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
Michael Snow wrote:
We have, so far, twenty announced candidates for next month's Arbitration Committee election.
It hasn't been announced on this list...
On 11/8/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Michael Snow wrote:
We have, so far, twenty announced candidates for next month's Arbitration Committee election.
It hasn't been announced on this list...
No but its been anounced on people's watchlists, WP:AN, WP:SIGN and in general conversation.
I think (sorry if I'm wrong) that Kylu is female, and is running for the elections, so we do have one.
The Halo.
From: Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] An observation Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 22:21:51 -0800
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 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Messenger has arrived. Click here to download it for free! http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/?locale=en-gb
On 11/8/06, Osain Holmes the.halo@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
I think (sorry if I'm wrong) that Kylu is female, and is running for the elections, so we do have one.
This is indeed true, but I don't think the gender disparity is all that surprising or has anything to do with ArbCom specifically -- there are, overall, more male editors than there are female.
~~Sean
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?
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?
There's a WikiProject Gender studies or something somewhere. Maybe they started it? :)
Steve block
On 11/8/06, geni geniice@gmail.com 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?
That's what I was thinking.
<sarcasm>How many of the arb com candidates are protestant?</sarcasm> Who cares if an arb com candidate is male or female?
Anthony
On 11/8/06, geni geniice@gmail.com 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 when is gender equality a bad thing on wikipedia? Or for that matter, having many different perspectives?
If there is an overwhelming amount of males over females it usually signifies something bad (with a few exceptions, like say professional wrestling). We have a host of brilliant female editors but apparently not many of them are running for arbcom. This is a very, very bad thing. We should encourage gender equality whenever we can, just saying "We are wikipedia, here gender doesn't matter" is naive. There is obviously a problem here and we should work to fix it. We don't want to be a boys-club.
--Oskar
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Oskar Sigvardsson stated for the record:
If there is an overwhelming amount of males over females it usually signifies something bad (with a few exceptions, like say professional wrestling). We have a host of brilliant female editors but apparently not many of them are running for arbcom. This is a very, very bad thing. We should encourage gender equality whenever we can, just saying "We are wikipedia, here gender doesn't matter" is naive. There is obviously a problem here and we should work to fix it. We don't want to be a boys-club.
Well, I think it goes without saying that we need to establish an acceptable quota of females on the ArbComm. Then we need a procedure to follow if insufficient numbers of females run for the Committee, to impress enough to meet the quota.
Then we need to ensure that a proper percentage of articles are being written by women, and then that a proper percentage of those articles are deleted. Quotas must be met.
Of course to prevent fraud, we must verify that all editors truthfully state their sexes (and genders, if they have them). A DNA sample submission upon account creation is probably adequate.
- -- Sean Barrett | The Internet is not something you just dump sean@epoptic.com | something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of | tubes. And if you don't understand those tubes | can be filled.... --Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Oskar Sigvardsson stated for the record:
If there is an overwhelming amount of males over females it usually signifies something bad (with a few exceptions, like say professional wrestling). We have a host of brilliant female editors but apparently not many of them are running for arbcom. This is a very, very bad thing. We should encourage gender equality whenever we can, just saying "We are wikipedia, here gender doesn't matter" is naive. There is obviously a problem here and we should work to fix it. We don't want to be a boys-club.
Skipping the sarcasm, why would a "brilliant female editor" want to be on the ArbComm? It's a nasty job no sane person would ever want to do.
- -- Sean Barrett | The Internet is not something you just dump sean@epoptic.com | something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of | tubes. And if you don't understand those tubes | can be filled.... --Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK)
I'm sorry, but the last thing we need on Wikipedia is affirmative action.
On 11/12/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
If there is an overwhelming amount of males over females it usually signifies something bad (with a few exceptions, like say professional wrestling). We have a host of brilliant female editors but apparently not many of them are running for arbcom. This is a very, very bad thing. We should encourage gender equality whenever we can, just saying "We are wikipedia, here gender doesn't matter" is naive. There is obviously a problem here and we should work to fix it. We don't want to be a boys-club.
--Oskar
On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:38 PM, Ryan Wetherell wrote:
I'm sorry, but the last thing we need on Wikipedia is affirmative action.
To equate a concern over the fact that there is an imbalance in the representation of various groups on Wikipedia with "affirmative action," a term so broad as to have minimal meaning beyond the pejorative, is unnecessary, and serves largely to stifle legitimate discussion and concern.
Is there a specific proposal or course of action on the table that you object to? Or are you throwing heated terms into the debate for the fun of it?
-Phil
Sigvardsson seemed to be suggesting that we need to do something to "fix" the gender imbalance issue on Wikipedia. I think that nothing can be done, people will and should come and go as they please, regardless of gender. I'm not really sure what kinds of ideas Sigvardsson might have other than, as Barrett pointed out, quotas, which are totally ridiculous and unnecessary in these circumstances. Sorry if my inference was incorrect/mangled.
On 11/12/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:38 PM, Ryan Wetherell wrote:
I'm sorry, but the last thing we need on Wikipedia is affirmative action.
To equate a concern over the fact that there is an imbalance in the representation of various groups on Wikipedia with "affirmative action," a term so broad as to have minimal meaning beyond the pejorative, is unnecessary, and serves largely to stifle legitimate discussion and concern.
Is there a specific proposal or course of action on the table that you object to? Or are you throwing heated terms into the debate for the fun of it?
-Phil _______________________________________________ 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 12, 2006, at 3:58 PM, Ryan Wetherell wrote:
Sigvardsson seemed to be suggesting that we need to do something to "fix" the gender imbalance issue on Wikipedia. I think that nothing can be done, people will and should come and go as they please, regardless of gender. I'm not really sure what kinds of ideas Sigvardsson might have other than, as Barrett pointed out, quotas, which are totally ridiculous and unnecessary in these circumstances. Sorry if my inference was incorrect/mangled.
Quotas are not the only way to encourage female participation in aspects of Wikipedia.
1) Encourage female friends who are knowledgeable about subjects to contribute 2) Encourage female contributors to stand for adminship and the arbcom 3) Consider the importance of gender balance in arbcom in making your selections in the arbcom elections.
None of these involve establishing quotas - they involve considering issues of gender (or race, or sexuality, or anything else you're invested in here) in making choices.
-Phil
That's all fine and good, but it just seems irrelevant and out-of-touch with Wikipedia's open nature. I see it as inherently unfair to evaluate somebody based on what they are-and-can't-change.
On 11/12/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:58 PM, Ryan Wetherell wrote:
Sigvardsson seemed to be suggesting that we need to do something to "fix" the gender imbalance issue on Wikipedia. I think that nothing can be done, people will and should come and go as they please, regardless of gender. I'm not really sure what kinds of ideas Sigvardsson might have other than, as Barrett pointed out, quotas, which are totally ridiculous and unnecessary in these circumstances. Sorry if my inference was incorrect/mangled.
Quotas are not the only way to encourage female participation in aspects of Wikipedia.
- Encourage female friends who are knowledgeable about subjects to
contribute 2) Encourage female contributors to stand for adminship and the arbcom 3) Consider the importance of gender balance in arbcom in making your selections in the arbcom elections.
None of these involve establishing quotas - they involve considering issues of gender (or race, or sexuality, or anything else you're invested in here) in making choices.
-Phil _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/11/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/12/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
None of these involve establishing quotas - they involve considering issues of gender (or race, or sexuality, or anything else you're invested in here) in making choices.
That's all fine and good, but it just seems irrelevant and out-of-touch with Wikipedia's open nature. I see it as inherently unfair to evaluate somebody based on what they are-and-can't-change.
It's more a recognition of systemic bias and that this is probably not a good thing.
- d.
Oh, "systematic bias", that's exactly the term I was looking for.
On 11/12/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/11/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/12/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
None of these involve establishing quotas - they involve considering issues of gender (or race, or sexuality, or anything else you're invested in here) in making choices.
That's all fine and good, but it just seems irrelevant and out-of-touch with Wikipedia's open nature. I see it as inherently unfair to evaluate somebody based on what they are-and-can't-change.
It's more a recognition of systemic bias and that this is probably not a good thing.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/11/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, "systematic bias", that's exactly the term I was looking for.
Not quite ;-) "systematic bias" implies it's deliberate; "systemic bias" implies it isn't, and is a symptom of something about the system itself.
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias]]
- d.
On Nov 12, 2006, at 6:41 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 12/11/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, "systematic bias", that's exactly the term I was looking for.
Not quite ;-) "systematic bias" implies it's deliberate; "systemic bias" implies it isn't, and is a symptom of something about the system itself.
In other words, systemic bias is when our administrator and arbitrator pools are disproportionately white American males. Systematic bias is when I went and banned all of the black Australian women on Wikipedia last night.
-Phil
you banned the black aussies! damn you!
On 11/12/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 12, 2006, at 6:41 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 12/11/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, "systematic bias", that's exactly the term I was looking for.
Not quite ;-) "systematic bias" implies it's deliberate; "systemic bias" implies it isn't, and is a symptom of something about the system itself.
In other words, systemic bias is when our administrator and arbitrator pools are disproportionately white American males. Systematic bias is when I went and banned all of the black Australian women on Wikipedia last night.
-Phil _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/12/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
In other words, systemic bias is when our administrator and arbitrator pools are disproportionately white American males. Systematic bias is when I went and banned all of the black Australian women on Wikipedia last night.
-Phil
we appear to have more europeans than you would expect.
It's unfortunate, yes, but it's not broken. Why fix it?
On 11/12/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 12, 2006, at 6:41 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 12/11/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, "systematic bias", that's exactly the term I was looking for.
Not quite ;-) "systematic bias" implies it's deliberate; "systemic bias" implies it isn't, and is a symptom of something about the system itself.
In other words, systemic bias is when our administrator and arbitrator pools are disproportionately white American males. Systematic bias is when I went and banned all of the black Australian women on Wikipedia last night.
-Phil _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Oh, yikes, I misread that one.
On 11/12/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/11/06, Ryan Wetherell renardius@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, "systematic bias", that's exactly the term I was looking for.
Not quite ;-) "systematic bias" implies it's deliberate; "systemic bias" implies it isn't, and is a symptom of something about the system itself.
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias]]
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ryan Wetherell wrote:
On 11/12/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
If there is an overwhelming amount of males over females it usually signifies something bad (with a few exceptions, like say professional wrestling). We have a host of brilliant female editors but apparently not many of them are running for arbcom. This is a very, very bad thing. We should encourage gender equality whenever we can, just saying "We are wikipedia, here gender doesn't matter" is naive. There is obviously a problem here and we should work to fix it. We don't want to be a boys-club.
I'm sorry, but the last thing we need on Wikipedia is affirmative action.
Yes, there are already too many teenagers here. Suggest we ban anyone not of legal drinking age (which for the more progressive countries, allows younger editors). Require all editors to drink while editing can come later...
On Nov 12, 2006, at 9:46 PM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Yes, there are already too many teenagers here. Suggest we ban anyone not of legal drinking age (which for the more progressive countries, allows younger editors). Require all editors to drink while editing can come later...
I figured we'd implemented mandatory drinking ages ago. I mean, how else to explain RFA?
-Phil
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 10:18:06PM -0500, Phil Sandifer wrote:
On Nov 12, 2006, at 9:46 PM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Yes, there are already too many teenagers here. Suggest we ban anyone not of legal drinking age (which for the more progressive countries, allows younger editors). Require all editors to drink while editing can come later...
I figured we'd implemented mandatory drinking ages ago. I mean, how else to explain RFA?
Do you mean applying to be an Admin, "voting" at RFA, or both. I can just about manage voting while sober, but I think I would have to be totally newted to apply.
Brian.
-Phil
On 13/11/06, Brian Salter-Duke b_duke@bigpond.net.au wrote:
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 10:18:06PM -0500, Phil Sandifer wrote:
I figured we'd implemented mandatory drinking ages ago. I mean, how else to explain RFA?
Do you mean applying to be an Admin, "voting" at RFA, or both. I can just about manage voting while sober, but I think I would have to be totally newted to apply.
I was stone cold sober when I applied, but reading the comments made me want to take to drink...
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Yes, there are already too many teenagers here. Suggest we ban anyone not of legal drinking age (which for the more progressive countries, allows younger editors). Require all editors to drink while editing can come later...
And, of course: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_gays_should_not_be_allowed_to_edit...
On 11/12/06, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
If there is an overwhelming amount of males over females it usually signifies something bad (with a few exceptions, like say professional wrestling). We have a host of brilliant female editors but apparently not many of them are running for arbcom. This is a very, very bad thing. We should encourage gender equality whenever we can, just saying "We are wikipedia, here gender doesn't matter" is naive. There is obviously a problem here and we should work to fix it. We don't want to be a boys-club.
There don't seem to be many women participating in this discussion. That, I would say, is the very very bad thing.
I'd say the last thing women need is a bunch of men deciding that women are underrepresented by arb com and figuring out what to do about it.
Anthony
On Nov 8, 2006, at 1:21, Michael Snow 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.
Kylu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kylu) is female.
On Nov 9, 2006, at 6:24, niht-hræfn wrote:
On Nov 8, 2006, at 1:21, Michael Snow 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.
Kylu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kylu) is female.
Oops, already been said... but would being female change one's chances of being elected? Or change anything really....