On 31 January 2011 11:18, David Gerard
<dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 31 January 2011 15:30, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
I have stated my views on site politics on this
list not so long ago.
Basically the "reform" party comes over as the "complacent" party as
far
as the gender gap is concerned (sadly). So
I'd like to see people
standing for ArbCom being asked what they intend to do about it.
It's January. ArbCom could start enforcing civility amongst admins
now, bring it off successfully and have huge success to talk about by
voting in December.
(I outlined a version of this to FT2 and Chase Me Ladies at the 10th
Anniversary bash and neither shrieked in horror. A complaints
procedure would be a crank magnet. Keep it to "going forward", nothing
past; require asking the admin nicely first; vexatious complainants
told to go away after. Admin behaviour will rapidly modify as they'll
do *ANYTHING* to keep the bit. Admins get more crap than they deserve
from the querulous, but this is hardly an onerous proposal. Anyone
feel up to pushing it through? Arbcom could start this now based on
WP:NPA and WP:BITE as policies, but will probably prefer to get at
least a little explicit buy-in.)
I do find it ironic that former members of the Arbitration Committee are
proposing that Arbcom go around enforcing "civility" on admins (and
everyone
else?) when they know perfectly well that it's far outside the scope of
the
committee to do so. Aside from a genuinely urgent situation, or one that
is
outside of the community's ability to address (e.g., admin socking),
there
has been an unchanging view that Arbcom should not be prosecuting matters
that have not been brought to it by the community; in other words, we
aren't
supposed to go hunting for our own cases . And, I disagree with the
belief
that David has just expressed; in my own observation the *better* admins
(more civil, more thoughtful) are the first ones to throw in the bit when
their administrative behaviour is challenged. To them, it is a tool, not
something precious that they'll do anything to retain - or regain.
Nonetheless, this thread is supposed to be about the gender gap. For the
first time AFAICT, Arbcom has three sitting members who are women; that's
still only 17% of the committee. It's not possible to get an accurate
breakdown of how many administrators are female; many admins do not
reveal
their gender, nor are they expected to. A reasonable estimate of the
percentage of administrators who are *openly* female is around 10-15%.
The so-called "civility issue" is only one thing that turns off female
participants. Another is the need to master significant amounts of
technical
information before being able to edit. An example is the use of
templates
all over the place - they are difficult to understand and clutter the
editing window horribly, but failure to use them means dunning notices on
talk pages and reverts because something wasn't "done right". Entire
areas
of the project are very unfriendly to those who do not hold the extreme
libertarian views of openness (I recently saw a comment on AN/I that
suggested we should actively seek out video displays of all sexual acts),
and sexism is blatant in certain topic areas. On the whole, women seek
consensus in a different manner than men do - women tending to be more
compromising and seeking middle ground, whereas men tend to use force of
numbers and who argues the loudest. (Anyone else notice how "consensus"
at
RFA and AfD and ANI seems to be increasingly numerically based, instead
of
by quality of policy-based argument? Notice how administrators get
pummeled
for using common sense or relying on policy instead of the vox populi?)
It's also not very easy for new editors, male or female, to find places
to
ask questions or to receive some guidance. Heaven forbid that they find
AN/I
before they find a reference or help desk.
Risker/Anne
This is a very good post; there is a lot of stuff here, and I might
respond to several points, but to address one:
I do find it ironic that former members of the
Arbitration Committee are
proposing that Arbcom go around enforcing "civility" on admins (and
everyone
else?) when they know perfectly well that it's far outside the scope of
the
committee to do so.
Please review
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility
If, after warning someone repeatedly or taking abuse from someone for
years, I file a request for arbitration, I expect the Arbitration
Committee to address the question.
If you think that is not in your remit, please review:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy…
The real issue, however, is to establish customs of courtesy and
friendliness among the community at large, not to scapegoat egregious
offenders. For that purpose it is not rigorous enforcement of the rules
that is called for but leadership.
Fred Bauder