Wikipedia and the war on women’s dignity http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/09/07/wikipedia-and-the-war-on-womens-dignity...
This article mentions an individual who's caused problems at the Gender Gap task force.
Off wiki sites engaging in outing is, like hashtags, a two edged sword. It can be used against truly problematic individuals who troll behind anonymity. But it also can be used against solid editors whose job or other situation necessitates anonymity but who have angered the wrong troll by trying to comply with policy.
And the absurdities continue....
CM
I don't think it's appropriate to use this list to link to pages that out other users. I understand your frustration with nothing onwiki getting done, Carol, I truly do, but part of the social contract of being a Wikipedian is that we're expected to not attack the "real lives" of other Wikipedians - even when we think they're terrible or totally wrong.
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
Wikipedia and the war on women’s dignity
http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/09/07/wikipedia-and-the-war-on-womens-dignity...
This article mentions an individual who's caused problems at the Gender Gap task force.
Off wiki sites engaging in outing is, like hashtags, a two edged sword. It can be used against truly problematic individuals who troll behind anonymity. But it also can be used against solid editors whose job or other situation necessitates anonymity but who have angered the wrong troll by trying to comply with policy.
And the absurdities continue....
CM
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Good point. Actually I first heard about it on ANI where they didn't link to the page, but I didn't put two and two together of WHY they didn't link.
On 9/9/2014 7:22 PM, Katherine Casey wrote:
I don't think it's appropriate to use this list to link to pages that out other users. I understand your frustration with nothing onwiki getting done, Carol, I truly do, but part of the social contract of being a Wikipedian is that we're expected to not attack the "real lives" of other Wikipedians - even when we think they're terrible or totally wrong.
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Carol Moore dc <carolmooredc@verizon.net mailto:carolmooredc@verizon.net> wrote:
Wikipedia and the war on women’s dignity http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/09/07/wikipedia-and-the-war-on-womens-dignity/ This article mentions an individual who's caused problems at the Gender Gap task force. Off wiki sites engaging in outing is, like hashtags, a two edged sword. It can be used against truly problematic individuals who troll behind anonymity. But it also can be used against solid editors whose job or other situation necessitates anonymity but who have angered the wrong troll by trying to comply with policy. And the absurdities continue.... CM _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto: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
In my opinion, women should look to organising off-wiki. Women-only site Women.com was mentioned the other day on the Gender Gap Task Force page. Activism there could certainly fulfil a useful function.
Ultimately, I think there should be a separate site for the gender gap effort – combining a blog and a forum, much like Wikipediocracy – where women and men interested in narrowing the gender gap and documenting the existing problems can exchange views in an atmosphere undisturbed by men pretending to be women, men opposed to narrowing the gender gap, men arguing that it's not really proven that the gender gap is a problem, and so forth.
It could do wonders for the effort's signal-to-noise ratio, and could probably achieve exponentially more in terms of raising public awareness. As it is, discussions on-wiki get bogged down in arguments leading nowhere, and contributors' energies are dissipated.[1]
A well-publicised off-wiki site forming links to journalists and academics working in this field would be an ideal complement to this mailing list – which is useful for networking with researchers and Wikipedians, but creates little or no direct publicity. No journalist will comb through the voluminous discussions here. You need a place where you can summarise issues in a more easily digestible format.
Unrelated to this, some of you may be interested in an ongoing discussion of the Wikipedia gender gap happening on Hacker News / Y Combinator:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8304173
[1] Note the current arbitration request on the English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gender_Gap...
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Katherine Casey < fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't think it's appropriate to use this list to link to pages that out other users. I understand your frustration with nothing onwiki getting done, Carol, I truly do, but part of the social contract of being a Wikipedian is that we're expected to not attack the "real lives" of other Wikipedians - even when we think they're terrible or totally wrong.
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
Wikipedia and the war on women’s dignity
http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/09/07/wikipedia-and-the-war-on-womens-dignity...
This article mentions an individual who's caused problems at the Gender Gap task force.
Off wiki sites engaging in outing is, like hashtags, a two edged sword. It can be used against truly problematic individuals who troll behind anonymity. But it also can be used against solid editors whose job or other situation necessitates anonymity but who have angered the wrong troll by trying to comply with policy.
And the absurdities continue....
CM
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
Frankly, I see little value in creating a site whose goal includes attracting journalists - particularly given the poor quality, sensationalistic journalism that we've all seen "reporting" on anything Wikimedia.
Risker/Anne
On 11 September 2014 18:51, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
In my opinion, women should look to organising off-wiki. Women-only site Women.com was mentioned the other day on the Gender Gap Task Force page. Activism there could certainly fulfil a useful function.
Ultimately, I think there should be a separate site for the gender gap effort – combining a blog and a forum, much like Wikipediocracy – where women and men interested in narrowing the gender gap and documenting the existing problems can exchange views in an atmosphere undisturbed by men pretending to be women, men opposed to narrowing the gender gap, men arguing that it's not really proven that the gender gap is a problem, and so forth.
It could do wonders for the effort's signal-to-noise ratio, and could probably achieve exponentially more in terms of raising public awareness. As it is, discussions on-wiki get bogged down in arguments leading nowhere, and contributors' energies are dissipated.[1]
A well-publicised off-wiki site forming links to journalists and academics working in this field would be an ideal complement to this mailing list – which is useful for networking with researchers and Wikipedians, but creates little or no direct publicity. No journalist will comb through the voluminous discussions here. You need a place where you can summarise issues in a more easily digestible format.
Unrelated to this, some of you may be interested in an ongoing discussion of the Wikipedia gender gap happening on Hacker News / Y Combinator:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8304173
[1] Note the current arbitration request on the English Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gender_Gap...
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Katherine Casey < fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't think it's appropriate to use this list to link to pages that out other users. I understand your frustration with nothing onwiki getting done, Carol, I truly do, but part of the social contract of being a Wikipedian is that we're expected to not attack the "real lives" of other Wikipedians - even when we think they're terrible or totally wrong.
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
Wikipedia and the war on women’s dignity
http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/09/07/wikipedia-and-the-war-on-womens-dignity...
This article mentions an individual who's caused problems at the Gender Gap task force.
Off wiki sites engaging in outing is, like hashtags, a two edged sword. It can be used against truly problematic individuals who troll behind anonymity. But it also can be used against solid editors whose job or other situation necessitates anonymity but who have angered the wrong troll by trying to comply with policy.
And the absurdities continue....
CM
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I hear you, but I would very much like to see some good newsrooms (real journalists) do regular reporting on Wikipedia. I think it would be hard on the community at first, but ultimately would help. WP is a hostile work environment and I for one am tired of it.
Lightbreather
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Frankly, I see little value in creating a site whose goal includes attracting journalists - particularly given the poor quality, sensationalistic journalism that we've all seen "reporting" on anything Wikimedia.
Risker/Anne
The Resources page links to forty-eight mainstream and tech articles with another 30 or 40 reprints or summaries of those in smaller mainstream publications. The fourteen blog and other entries are just a smattering of the higher quality blog and activist commentary on Wikipedia. So there is a lot of good work being done, in between the crappy commentary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carolmooredc/My_Sandbox_1
On 9/11/2014 8:14 PM, LB wrote:
I hear you, but I would very much like to see some good newsrooms (real journalists) do regular reporting on Wikipedia. I think it would be hard on the community at first, but ultimately would help. WP is a hostile work environment and I for one am tired of it.
Lightbreather
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com mailto:risker.wp@gmail.com> wrote:
Frankly, I see little value in creating a site whose goal includes attracting journalists - particularly given the poor quality, sensationalistic journalism that we've all seen "reporting" on anything Wikimedia. Risker/Anne
Anne,
That's precisely the point. A lot of journalism is badly researched, because Wikipedia is remarkably opaque to many outside observers. So you simply end up with people repeating PR fluff, or going for the easy headline.
Here are a couple of articles that are different. I would contend they had a palpable positive impact on Wikipedia:
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/
http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest...
This one didn't make a big impact, but it was a story I cared about:
http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/wikipedia-plastic-surgery-otto-placik-labi...
There are stories like this about the gender gap that simply haven't been heard. They have only bounced off the walls within the Wikipedia echo chamber, muffled by nay-sayers.
Those stories *should* be heard.
Andreas
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:59 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Frankly, I see little value in creating a site whose goal includes attracting journalists - particularly given the poor quality, sensationalistic journalism that we've all seen "reporting" on anything Wikimedia.
Risker/Anne
On 11 September 2014 18:51, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
In my opinion, women should look to organising off-wiki. Women-only site Women.com was mentioned the other day on the Gender Gap Task Force page. Activism there could certainly fulfil a useful function.
Ultimately, I think there should be a separate site for the gender gap effort – combining a blog and a forum, much like Wikipediocracy – where women and men interested in narrowing the gender gap and documenting the existing problems can exchange views in an atmosphere undisturbed by men pretending to be women, men opposed to narrowing the gender gap, men arguing that it's not really proven that the gender gap is a problem, and so forth.
It could do wonders for the effort's signal-to-noise ratio, and could probably achieve exponentially more in terms of raising public awareness. As it is, discussions on-wiki get bogged down in arguments leading nowhere, and contributors' energies are dissipated.[1]
A well-publicised off-wiki site forming links to journalists and academics working in this field would be an ideal complement to this mailing list – which is useful for networking with researchers and Wikipedians, but creates little or no direct publicity. No journalist will comb through the voluminous discussions here. You need a place where you can summarise issues in a more easily digestible format.
Unrelated to this, some of you may be interested in an ongoing discussion of the Wikipedia gender gap happening on Hacker News / Y Combinator:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8304173
[1] Note the current arbitration request on the English Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gender_Gap...
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Katherine Casey < fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't think it's appropriate to use this list to link to pages that out other users. I understand your frustration with nothing onwiki getting done, Carol, I truly do, but part of the social contract of being a Wikipedian is that we're expected to not attack the "real lives" of other Wikipedians - even when we think they're terrible or totally wrong.
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Carol Moore dc <carolmooredc@verizon.net
wrote:
Wikipedia and the war on women’s dignity
http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/09/07/wikipedia-and-the-war-on-womens-dignity...
This article mentions an individual who's caused problems at the Gender Gap task force.
Off wiki sites engaging in outing is, like hashtags, a two edged sword. It can be used against truly problematic individuals who troll behind anonymity. But it also can be used against solid editors whose job or other situation necessitates anonymity but who have angered the wrong troll by trying to comply with policy.
And the absurdities continue....
CM
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
I'd disagree with you there, Andreas. A lot of journalism is badly researched for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia or Wikimedia. It has to do with limited resources, the need to make a splashy headline, and nowhere near enough sexy stuff. Not even the most fascinated journalists could make the majority of "issues" on Wikipedia look interesting: the biggest issues internally are so far inside baseball that even most Wikimedians don't get them.
Example: Despite a vast amount of effort, the overwhelming majority of "news" articles relating to the monkey selfie really missed the point of the copyright issue that was at the heart of the discussion. And even those that seemed to get the point still treated the subject as "Wikipedia being copyright wonks to the point of 'stealing' money out of the pocket of a real photographer".
No, I don't have a great deal of faith in journalists to get things right.
Risker/Anne
On 11 September 2014 22:31, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Anne,
That's precisely the point. A lot of journalism is badly researched, because Wikipedia is remarkably opaque to many outside observers. So you simply end up with people repeating PR fluff, or going for the easy headline.
Here are a couple of articles that are different. I would contend they had a palpable positive impact on Wikipedia:
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/
http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest...
This one didn't make a big impact, but it was a story I cared about:
http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/wikipedia-plastic-surgery-otto-placik-labi...
There are stories like this about the gender gap that simply haven't been heard. They have only bounced off the walls within the Wikipedia echo chamber, muffled by nay-sayers.
Those stories *should* be heard.
Andreas
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:59 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Frankly, I see little value in creating a site whose goal includes attracting journalists - particularly given the poor quality, sensationalistic journalism that we've all seen "reporting" on anything Wikimedia.
Risker/Anne
On 11 September 2014 18:51, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
In my opinion, women should look to organising off-wiki. Women-only site Women.com was mentioned the other day on the Gender Gap Task Force page. Activism there could certainly fulfil a useful function.
Ultimately, I think there should be a separate site for the gender gap effort – combining a blog and a forum, much like Wikipediocracy – where women and men interested in narrowing the gender gap and documenting the existing problems can exchange views in an atmosphere undisturbed by men pretending to be women, men opposed to narrowing the gender gap, men arguing that it's not really proven that the gender gap is a problem, and so forth.
It could do wonders for the effort's signal-to-noise ratio, and could probably achieve exponentially more in terms of raising public awareness. As it is, discussions on-wiki get bogged down in arguments leading nowhere, and contributors' energies are dissipated.[1]
A well-publicised off-wiki site forming links to journalists and academics working in this field would be an ideal complement to this mailing list – which is useful for networking with researchers and Wikipedians, but creates little or no direct publicity. No journalist will comb through the voluminous discussions here. You need a place where you can summarise issues in a more easily digestible format.
Unrelated to this, some of you may be interested in an ongoing discussion of the Wikipedia gender gap happening on Hacker News / Y Combinator:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8304173
[1] Note the current arbitration request on the English Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gender_Gap...
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Katherine Casey < fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't think it's appropriate to use this list to link to pages that out other users. I understand your frustration with nothing onwiki getting done, Carol, I truly do, but part of the social contract of being a Wikipedian is that we're expected to not attack the "real lives" of other Wikipedians - even when we think they're terrible or totally wrong.
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Carol Moore dc < carolmooredc@verizon.net> wrote:
Wikipedia and the war on women’s dignity
http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/09/07/wikipedia-and-the-war-on-womens-dignity...
This article mentions an individual who's caused problems at the Gender Gap task force.
Off wiki sites engaging in outing is, like hashtags, a two edged sword. It can be used against truly problematic individuals who troll behind anonymity. But it also can be used against solid editors whose job or other situation necessitates anonymity but who have angered the wrong troll by trying to comply with policy.
And the absurdities continue....
CM
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