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_systemi… 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_bia… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bia… 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(a)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(a)gmail.com > 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(a)verizon.net >> >> 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_systemi… >> >> 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_bia… >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bia… >> 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please >> visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap