On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 7:26 AM, J Hayes slowking4@gmail.com wrote:

well, they did not revdel it. arbcom can drive the discussion off wiki, but cannot ban the Guardian for "bad journalism" certain account behaviors are being favored you should expect to see a lot more of those behaviors in the future

this will necessitate a lot of wiki-splaining

thank-you arbcom for firing up every up coming feminist editathon you may not care how how you are perceived, but the negative blowback will tarnish all of wikimedia

​Smallbones has suggested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias%2FGender_gap_task_force&diff=643969579&oldid=643910647 on the GGTF talk page that a group of Wikipedians petition the Foundation to ​

​"​take steps to identify and remove institutionalized sexism on Wikipedia."

One issue that has concerned me is that editors who care about these issues don't combine our weight. We have the GGTF, this mailing list, the Twitter and Facebook accounts, but we don't act with one voice when it matters. I'm not sure of the reasons for that, but I think it damages our efforts. What can we do to start pulling together more?

Sarah

When I see a discussion thread being 'jumped on' and derailed by negative comments I sometimes think perhaps the answer is - as a kind of code / signifier, and instead of "why don't you...." or "if all you've come here to do is cause trouble...." - to say:

"Well if this thread / page is going to be knocked off track anyway":

Recipe for chicken noodle soup by Mary Cadogan

Ingredients

900ml chicken or vegetable stock (or Miso soup mix) 1 boneless, skinless chicken breast, about 175g/6oz 1 tsp chopped fresh root ginger 1 garlic clove, finely chopped 50g rice or wheat noodles 2 tbsp sweetcorn, canned or frozen 2-3 mushrooms, thinly sliced 2 spring onions, shredded 2 tsp soy sauce, plus extra for serving mint or basil leaves and a little shredded chilli (optional), to serve

Method 1. Pour the stock into a pan and add the chicken, ginger and garlic. Bring to the boil, then reduce the heat, partly cover and simmer for 20 mins, until the chicken is tender. Remove the chicken to a board and shred into bite-size pieces using a couple of forks.

2. Return the chicken to the stock with the noodles, corn, mushrooms, half the spring onions and the soy sauce. Simmer for 3-4 mins until the noodles are tender. Ladle into two bowls and scatter over the remaining spring onions, herbs and chilli shreds if using. Serve with extra soy sauce for sprinkling.

Recipe from the Good Food magazine, February 2006

Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 09:36:46 -0700 From: slimvirgin@gmail.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] press coverage of Gamergate arbcom case

On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 7:26 AM, J Hayes slowking4@gmail.com wrote: well, they did not revdel it. arbcom can drive the discussion off wiki, but cannot ban the Guardian for "bad journalism" certain account behaviors are being favored you should expect to see a lot more of those behaviors in the future

this will necessitate a lot of wiki-splaining

thank-you arbcom for firing up every up coming feminist editathon you may not care how how you are perceived, but the negative blowback will tarnish all of wikimedia

​Smallbones has suggested on the GGTF talk page that a group of Wikipedians petition the Foundation to ​ ​"​take steps to identify and remove institutionalized sexism on Wikipedia."

One issue that has concerned me is that editors who care about these issues don't combine our weight. We have the GGTF, this mailing list, the Twitter and Facebook accounts, but we don't act with one voice when it matters. I'm not sure of the reasons for that, but I think it damages our efforts. What can we do to start pulling together more?

Sarah

_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Press coverage is widening:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/23/wikipedia-bans-editors-fro...

http://internet.gawker.com/wikipedia-purged-a-group-of-feminist-editors-beca...

http://pando.com/2015/01/23/wikipedia-tacitly-endorses-gamergate-by-blocking...

http://www.themarysue.com/wikipedia-gamergate/

http://www.volkskrant.nl/tech/hoe-gamergate-wikipedia-blijft-vervuilen~a3835...

http://derstandard.at/2000010843264/Eintrag-zu-GamerGate-Wikipedia-sperrt-fe...

These articles are getting thousands of tweets.

It's unfortunate that the original Guardian article, based on Mark Bernstein's blog post, contains a few inaccuracies that are now being repeated. The broad thrust of the article however remains correct, as Tarc says.

What this illustrates is the potential power of a good blog post for raising public awareness of gender gap issues in Wikipedia. The recent Anitaborg piece did well in social media too:

http://anitaborg.org/news/blog/how-to-edit-wikipedia-lessons-from-a-female-c...

Really, there is a desperate need for an off-wiki site documenting, explaining and publicising these issues.

Andreas

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Tarc . tarc@hotmail.com wrote:

I just wanted to bring up a point wrt "but cannot ban the Guardian for "bad journalism"" below, there are already efforts underway on the Gamergate talk page by a single-purpose account to do just that. The argument is that since this Guardian article is so "wrong" (and it really isn't, just in minor details), therefore the Guardian should be stripped as a source in the Gamergate article.

These are the types of antics that the 2nd wave of 8chan/redditors are going to be pulling, once some of us have been swept away.

-t

---

Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 09:26:47 -0500 From: slowking4@gmail.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] press coverage of Gamergate arbcom case

well, they did not revdel it. arbcom can drive the discussion off wiki, but cannot ban the Guardian for "bad journalism" certain account behaviors are being favored you should expect to see a lot more of those behaviors in the future

this will necessitate a lot of wiki-splaining

thank-you arbcom for firing up every up coming feminist editathon you may not care how how you are perceived, but the negative blowback will tarnish all of wikimedia

On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 12:06 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:

The rediculous thing is that none of the people defending that article were 'feminists'. They were just defending the mainstream point of view from an endless onslaught of 8channers. The feminist point view isn't even represented in the article.

On Jan 23, 2015, at 7:14 PM, J Hayes slowking4@gmail.com wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/23/wikipedia-bans-editors-fro...

http://internet.gawker.com/wikipedia-purged-a-group-of-feminist-editors-beca...

---

Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

---

Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

---

Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap