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&a…
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(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Inline replies to 3 people...
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 1:57 PM, J Hayes <slowking4(a)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(a)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(a)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(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
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap