Is it possible to post some of the stuff that has been mentioned on here on the GGTF talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic...
It feels like the two have nothing in common at the moment. There's a whole load of "why don't we survey women and find out what they like to edit / give women their own noticeboard / review the scope of the project" - type rhetoric.
Rather than wade in and argue (it's pointless, I got accused of 'radical feminism' POV pushing for my trouble), can some of the stuff about grants, meet ups etc. and replies be posted so we can move on, and all of the "let's rip it up and start again" stuff can make its way into the archive?
Marie
On 12/29/2014 12:31 PM, Marie Earley wrote:
Is it possible to post some of the stuff that has been mentioned on here on the GGTF talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic...
It feels like the two have nothing in common at the moment. There's a whole load of "why don't we survey women and find out what they like to edit / give women their own noticeboard / review the scope of the project" - type rhetoric.
Rather than wade in and argue (it's pointless, I got accused of 'radical feminism' POV pushing for my trouble), can some of the stuff about grants, meet ups etc. and replies be posted so we can move on, and all of the "let's rip it up and start again" stuff can make its way into the archive?
Marie
Everything you see is just a variation of what was happening all summer, with the pro-GGTF editors managing to keep their tempers against various attempts by anti-project editors to disrupt the project by trying to narrow and control the scope (as some women explicitly have complained):
*general nitpicking of statement by a woman/supporter of project that supports the original vision of being both about increasing number of articles about women/topics of interest to women and increasing number of women, including by dealing with issues that turn women off (both software and behavior issues). (One editor summarized these past comments here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Vintage_Feminist/GGTF%27s_re-boot The comments are being challenged.) And of course various accusations of defacto sexism for those who complain about this, as Marie alludes to above
*Opposition to the idea of using the page to get other editors to help with new articles about women unless the articles are already 100% in compliance with every policy imaginable.
*proposal to divide GGTF into two projects, one for articles about women, the other for getting more women and "behavior"problems; divide and conquor is the strategy here and I'm sure the second would quickly be put up for deletion, widdling the project down to nothing
*proposal to invite anything and everything regarding women (including perhaps through womens noticeboard), which could be used to water GGTF down to nothing regarding a gender gap by flooding with less relevant concerns
*continuing contention that there is no evidence that there's a problem despite these two existing pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias... It would help if
*Past edits at GGTF show that one or more of the alleged women posting now are recruits of editors against the project from the arbitration.
We'll see what happens...
CM
yep, let's study some more, not all men, let's recruit more pipeline...
i tend to edit in article space. talk space and even project talk are dysfunctional (waste of time) people seeking to disrupt, can only on wiki.
i tend to organize on facebook, twitter, meetup etc. where there is adult supervision.
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2014 12:31 PM, Marie Earley wrote:
Is it possible to post some of the stuff that has been mentioned on here on the GGTF talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic...
It feels like the two have nothing in common at the moment. There's a whole load of "why don't we survey women and find out what they like to edit / give women their own noticeboard / review the scope of the project"
- type rhetoric.
Rather than wade in and argue (it's pointless, I got accused of 'radical feminism' POV pushing for my trouble), can some of the stuff about grants, meet ups etc. and replies be posted so we can move on, and all of the "let's rip it up and start again" stuff can make its way into the archive?
Marie
Everything you see is just a variation of what was happening all summer, with the pro-GGTF editors managing to keep their tempers against various attempts by anti-project editors to disrupt the project by trying to narrow and control the scope (as some women explicitly have complained):
*general nitpicking of statement by a woman/supporter of project that supports the original vision of being both about increasing number of articles about women/topics of interest to women and increasing number of women, including by dealing with issues that turn women off (both software and behavior issues). (One editor summarized these past comments here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Vintage_Feminist/GGTF%27s_re-boot The comments are being challenged.) And of course various accusations of defacto sexism for those who complain about this, as Marie alludes to above
*Opposition to the idea of using the page to get other editors to help with new articles about women unless the articles are already 100% in compliance with every policy imaginable.
*proposal to divide GGTF into two projects, one for articles about women, the other for getting more women and "behavior"problems; divide and conquor is the strategy here and I'm sure the second would quickly be put up for deletion, widdling the project down to nothing
*proposal to invite anything and everything regarding women (including perhaps through womens noticeboard), which could be used to water GGTF down to nothing regarding a gender gap by flooding with less relevant concerns
*continuing contention that there is no evidence that there's a problem despite these two existing pages:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias... It would help if
*Past edits at GGTF show that one or more of the alleged women posting now are recruits of editors against the project from the arbitration.
We'll see what happens...
