geni wrote:
On 11/8/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
We have, so far, twenty announced candidates for next month's Arbitration Committee election. To the best of my knowledge, none of them is female.
In previous elections, we also had very few female candidates, yet one of them finished either first or second in each of the last two elections. I'm sure we have some female contributors who would be well-qualified and bring a valuable perspective to the arbitration process, and I would encourage them to consider running.
--Michael Snow
Since when did we care about gender on wikipedia?
Since we started using personal pronouns, whenever that was. I wasn't around then, but I suspect it was fairly early on.
--Michael Snow
--- Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
geni wrote:
Since when did we care about gender on wikipedia?
Since we started using personal pronouns, whenever that was. I wasn't around then, but I suspect it was fairly early on.
Granted, we are sometimes -- but only sometimes -- aware of another editor's gender on Wikipedia, but does it make a big difference? Do I know (say) [[User:SpLoT]]'s gender? Should I care? If I did, would it make much difference to how I would interact with that person? For me, the answer is "no". Admittedly I don't edit articles like [[feminism]], but my experience is that Wikipedia is a place where gender is relatively unimportant. Maybe your experience is different.
But to respond to your original point, I just can't see that there exists special and distinct male and female perspectives that would make much difference in ArbComm matters. Surely we just want sensible, wiki-savvy, plain-old *people*? I'm open to persuasion otherwise.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" The Wall Street Journal http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
On 09/11/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Do I know (say) [[User:SpLoT]]'s gender?
This is where people using their real names[1] instead of inscrutable handles comes in very useful. Of course, nobody would want a world where every Wikipedia contributor wrote under their real name... heaven forbid! [2]
Should I care?
Almost certainly not.
Surely we just want sensible, wiki-savvy, plain-old *people*?
Hear, hear.
[1] Cf. http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?RealName [2] </sarcasm>. Although I just came across this proposal, which I really like: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2004-April/021916.html
On 11/9/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
--- Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
geni wrote:
Since when did we care about gender on wikipedia?
Since we started using personal pronouns, whenever that was. I wasn't around then, but I suspect it was fairly early on.
Granted, we are sometimes -- but only sometimes -- aware of another editor's gender on Wikipedia, but does it make a big difference? Do I know (say) [[User:SpLoT]]'s gender? Should I care? If I did, would it make much difference to how I would interact with that person? For me, the answer is "no". Admittedly I don't edit articles like [[feminism]], but my experience is that Wikipedia is a place where gender is relatively unimportant. Maybe your experience is different.
It *is* relatively unimportant, I think; certainly it doesn't come up on a regular basis in arbcom or elsewhere. But it's just an interesting observation. Certainly, to echo Charles' point a bit, all other things being equal I'd rather see sane, reasonable people from many different perspectives than from all the same one, and gender is one of the most obvious differences (when the user chooses to tell!).
Perhaps most women are simply smart enough to avoid putting themselves up for a crappy job. ;-)
-Kat whose college quiz bowl nickname, as president, was "token chick"
On 11/9/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
Since we started using personal pronouns, whenever that was. I wasn't around then, but I suspect it was fairly early on.
--Michael Snow
Agressive use of singular they generaly solves that proble,
On Nov 9, 2006, at 1:32 PM, geni wrote:
On 11/9/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
Since we started using personal pronouns, whenever that was. I wasn't around then, but I suspect it was fairly early on.
--Michael Snow
Agressive use of singular they generaly solves that proble,
And, before anyone complains, it's tacitly endorsed by the Chicago Manual of Style!
It notes that "it is unacceptable to a great many reasonable readers to use the generic masculine pronoun," whereas objectors to the singular they are merely referred to as "a great many readers," clearly implying that such objections are unreasonable.
-Phil
Phil Sandifer wrote:
On Nov 9, 2006, at 1:32 PM, geni wrote:
On 11/9/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
Since we started using personal pronouns, whenever that was. I wasn't around then, but I suspect it was fairly early on.
--Michael Snow
Agressive use of singular they generaly solves that proble,
And, before anyone complains, it's tacitly endorsed by the Chicago Manual of Style!
It notes that "it is unacceptable to a great many reasonable readers to use the generic masculine pronoun," whereas objectors to the singular they are merely referred to as "a great many readers," clearly implying that such objections are unreasonable.
Oxford Style Manual: "Though common in speech it is still substandard usage, and should be avoided in formal writing: Necessity may in time establish 'they' as an accepted non-gender-specific singular pronoun in English, but this has yet to happen."
Your proclamation that opponents of the singular 'they' are unreasonable is nothing more than blatant sophistry. To be sure the word 'reasonable' does not appear in 5.204 when the author of that passage speaks of those who "resort to nontraditional gimmicks" or who "use 'they' as a kind of singular pronoun." What conclusion should I draw from the use of "kind of"? Maybe the author uses the word "reasonable" to emphasize that writers on that side of the divide are still reasonable people despite their aberrant grammar.
I use and will continue to use the generic masculine, and will object when someone insists on imposing sub-standard grammar for the sake of political correctness. I find the use of a generic feminine equally acceptable. I don't really object to phrases like "he or she" but they can become awkward in some contexts. A usage like "s/he" has the artificial flavour of a condom over one's pen.
Good writers will avoid imposing one form or the other, and look for alternatives. Had you read further in paragraph 5.204 you would have seen, "What is wanted, in short, is a kind of invisible gender neutrality. There are many ways to achieve such language, but it takes though and often some hard work"
Ec
On 11/10/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Oxford Style Manual: "Though common in speech it is still substandard usage, and should be avoided in formal writing: Necessity may in time establish 'they' as an accepted non-gender-specific singular pronoun in English, but this has yet to happen."
It is yet to happen in the US. There is no shortage of evidence of it's use in British English and even more so in Australian english.
Good writers will avoid imposing one form or the other, and look for alternatives. Had you read further in paragraph 5.204 you would have seen, "What is wanted, in short, is a kind of invisible gender neutrality. There are many ways to achieve such language, but it takes though and often some hard work"
Ec
And while the grammer fantics continue to play their games those of us who understand that langaue is a tool will continue to use the singular they.
On 11/10/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/10/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Oxford Style Manual: "Though common in speech it is still substandard usage, and should be avoided in formal writing: Necessity may in time establish 'they' as an accepted non-gender-specific singular pronoun in English, but this has yet to happen."
It is yet to happen in the US. There is no shortage of evidence of it's use in British English and even more so in Australian english.
Good writers will avoid imposing one form or the other, and look for alternatives. Had you read further in paragraph 5.204 you would have seen, "What is wanted, in short, is a kind of invisible gender neutrality. There are many ways to achieve such language, but it takes though and often some hard work"
Ec
And while the grammer fantics continue to play their games those of us who understand that langaue is a tool will continue to use the singular they. -- geni
"Many words that are now unused will be rekindled, Many fade now well-regarded, if Usage wills it so, To whom the laws, rules, and control of language belong." --Horace, ars poetica, 70-72
My favorite lines to quote in these kinds of squabbles.
geni wrote:
On 11/9/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
Since we started using personal pronouns, whenever that was. I wasn't around then, but I suspect it was fairly early on.
--Michael Snow
Agressive use of singular they generaly solves that proble,
So you're pushing bad grammar.
Ec
ZOMG TEH SINGULAR THEY! END OF DA WORLD! NOONE SHALL SURVIVE!
On 11/10/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
geni wrote:
On 11/9/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
Since we started using personal pronouns, whenever that was. I wasn't around then, but I suspect it was fairly early on.
--Michael Snow
Agressive use of singular they generaly solves that proble,
So you're pushing bad grammar.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Nov 10, 2006, at 10:59 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Agressive use of singular they generaly solves that proble,
So you're pushing bad grammar.
Actually, if you scroll up, you'll find the post where I noted that the Chicago Manual of Style is relatively OK with this solution.
-Phil
On 11/10/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 10, 2006, at 10:59 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Agressive use of singular they generaly solves that proble,
So you're pushing bad grammar.
Actually, if you scroll up, you'll find the post where I noted that the Chicago Manual of Style is relatively OK with this solution.
-Phil
I'm generally in favor of using singular they, but sometimes it is a bad idea. Saying "I hate them!" or "They can worry about themselves" when talking about one person is just plain silly.
--Oskar
On 11/10/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
So you're pushing bad grammar.
Ec
While I will accept it is not ideal grammar in US English I'm yet to see a legit argument that it is a problem in British English.