman Centerhttp://wilkins.law.harvard.edu/events/luncheons/2014-01-21_shaweszter/2014-01-21_shaweszter.movor screenshots of the talk available via Wikid GRRLShttp://wikidgrrls.wordpress.com/2014/01/21/internet-skills-and-wikipedias-gender-inequality/ .)
However, I'm very concerned that conflicts between students and the Wikipedia community will prevent us from offering future edit-a-thons or class assignments. As educators, we are charged with creating a safe space for students, and while I can help students navigate passive aggressive conversations on a talk page, I am unable to prevent students from experiencing the gender based hate speech that happens (I recently noticed an attack on my user page summarized as "Queen has cunt"). I don't really know what the answer is and, honestly, can't fully articulate my question. But I would greatly benefit from any resources on how to support students navigating these waters -- if they exist.
I've been lurking on this list for a while and haven't posted before, but I hope these thoughts are helpful.
Megan
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Marielle, Good point and I will include the links to the blog and the superspreader talk page on the proposal talk page for reference.
I am definitely not discounting the IEG proposal completely, as I can imagine the "edit button allergy" must be a problem for people who use Wikipedia in the classroom. However, though it may seem important to recruit new editors, or to expand our activities in the classroom, we must remain loyal to our current editors, who are doing lots of work right now. Editor retention is in this case more important than getting those shy editors on board. If someone is too nervous about hitting the edit button, they will probably be scared off as soon as they bump up against the daily wikidramas that pop up regularly.
I was interested to read the comments on the blog that questioned the "blob paste" approach.
Jane
2014-05-08 13:38 GMT+02:00, Marielle Volz marielle.volz@gmail.com:
Hi Jane,
(Perhaps we should have this discussion on the grant page itself as well but) I do want to say that I disagree that this situation proves that step-wise editing might not help shy people.
The student in this case chose to do their editing in a way which was comfortable for them. And the way they were comfortable editing was to do so in a sandbox. I think this is proof of concept that some "shy" people prefer to work in this manner and that accommodating them might help bring this population into the editor pool.
I won't disagree that the *result* of this type of editing was a spectacular flame/reversion war that ultimately (probably) scared away a new editor; but was the fault 100% with *their* process (blob additions) or could some blame also be applied to the current culture of editing that disparages these kinds of additions?
If we implicitly encourage this kind of editing by adding support for it, might this not change of the culture of wikipedia to make these kinds of edits (that shy people may prefer) more welcome, and potentially avert a culture clash like this in the future?
While I personally do not like editing in this manner whatsoever, and I agree it carries some inherent problems, I think it's important to remember that since we personally are all editors, we're exactly NOT the kind of person we need to be recruiting- we have those kind of people already! Even if the vast majority of *current* Wikipedia editors dislike and wouldn't use these features, that doesn't mean it could potentially have a major impact on converting novice and "shy" editors.
By the way, is there any plan to formally reach out to the teacher and student?
-mvolz
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the links! I find this interesting since I was having a lot of trouble understanding an IEG proposal that I was reviewing:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Stepwise_Disclosure_Edition:_Wiki...
Most people on the English Wikipedia have no problem hitting the edit button, and a quick review of the talk page on Superspreader shows that all of the people posting comments there feel totally comfortable doing just that *except* for the student whose edits are under review. Thanks to this case, I am now able to imagine a situation where this IEG proposal functionality could be relevant. I believe this particular superspreader case proves that publishing in "one blob" like the student has done can potentially be disruptive, which is interesting and puts that proposal into a totally new perspective for me.
I would in fact say that this case proves that the functionality in the IEG proposal is, in fact, undesirable.
2014-05-06 14:17 GMT+02:00, Derric Atzrott <
datzrott@alizeepathology.com>:
The discussion is located at the talk page for the article in question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Super-spreader
Just to clear up where the significant on-wiki attention took place at (my first guess was User Talk:Malke 2010).
Thank you,
Derric Atzrott
From: gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of George Herbert Sent: 06 May 2014 01:03 To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation of women within Wikimedia projects. Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Article about super-spreader might need help (enWP)
This now has gotten significant on-wiki attention.
List relevant but less important on-wiki (I hope) complicating factor - the editor who was felt to possibly be OWNing the article is User:Malke 2010", a female Wikipedian...
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey folks,
On my phone, so I haven't read the talk page in question. But it looks like a new female editor might be having a tough time on this article: maybe somebody has time to step in and take a look?
Thanks, Sue
http://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/using-wikipedia-in-the-classr...
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Hi Megan, I'm glad this thread got you to post to this list and I appreciate your input. I don't want to tread on any toes as far as the Education program goes, and I have never used Wikipedia in a classroom myself, but of course I agree that it is *imperative* that we bring Wikipedia into the classroom. I also think it is *imperative* that we bring Wikipedia into the workplace, even at the risk of COI accusations. I would add that I am a very inclusionist Wikpedian who would go so far as to say that we need to introduce Wikipedia into all aspects of our lives (although I still have reservations about that German Obgyn who took a picture of his wife's vagina and proceeded to get it promoted to a "Did-you-know" on the front page of the German Wikipedia...).
I am sorry that you experienced vandalism on your talk page, and of course that is one of the downsides of Wikipedia. I have never had something like that happen to me, but I must admit I tend to hang out in very obscure corners of the Wikiverse where very little happens.
I think the best take away from this latest kerfuffle is simply that this list has tons of lurking Wikipedians who can give you the answers you need when you need them. You just need to give us the links, and we will take a look and give you our opinions. At the end of the day, the best advice is still https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold
So I hope you will just report the vandalism as it comes in and keep on running editathons - don't let the bad experiences get you down when there are so many awesome things that happen onwiki.
I have to dig deep into my early editing days (and maybe I was just an IP editor back then), but I believe my first edits were vandalism because I didn't understand what the sandbox was at all. I have never been a fan of the sandbox method and still don't get why people emphasize it. It seems to me like double work and a bit stifling. Making small edits in mainspace, or even creating short stub pages in mainspace is still the best way to go, I think.
Jane
2014-05-08 17:31 GMT+02:00, Megan Wacha mwacha@barnard.edu:
Hi All,
Over the past 2-3 years, I've organized a number of edit-a-thons here at Barnard College (an all women's college) in order to promote women in the content of Wikipedia's articles and in its community of editors. In my work as a librarian, I've come to believe that Wikipedia is one of the best sites for teaching information literacy skills, so I was absolutely thrilled when a faculty member contacted me about creating a Wikipedia assignment for her seminar on Ntozake Shange this spring. However, the administration was less than enthusiastic about this assignment and is watching it closely.
To address some of the points raised in this thread -- We strongly encourage students to begin editing in their sandbox. While, yes, some students may be shy about editing Wikipedia (in fact, most are), we made this decision out of respect to the existing community. Contributing to Wikipedia teaches students about writing from a neutral point of view, when and how to cite, how to find and use sources about underrepresented groups, thereby challenging the existing cannon, etc. etc.. It's an amazing experience for all, but even our most advanced students struggle with these skills. And no matter how many times we discuss these issues in a workshop, students don't fully engage with them until they start their assignment. Encouraging them to play in the sandbox not only allows them to move forward with confidence, but also allows those supporting them to identify any issues that may be of concern to the existing community. This creates a more positive experience for all.
*If we are truly committed to encouraging women editors, it's imperative that we bring Wikipedia into the classroom. *(Unsure? Check out Ester Hargittai and Aaron Shaw's talk at the Berkman Centerhttp://wilkins.law.harvard.edu/events/luncheons/2014-01-21_shaweszter/2014-01-21_shaweszter.movor screenshots of the talk available via Wikid GRRLShttp://wikidgrrls.wordpress.com/2014/01/21/internet-skills-and-wikipedias-gender-inequality/ .)
However, I'm very concerned that conflicts between students and the Wikipedia community will prevent us from offering future edit-a-thons or class assignments. As educators, we are charged with creating a safe space for students, and while I can help students navigate passive aggressive conversations on a talk page, I am unable to prevent students from experiencing the gender based hate speech that happens (I recently noticed an attack on my user page summarized as "Queen has cunt"). I don't really know what the answer is and, honestly, can't fully articulate my question. But I would greatly benefit from any resources on how to support students navigating these waters -- if they exist.
I've been lurking on this list for a while and haven't posted before, but I hope these thoughts are helpful.
Megan
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Marielle, Good point and I will include the links to the blog and the superspreader talk page on the proposal talk page for reference.
I am definitely not discounting the IEG proposal completely, as I can imagine the "edit button allergy" must be a problem for people who use Wikipedia in the classroom. However, though it may seem important to recruit new editors, or to expand our activities in the classroom, we must remain loyal to our current editors, who are doing lots of work right now. Editor retention is in this case more important than getting those shy editors on board. If someone is too nervous about hitting the edit button, they will probably be scared off as soon as they bump up against the daily wikidramas that pop up regularly.
I was interested to read the comments on the blog that questioned the "blob paste" approach.
Jane
2014-05-08 13:38 GMT+02:00, Marielle Volz marielle.volz@gmail.com:
Hi Jane,
(Perhaps we should have this discussion on the grant page itself as well but) I do want to say that I disagree that this situation proves that step-wise editing might not help shy people.
The student in this case chose to do their editing in a way which was comfortable for them. And the way they were comfortable editing was to do so in a sandbox. I think this is proof of concept that some "shy" people prefer to work in this manner and that accommodating them might help bring this population into the editor pool.
I won't disagree that the *result* of this type of editing was a spectacular flame/reversion war that ultimately (probably) scared away a new editor; but was the fault 100% with *their* process (blob additions) or could some blame also be applied to the current culture of editing that disparages these kinds of additions?
If we implicitly encourage this kind of editing by adding support for it, might this not change of the culture of wikipedia to make these kinds of edits (that shy people may prefer) more welcome, and potentially avert a culture clash like this in the future?
While I personally do not like editing in this manner whatsoever, and I agree it carries some inherent problems, I think it's important to remember that since we personally are all editors, we're exactly NOT the kind of person we need to be recruiting- we have those kind of people already! Even if the vast majority of *current* Wikipedia editors dislike and wouldn't use these features, that doesn't mean it could potentially have a major impact on converting novice and "shy" editors.
By the way, is there any plan to formally reach out to the teacher and student?
-mvolz
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the links! I find this interesting since I was having a lot of trouble understanding an IEG proposal that I was reviewing:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Stepwise_Disclosure_Edition:_Wiki...
Most people on the English Wikipedia have no problem hitting the edit button, and a quick review of the talk page on Superspreader shows that all of the people posting comments there feel totally comfortable doing just that *except* for the student whose edits are under review. Thanks to this case, I am now able to imagine a situation where this IEG proposal functionality could be relevant. I believe this particular superspreader case proves that publishing in "one blob" like the student has done can potentially be disruptive, which is interesting and puts that proposal into a totally new perspective for me.
I would in fact say that this case proves that the functionality in the IEG proposal is, in fact, undesirable.
2014-05-06 14:17 GMT+02:00, Derric Atzrott <
datzrott@alizeepathology.com>:
The discussion is located at the talk page for the article in question. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Super-spreader
Just to clear up where the significant on-wiki attention took place at (my first guess was User Talk:Malke 2010).
Thank you,
Derric Atzrott
From: gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of George Herbert Sent: 06 May 2014 01:03 To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation of women within Wikimedia projects. Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Article about super-spreader might need help (enWP)
This now has gotten significant on-wiki attention.
List relevant but less important on-wiki (I hope) complicating factor
the editor who was felt to possibly be OWNing the article is User:Malke 2010", a female Wikipedian...
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey folks,
On my phone, so I haven't read the talk page in question. But it looks like a new female editor might be having a tough time on this article: maybe somebody has time to step in and take a look?
Thanks, Sue
http://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/using-wikipedia-in-the-classr...
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- Megan Wacha | Research and Instruction Librarian for the Performing Arts Barnard College | 3009 Broadway | New York, NY 10027 212.854.7652 | mwacha@barnard.edu
As I wrote in response to one of Jane's threads on the Grants page that is relevant for both male and female editors: ''Teaching new editors it's ok to stand up to obvious negativity, which not reading too much negativity into neutral criticism is important. Some people will read "they attacked" or else "I'm incompetent" into relatively innocuous comments and react in some negative fashion or just stop editing. So psychological preparation for various contingencies helps. "
Of course, the problem remains dealing those who do exert ownership, are POV pushers, are impatient with "newbies" - or just rankle whenever they see an edit by someone they assume is female.
Thinking about the issue today, may we just need to teach women to be bold and link to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick when guys hassle them. I really should have done it myself dozens of times in the past. Of course, if we could come up with a less hostile and more guilt-tripping essay to make the point, that would be much better. (WP:WhatWouldYourMotherSay ???)
It would be nice just to have to tell people we are training them for collaborative editing. However, depending on what the topic area is, we also have to prepare them for war - or at least nonviolent struggle :-). Unless, of course, women are happy to be shut out of all the high profile and conflict areas, which usually are related to covering (and thus often influencing) domestic and foreign/war policy?? Places where women too often are shut out in the real word of journalism, think tanks and government already.
That's where I tend to edit and I have the battle scars to prove it (details redacted). But the more women edit and opine and become admins and arbitrators, the easier it will be for women who want to edit in the high profile/conflict public policy areas to do so without being attacked or unfairly subjected to double standards and thus discouraged from editing.
CM
On 5/8/2014 11:31 AM, Megan Wacha wrote:
Hi All,
Over the past 2-3 years, I've organized a number of edit-a-thons here at Barnard College (an all women's college) in order to promote women in the content of Wikipedia's articles and in its community of editors. In my work as a librarian, I've come to believe that Wikipedia is one of the best sites for teaching information literacy skills, so I was absolutely thrilled when a faculty member contacted me about creating a Wikipedia assignment for her seminar on Ntozake Shange this spring. However, the administration was less than enthusiastic about this assignment and is watching it closely.
To address some of the points raised in this thread -- We strongly encourage students to begin editing in their sandbox. While, yes, some students may be shy about editing Wikipedia (in fact, most are), we made this decision out of respect to the existing community. Contributing to Wikipedia teaches students about writing from a neutral point of view, when and how to cite, how to find and use sources about underrepresented groups, thereby challenging the existing cannon, etc. etc.. It's an amazing experience for all, but even our most advanced students struggle with these skills. And no matter how many times we discuss these issues in a workshop, students don't fully engage with them until they start their assignment. Encouraging them to play in the sandbox not only allows them to move forward with confidence, but also allows those supporting them to identify any issues that may be of concern to the existing community. This creates a more positive experience for all.
*If we are truly committed to encouraging women editors, it's imperative that we bring Wikipedia into the classroom. *(Unsure? Check out Ester Hargittai and Aaron Shaw's talk at the Berkman Center http://wilkins.law.harvard.edu/events/luncheons/2014-01-21_shaweszter/2014-01-21_shaweszter.mov or screenshots of the talk available via Wikid GRRLS http://wikidgrrls.wordpress.com/2014/01/21/internet-skills-and-wikipedias-gender-inequality/.)
However, I'm very concerned that conflicts between students and the Wikipedia community will prevent us from offering future edit-a-thons or class assignments. As educators, we are charged with creating a safe space for students, and while I can help students navigate passive aggressive conversations on a talk page, I am unable to prevent students from experiencing the gender based hate speech that happens (I recently noticed an attack on my user page summarized as "Queen has cunt"). I don't really know what the answer is and, honestly, can't fully articulate my question. But I would greatly benefit from any resources on how to support students navigating these waters -- if they exist.
I've been lurking on this list for a while and haven't posted before, but I hope these thoughts are helpful.
Megan
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Megan Wacha mwacha@barnard.edu wrote:
... [snip] To address some of the points raised in this thread -- We strongly encourage students to begin editing in their sandbox. While, yes, some students may be shy about editing Wikipedia (in fact, most are), we made this decision out of respect to the existing community. Contributing to Wikipedia teaches students about writing from a neutral point of view, when and how to cite, how to find and use sources about underrepresented groups, thereby challenging the existing cannon, etc. etc.. It's an amazing experience for all, but even our most advanced students struggle with these skills. And no matter how many times we discuss these issues in a workshop, students don't fully engage with them until they start their assignment. Encouraging them to play in the sandbox not only allows them to move forward with confidence, but also allows those supporting them to identify any issues that may be of concern to the existing community. This creates a more positive experience for all. ...
Hi Megan,
There is a page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ASSIGNthat you might find helpful, about how to prepare students for assignments on Wikipedia.
Sorry, it's quite a lot to read, but there are some helpful links to other pages.
Sarah