CM
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
+1 to that. My tips are:
1) No talk pages if I can avoid it 2) Other channels (sorry people, but not all revolutions can take place in front of everyone) 3) Social media
I get more value asking for help on Twitter and Facebook than I do on any other medium.
ANd that's why the WikiWomen's Collaborative was created - social media brings more females (since we use it more than males!).
-Sarah
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 2:07 PM, disgruntled grognard slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
yep, let's study some more, not all men, let's recruit more pipeline...
i tend to edit in article space. talk space and even project talk are dysfunctional (waste of time) people seeking to disrupt, can only on wiki.
i tend to organize on facebook, twitter, meetup etc. where there is adult supervision.
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2014 12:31 PM, Marie Earley wrote:
Is it possible to post some of the stuff that has been mentioned on here on the GGTF talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic...
It feels like the two have nothing in common at the moment. There's a whole load of "why don't we survey women and find out what they like to edit / give women their own noticeboard / review the scope of the project"
- type rhetoric.
Rather than wade in and argue (it's pointless, I got accused of 'radical feminism' POV pushing for my trouble), can some of the stuff about grants, meet ups etc. and replies be posted so we can move on, and all of the "let's rip it up and start again" stuff can make its way into the archive?
Marie
Everything you see is just a variation of what was happening all summer, with the pro-GGTF editors managing to keep their tempers against various attempts by anti-project editors to disrupt the project by trying to narrow and control the scope (as some women explicitly have complained):
*general nitpicking of statement by a woman/supporter of project that supports the original vision of being both about increasing number of articles about women/topics of interest to women and increasing number of women, including by dealing with issues that turn women off (both software and behavior issues). (One editor summarized these past comments here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Vintage_Feminist/GGTF%27s_re-boot The comments are being challenged.) And of course various accusations of defacto sexism for those who complain about this, as Marie alludes to above
*Opposition to the idea of using the page to get other editors to help with new articles about women unless the articles are already 100% in compliance with every policy imaginable.
*proposal to divide GGTF into two projects, one for articles about women, the other for getting more women and "behavior"problems; divide and conquor is the strategy here and I'm sure the second would quickly be put up for deletion, widdling the project down to nothing
*proposal to invite anything and everything regarding women (including perhaps through womens noticeboard), which could be used to water GGTF down to nothing regarding a gender gap by flooding with less relevant concerns
*continuing contention that there is no evidence that there's a problem despite these two existing pages:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias... It would help if
*Past edits at GGTF show that one or more of the alleged women posting now are recruits of editors against the project from the arbitration.
We'll see what happens...
CM
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
Very interesting thoughts. Myself, I avoid Facebook and Twitter like the plague, but I realise I'm very much in the minority there. I don't object to their existence, don't get me wrong, and I know some people find it useful.
Having said that - it's interesting to read what another woman has written about "Wikipedia's notoriously gangsterish back channels" in a tribute to our former colleague Adrienne Wadewitz published by the New York Times. (While the writer doesn't seem to think much of Wikipedia, it's still a great tribute to Adrienne.)
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/25/magazine/2014-the-lives-they-l...
Risker/Anne
On 29 December 2014 at 17:25, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
+1 to that. My tips are:
- No talk pages if I can avoid it
- Other channels (sorry people, but not all revolutions can take place in
front of everyone) 3) Social media
I get more value asking for help on Twitter and Facebook than I do on any other medium.
ANd that's why the WikiWomen's Collaborative was created - social media brings more females (since we use it more than males!).
-Sarah
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 2:07 PM, disgruntled grognard <slowking4@gmail.com
wrote:
yep, let's study some more, not all men, let's recruit more pipeline...
i tend to edit in article space. talk space and even project talk are dysfunctional (waste of time) people seeking to disrupt, can only on wiki.
i tend to organize on facebook, twitter, meetup etc. where there is adult supervision.
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Carol Moore dc <carolmooredc@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/29/2014 12:31 PM, Marie Earley wrote:
Is it possible to post some of the stuff that has been mentioned on here on the GGTF talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic...
It feels like the two have nothing in common at the moment. There's a whole load of "why don't we survey women and find out what they like to edit / give women their own noticeboard / review the scope of the project"
- type rhetoric.
Rather than wade in and argue (it's pointless, I got accused of 'radical feminism' POV pushing for my trouble), can some of the stuff about grants, meet ups etc. and replies be posted so we can move on, and all of the "let's rip it up and start again" stuff can make its way into the archive?
Marie
Everything you see is just a variation of what was happening all summer, with the pro-GGTF editors managing to keep their tempers against various attempts by anti-project editors to disrupt the project by trying to narrow and control the scope (as some women explicitly have complained):
*general nitpicking of statement by a woman/supporter of project that supports the original vision of being both about increasing number of articles about women/topics of interest to women and increasing number of women, including by dealing with issues that turn women off (both software and behavior issues). (One editor summarized these past comments here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Vintage_Feminist/GGTF%27s_re-boot The comments are being challenged.) And of course various accusations of defacto sexism for those who complain about this, as Marie alludes to above
*Opposition to the idea of using the page to get other editors to help with new articles about women unless the articles are already 100% in compliance with every policy imaginable.
*proposal to divide GGTF into two projects, one for articles about women, the other for getting more women and "behavior"problems; divide and conquor is the strategy here and I'm sure the second would quickly be put up for deletion, widdling the project down to nothing
*proposal to invite anything and everything regarding women (including perhaps through womens noticeboard), which could be used to water GGTF down to nothing regarding a gender gap by flooding with less relevant concerns
*continuing contention that there is no evidence that there's a problem despite these two existing pages:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias... It would help if
*Past edits at GGTF show that one or more of the alleged women posting now are recruits of editors against the project from the arbitration.
We'll see what happens...
CM
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
--
Sarah Stierch
Diverse and engaging consulting for your organization.
www.sarahstierch.com
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Honestly, I'm leery about participating on this list a lot of the time because I don't know who everyone is - that is the name they use on this list doesn't match their name on Wikipedia. There is one I've figured out, and he is one of the ones who has said some very bad things about me on talk pages. Same thing with the Facebook group. At first I was excited to join because it's apparently for women only, but two women I reached out to there did not help me, and I worry that there could be people there pretending to be someone else.
I have experienced so much hostility on Wikipedia - which I never expected before I joined, I was so naive - that my trust is shaken and every other editor, or mailing-list or FB member, could be a spy or a "joe job."
After the recent ArbCom my faith in the WP dispute resolution system is at an all-time low, but at least there it's all documented publicly and I've come to know who most of my enemies (for lack of a better word) are.
I'm going out for the day soon, so I may not see replies (if there are any) right away - but I will read them.
Lightbreather
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
+1 to that. My tips are:
- No talk pages if I can avoid it
- Other channels (sorry people, but not all revolutions can take place in
front of everyone) 3) Social media
I get more value asking for help on Twitter and Facebook than I do on any other medium.
ANd that's why the WikiWomen's Collaborative was created - social media brings more females (since we use it more than males!).
-Sarah
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 2:07 PM, disgruntled grognard <slowking4@gmail.com
wrote:
yep, let's study some more, not all men, let's recruit more pipeline...
i tend to edit in article space. talk space and even project talk are dysfunctional (waste of time) people seeking to disrupt, can only on wiki.
i tend to organize on facebook, twitter, meetup etc. where there is adult supervision.
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Carol Moore dc <carolmooredc@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/29/2014 12:31 PM, Marie Earley wrote:
Is it possible to post some of the stuff that has been mentioned on here on the GGTF talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic...
It feels like the two have nothing in common at the moment. There's a whole load of "why don't we survey women and find out what they like to edit / give women their own noticeboard / review the scope of the project"
- type rhetoric.
Rather than wade in and argue (it's pointless, I got accused of 'radical feminism' POV pushing for my trouble), can some of the stuff about grants, meet ups etc. and replies be posted so we can move on, and all of the "let's rip it up and start again" stuff can make its way into the archive?
Marie
Everything you see is just a variation of what was happening all summer, with the pro-GGTF editors managing to keep their tempers against various attempts by anti-project editors to disrupt the project by trying to narrow and control the scope (as some women explicitly have complained):
*general nitpicking of statement by a woman/supporter of project that supports the original vision of being both about increasing number of articles about women/topics of interest to women and increasing number of women, including by dealing with issues that turn women off (both software and behavior issues). (One editor summarized these past comments here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Vintage_Feminist/GGTF%27s_re-boot The comments are being challenged.) And of course various accusations of defacto sexism for those who complain about this, as Marie alludes to above
*Opposition to the idea of using the page to get other editors to help with new articles about women unless the articles are already 100% in compliance with every policy imaginable.
*proposal to divide GGTF into two projects, one for articles about women, the other for getting more women and "behavior"problems; divide and conquor is the strategy here and I'm sure the second would quickly be put up for deletion, widdling the project down to nothing
*proposal to invite anything and everything regarding women (including perhaps through womens noticeboard), which could be used to water GGTF down to nothing regarding a gender gap by flooding with less relevant concerns
*continuing contention that there is no evidence that there's a problem despite these two existing pages:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias... It would help if
*Past edits at GGTF show that one or more of the alleged women posting now are recruits of editors against the project from the arbitration.
We'll see what happens...
CM
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
--
Sarah Stierch
Diverse and engaging consulting for your organization.
www.sarahstierch.com
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap