---- Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
============= On 11/13/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
It's an atmosphere thing. Creating a good atmosphere and working environment is mission-critical, and not just for the participation of women. Everyone should bear this in mind, at all times. It is just not easy to explain, to those who don't find it natural. 'Civility' in the broadest sense is the key.
Charles
Yes, exactly! People sem to have read in a whole lot in what I said that I didn't mean. I'm not saying there should be a "quota" of female editors on the arbcom, that would be insane. I'm just saying that there obviously is a problem here, and that we can't just say "Gender is irrelevant on wikipedia" (like geni did), because frankly, that's just as insane.
Wikipedia is clearly a place where men feels more comfortable than women and that is something that is a BAD thing. And a bunch of guys trying to ignore the issue is just making it worse.
--Oskar
PS. Can we please get a woman to start reading the mailing list? :) This is getting weird with just us boys.
==================================================
Daily reader.
Assumption at least partly wrong, I think. Most women I know are much to busy with other activities to become very active as a Wikipedia volunteer. Overtime this is likely to change. For me it did when all three of my children were in college.
Sydney Poore aka FloNight aka Poore5