Hi, I'm new to this list, this is my first post.
If Wikipedia is a boy's club, Wiktionary is an uber boy's club. It *so* desperately needs people interested in addressing systemic bias.
Every time I try to make completely legitimate fixes to address systemic bias of the male privilege variety (for example, https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=so&type=revision&diff=42... ) it is reverted very quickly (in the just-referenced case, within 10 minutes). Then a fight must ensue in which I'm accused of being things like "dishonest", "disrespectful" and 'railing'. The person in this case has demonstrated his double standards in his edit summary and in his comments to me on his talk page, and that is absolutely (unfortunately) the norm amongst long-term Wiktionary editors.
It is incredibly demoralising. My contributions to Wiktionary include adding etymologies, adding quotations, all with absolutely no gender issues involved, yet none of that work is ever recognised in any way, and I'm treated like a resented interloper. The majority of long-term Wiktionary editors seem to bitterly resent the very suggestion of addressing systemic bias. It is a really, really nasty little uber boy's club in there. Which I realise may not encourage anyone to join, I'm just being honest.
At the risk of being labelled biased, I do not see that that was a legitimate fix to address systemic bias. It looked rather pointy to me. Perhaps you could explain just how it addressed systemic bias in a useful way.
Cheers, Peter
From: Gendergap [mailto:gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jessy D. King Sent: Wednesday, 26 April 2017 7:27 PM To: Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Gendergap] Wiktionary *desperately* needs more gender-aware editors
Hi,
I'm new to this list, this is my first post.
If Wikipedia is a boy's club, Wiktionary is an uber boy's club. It *so* desperately needs people interested in addressing systemic bias.
Every time I try to make completely legitimate fixes to address systemic bias of the male privilege variety (for example,
https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=so https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=so&type=revision&diff=42598962&oldid=42598906 &type=revision&diff=42598962&oldid=42598906 )
it is reverted very quickly (in the just-referenced case, within 10 minutes). Then a fight must ensue in which I'm accused of being things like "dishonest", "disrespectful" and 'railing'. The person in this case has demonstrated his double standards in his edit summary and in his comments to me on his talk page, and that is absolutely (unfortunately) the norm amongst long-term Wiktionary editors.
It is incredibly demoralising. My contributions to Wiktionary include adding etymologies, adding quotations, all with absolutely no gender issues involved, yet none of that work is ever recognised in any way, and I'm treated like a resented interloper. The majority of long-term Wiktionary editors seem to bitterly resent the very suggestion of addressing systemic bias. It is a really, really nasty little uber boy's club in there. Which I realise may not encourage anyone to join, I'm just being honest.
the smaller wikis have ownership issues , the arguments are so vehement because the stakes are so small.
i would advise trying out lots of other wikis like commons or wikisource or wikidata. friendlier at source, and lots more metadata cleanup to do at commons / wikidata.
cheers.
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 3:13 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
At the risk of being labelled biased, I do not see that that was a legitimate fix to address systemic bias. It looked rather pointy to me. Perhaps you could explain just how it addressed systemic bias in a useful way.
Cheers, Peter
*From:* Gendergap [mailto:gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Jessy D. King *Sent:* Wednesday, 26 April 2017 7:27 PM *To:* Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org *Subject:* [Gendergap] Wiktionary *desperately* needs more gender-aware editors
Hi,
I'm new to this list, this is my first post.
If Wikipedia is a boy's club, Wiktionary is an uber boy's club. It *so* desperately needs people interested in addressing systemic bias.
Every time I try to make completely legitimate fixes to address systemic bias of the male privilege variety (for example,
https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=so&type= revision&diff=42598962&oldid=42598906 )
it is reverted very quickly (in the just-referenced case, within 10 minutes). Then a fight must ensue in which I'm accused of being things like "dishonest", "disrespectful" and 'railing'. The person in this case has demonstrated his double standards in his edit summary and in his comments to me on his talk page, and that is absolutely (unfortunately) the norm amongst long-term Wiktionary editors.
It is incredibly demoralising. My contributions to Wiktionary include adding etymologies, adding quotations, all with absolutely no gender issues involved, yet none of that work is ever recognised in any way, and I'm treated like a resented interloper. The majority of long-term Wiktionary editors seem to bitterly resent the very suggestion of addressing systemic bias. It is a really, really nasty little uber boy's club in there. Which I realise may not encourage anyone to join, I'm just being honest.
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Inline replies to 3 people...
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 1:57 PM, J Hayes slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
the smaller wikis have ownership issues , the arguments are so vehement because the stakes are so small.
i would advise trying out lots of other wikis like commons or wikisource or wikidata. friendlier at source, and lots more metadata cleanup to do at commons / wikidata.
Hello J. When someone comes to an issue-specific list to discuss that issue, why would you recommend that they just edit somewhere else and not speak to their question? Isn't it the point of this list to discuss gendergap issues?
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 3:13 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
At the risk of being labelled biased, I do not see that that was a legitimate fix to address systemic bias. It looked rather pointy to me. Perhaps you could explain just how it addressed systemic bias in a useful way.
Cheers, Peter
Peter, what I see in that first edit was the removal of a sentence that spoke about the appearance of a woman for no reason at all. There is more information here http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Beauty_duty
*From:* Gendergap [mailto:gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] *On
Behalf Of *Jessy D. King
*Sent:* Wednesday, 26 April 2017 7:27 PM *To:* Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org *Subject:* [Gendergap] Wiktionary *desperately* needs more gender-aware editors
Hi,
I'm new to this list, this is my first post.
If Wikipedia is a boy's club, Wiktionary is an uber boy's club. It *so* desperately needs people interested in addressing systemic bias.
Every time I try to make completely legitimate fixes to address systemic bias of the male privilege variety (for example,
https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=so&type=revision &diff=42598962&oldid=42598906 )
it is reverted very quickly (in the just-referenced case, within 10 minutes). Then a fight must ensue in which I'm accused of being things like "dishonest", "disrespectful" and 'railing'. The person in this case has demonstrated his double standards in his edit summary and in his comments to me on his talk page, and that is absolutely (unfortunately) the norm amongst long-term Wiktionary editors.
It is incredibly demoralising. My contributions to Wiktionary include adding etymologies, adding quotations, all with absolutely no gender issues involved, yet none of that work is ever recognised in any way, and I'm treated like a resented interloper. The majority of long-term Wiktionary editors seem to bitterly resent the very suggestion of addressing systemic bias. It is a really, really nasty little uber boy's club in there. Which I realise may not encourage anyone to join, I'm just being honest.
Hello Jessy, I appreciate your efforts to remove gender issues from Wiktionary. I am disappointed that you found a similar reaction in this list.
Warmly, Heather
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
I, personally, would rather that this list not be used to criticize specific editors in a forum that they have no opportunity to respond in. I'm not a list admin, but I'm pretty sure this list is for talking about general issues relating to the gender gap.
I would strongly recommend to use the existing dispute resolution methods available onwiki instead of coming to this list to complain about specific editors and their actions.
I'd also take this opportunity to ask that the list admins create a transparent set of rules for messages sent to this list, because there has been a lot of uncivil discourse before on this mailing list and I think it would be prudent to ensure a clear set of guidelines are in force to ensure civility in the future.
On May 27, 2017 21:16, "Heather Walls" hwalls@wikimedia.org wrote:
Inline replies to 3 people...
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 1:57 PM, J Hayes slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
the smaller wikis have ownership issues , the arguments are so vehement because the stakes are so small.
i would advise trying out lots of other wikis like commons or wikisource or wikidata. friendlier at source, and lots more metadata cleanup to do at commons / wikidata.
Hello J. When someone comes to an issue-specific list to discuss that issue, why would you recommend that they just edit somewhere else and not speak to their question? Isn't it the point of this list to discuss gendergap issues?
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 3:13 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
At the risk of being labelled biased, I do not see that that was a legitimate fix to address systemic bias. It looked rather pointy to me. Perhaps you could explain just how it addressed systemic bias in a useful way.
Cheers, Peter
Peter, what I see in that first edit was the removal of a sentence that spoke about the appearance of a woman for no reason at all. There is more information here http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Beauty_duty
*From:* Gendergap [mailto:gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] *On
Behalf Of *Jessy D. King
*Sent:* Wednesday, 26 April 2017 7:27 PM *To:* Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org *Subject:* [Gendergap] Wiktionary *desperately* needs more gender-aware editors
Hi,
I'm new to this list, this is my first post.
If Wikipedia is a boy's club, Wiktionary is an uber boy's club. It *so* desperately needs people interested in addressing systemic bias.
Every time I try to make completely legitimate fixes to address systemic bias of the male privilege variety (for example,
https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=so&type=revision &diff=42598962&oldid=42598906 )
it is reverted very quickly (in the just-referenced case, within 10 minutes). Then a fight must ensue in which I'm accused of being things like "dishonest", "disrespectful" and 'railing'. The person in this case has demonstrated his double standards in his edit summary and in his comments to me on his talk page, and that is absolutely (unfortunately) the norm amongst long-term Wiktionary editors.
It is incredibly demoralising. My contributions to Wiktionary include adding etymologies, adding quotations, all with absolutely no gender issues involved, yet none of that work is ever recognised in any way, and I'm treated like a resented interloper. The majority of long-term Wiktionary editors seem to bitterly resent the very suggestion of addressing systemic bias. It is a really, really nasty little uber boy's club in there. Which I realise may not encourage anyone to join, I'm just being honest.
Hello Jessy, I appreciate your efforts to remove gender issues from Wiktionary. I am disappointed that you found a similar reaction in this list.
Warmly, Heather
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
Hello all, I first saw this on the mailing list and not through email, so the links did not come through and I had to search around the edit histories for a while. What I saw was a lot of errors--errors in pronunciation markings, in wiki text markup, and in not knowing where the first attributed usage comes from ( the OED). If you are writing a dictionary, this is very basic stuff. And I saw the regulars being very patient in reverting the incorrect edits and in explaining why they were incorrect. When I saw that one of noted linguist Mark Lieberman's trademarked "breakfast experiments" had been edited as well, I thought I had seen the fourth out of four errors. But checking the source, Lieberman did not use any examples, those were added by someone else, so I don't see any problem with changing them as long as it is not attributed to Lieberman.
Yes, the examples were biased, and thank you for to Heather for providing the link that explains it. I was thinking of "male gaze". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_gaze
That said, what was done with the examples was just to reverse the bias, which IMO is not good dictionary practice. It would be better to pick examples that accurately demonstrate the usage of the word, without introducing additional cultural biases or negative stereotypes. But I am not part of that community, and have not taken the time to understand how they do things, so I doubt they care what I think.
If you look further, some of the exchanges on the talk pages are not very productive. Something like this, with a user whose first language is Portuguese, is likely to go nowhere. https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ungoliant_MMDCCLXIV&am...
If someone with J Hayes' history with the movement is recommending that someone move on to a different project, I don't think this should be dismissed out of hand. His comments may sometimes come off as pessimistic, but they are born from long experience.
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 9:16 PM, Heather Walls hwalls@wikimedia.org wrote:
Inline replies to 3 people...
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 1:57 PM, J Hayes slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
the smaller wikis have ownership issues , the arguments are so vehement because the stakes are so small.
i would advise trying out lots of other wikis like commons or wikisource or wikidata. friendlier at source, and lots more metadata cleanup to do at commons / wikidata.
Hello J. When someone comes to an issue-specific list to discuss that issue, why would you recommend that they just edit somewhere else and not speak to their question? Isn't it the point of this list to discuss gendergap issues?
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 3:13 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
At the risk of being labelled biased, I do not see that that was a legitimate fix to address systemic bias. It looked rather pointy to me. Perhaps you could explain just how it addressed systemic bias in a useful way.
Cheers, Peter
Peter, what I see in that first edit was the removal of a sentence that spoke about the appearance of a woman for no reason at all. There is more information here http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Beauty_duty
*From:* Gendergap [mailto:gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] *On
Behalf Of *Jessy D. King
*Sent:* Wednesday, 26 April 2017 7:27 PM *To:* Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org *Subject:* [Gendergap] Wiktionary *desperately* needs more gender-aware editors
Hi,
I'm new to this list, this is my first post.
If Wikipedia is a boy's club, Wiktionary is an uber boy's club. It *so* desperately needs people interested in addressing systemic bias.
Every time I try to make completely legitimate fixes to address systemic bias of the male privilege variety (for example,
https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=so&type=revision &diff=42598962&oldid=42598906 )
it is reverted very quickly (in the just-referenced case, within 10 minutes). Then a fight must ensue in which I'm accused of being things like "dishonest", "disrespectful" and 'railing'. The person in this case has demonstrated his double standards in his edit summary and in his comments to me on his talk page, and that is absolutely (unfortunately) the norm amongst long-term Wiktionary editors.
It is incredibly demoralising. My contributions to Wiktionary include adding etymologies, adding quotations, all with absolutely no gender issues involved, yet none of that work is ever recognised in any way, and I'm treated like a resented interloper. The majority of long-term Wiktionary editors seem to bitterly resent the very suggestion of addressing systemic bias. It is a really, really nasty little uber boy's club in there. Which I realise may not encourage anyone to join, I'm just being honest.
Hello Jessy, I appreciate your efforts to remove gender issues from Wiktionary. I am disappointed that you found a similar reaction in this list.
Warmly, Heather
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
because better to leave and do productive work elsewhere, and let wictionary die, than to fight and get burnt out and blocked.
we all have to decide where we are on exit versus voice - many people are choosing to leave, it is a rational alternative. SItranscribe is built on ex-wikipedia volunteers
j
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 4:57 PM, J Hayes slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
the smaller wikis have ownership issues , the arguments are so vehement because the stakes are so small.
i would advise trying out lots of other wikis like commons or wikisource or wikidata. friendlier at source, and lots more metadata cleanup to do at commons / wikidata.
cheers.
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 3:13 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
At the risk of being labelled biased, I do not see that that was a legitimate fix to address systemic bias. It looked rather pointy to me. Perhaps you could explain just how it addressed systemic bias in a useful way.
Cheers, Peter
*From:* Gendergap [mailto:gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Jessy D. King *Sent:* Wednesday, 26 April 2017 7:27 PM *To:* Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org *Subject:* [Gendergap] Wiktionary *desperately* needs more gender-aware editors
Hi,
I'm new to this list, this is my first post.
If Wikipedia is a boy's club, Wiktionary is an uber boy's club. It *so* desperately needs people interested in addressing systemic bias.
Every time I try to make completely legitimate fixes to address systemic bias of the male privilege variety (for example,
https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=so&type=revision &diff=42598962&oldid=42598906 )
it is reverted very quickly (in the just-referenced case, within 10 minutes). Then a fight must ensue in which I'm accused of being things like "dishonest", "disrespectful" and 'railing'. The person in this case has demonstrated his double standards in his edit summary and in his comments to me on his talk page, and that is absolutely (unfortunately) the norm amongst long-term Wiktionary editors.
It is incredibly demoralising. My contributions to Wiktionary include adding etymologies, adding quotations, all with absolutely no gender issues involved, yet none of that work is ever recognised in any way, and I'm treated like a resented interloper. The majority of long-term Wiktionary editors seem to bitterly resent the very suggestion of addressing systemic bias. It is a really, really nasty little uber boy's club in there. Which I realise may not encourage anyone to join, I'm just being honest.
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Hi Jessy, Sorry to learn about this sad experience. I had the impression - on the French wiktionnary, things were easier (but I am not contributing myself). Kind regards, Nattes à chat
Le 26 avr. 2017 à 19:27, Jessy D. King jessy.d.king@gmail.com a écrit :
Hi, I'm new to this list, this is my first post.
If Wikipedia is a boy's club, Wiktionary is an uber boy's club. It *so* desperately needs people interested in addressing systemic bias.
Every time I try to make completely legitimate fixes to address systemic bias of the male privilege variety (for example, https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=so&type=revision&diff=42... ) it is reverted very quickly (in the just-referenced case, within 10 minutes). Then a fight must ensue in which I'm accused of being things like "dishonest", "disrespectful" and 'railing'. The person in this case has demonstrated his double standards in his edit summary and in his comments to me on his talk page, and that is absolutely (unfortunately) the norm amongst long-term Wiktionary editors.
It is incredibly demoralising. My contributions to Wiktionary include adding etymologies, adding quotations, all with absolutely no gender issues involved, yet none of that work is ever recognised in any way, and I'm treated like a resented interloper. The majority of long-term Wiktionary editors seem to bitterly resent the very suggestion of addressing systemic bias. It is a really, really nasty little uber boy's club in there. Which I realise may not encourage anyone to join, I'm just being honest.
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Hello Jessy -
I see that your second effort[1], where you eliminated all references to physical appearance of either gender was accepted. I think that was appropriate. I think what was a bigger issue in your first effort was that you just switched male to female and vice versa, but left in the part about physical appearance in both cases. Your second effort was exemplary - it reflected completely gender-neutral attributes (cleverness, athletic ability) and is an excellent way to have addressed the gender bias in the information. Just switching the gender without changing the attribute didn't really make the references less biased or more gender-neutral. That you identified positive gender-neutral attributes with a woman in these examples was a major coup on your part, and is possibly one of the best examples of addressing a systemic bias I've seen in a while.
It occurs to me that you figured out all by yourself how to improve the Wiktionary entry while also removing the systemic bias, by sticking to it and thinking more broadly about the issue. I'm not sure that you'll get recognition for this work, mostly because most editors get very little recognition. One thing that I personally have found to be rewarding is to receive a "thanks" message from another editor, which I have received for edits on Meta, English Wikipedia, and Commons. It appears to me that the "Thank" extension isn't active on English Wiktionary. If someone is more technically minded than me, perhaps this can be verified and a phabricator task initiated in order to get it active. Then I would encourage you to use it; many editors on Wiktionary will recognize (and probably appreciate) being thanked since it is active on other projects they probably edit, and will start reciprocating.
Risker/Anne
[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=so&type=revision&diff=42...
On 26 April 2017 at 13:27, Jessy D. King jessy.d.king@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I'm new to this list, this is my first post.
If Wikipedia is a boy's club, Wiktionary is an uber boy's club. It *so* desperately needs people interested in addressing systemic bias.
Every time I try to make completely legitimate fixes to address systemic bias of the male privilege variety (for example, https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=so&type= revision&diff=42598962&oldid=42598906 ) it is reverted very quickly (in the just-referenced case, within 10 minutes). Then a fight must ensue in which I'm accused of being things like "dishonest", "disrespectful" and 'railing'. The person in this case has demonstrated his double standards in his edit summary and in his comments to me on his talk page, and that is absolutely (unfortunately) the norm amongst long-term Wiktionary editors.
It is incredibly demoralising. My contributions to Wiktionary include adding etymologies, adding quotations, all with absolutely no gender issues involved, yet none of that work is ever recognised in any way, and I'm treated like a resented interloper. The majority of long-term Wiktionary editors seem to bitterly resent the very suggestion of addressing systemic bias. It is a really, really nasty little uber boy's club in there. Which I realise may not encourage anyone to join, I'm just being honest.
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap