"David Gerard" wrote
I'm thinking of a conversation with a feminist friend who considers Wikipedia hopelessly patriarchally biased and useless to harmful.
Interesting. I mean, potentially interesting if there is a feminist critique at the level of policy.
'Systemic bias' hasn't really got that far in elaborating a theory. We do know that 'no original research' effectively cuts out ethnographic material, thus excluding many 'undocumented' things. But that's a fairly obvious point. We tend to import public domain material that comes with a slant from at least 80 years ago. But I'm not aware of a serious and general analysis that is relevant.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
On 22/11/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"David Gerard" wrote
I'm thinking of a conversation with a feminist friend who considers Wikipedia hopelessly patriarchally biased and useless to harmful.
Interesting. I mean, potentially interesting if there is a feminist critique at the level of policy.
Interesting in that one of the nastier bits of systemic bias to fix is when you're pissing off people and you don't realise it.
(c.f. issues on foundation-l re: open content licences and possible social unworkability in France.)
It was also interesting in that it was said as if she was quoting someone else rather than composing the sentence as it was being said. So yes, there might be a critique available.
Also, you know how any technical field laments the strange lack of women? Technical fields have had that strange lack of women for a hundred years and still there's no solution to what the heck is culling them so early.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Also, you know how any technical field laments the strange lack of women? Technical fields have had that strange lack of women for a hundred years and still there's no solution to what the heck is culling them so early.
- d.
This is not anything but anecdotal, however it may shed some light: when I was in high school, I signed up for wood shop - and the instructor ignored me. It was as though I were inaudible and invisible. He would hand out materials for an assignment, except I didn't get any. If stood in front of him with my hands out, I did receive a cold stare until I moved - but not a scrap of wood. If I reached for a tool, he grabbed it first or took it out of my hands. If I asked a question, there was no reply - none. This is not an exaggeration. I don't know how bad it is now, but then... it was bad. I dropped out of shop. To this day I don't know much about practical woodworking. In recent years, I have observed meetings where women were ignored or dismissed. If a man said something people responded to his words - if a woman said something then she got a verbal pat on the head. In my office, where there were 57 people, mostly men, the women cleaned the kitchen/break room always, and made the coffee more often than men - including the head of the office, a woman with a doctorate and 35 years in her field. It was easier than dealing with trying to get the men to do any of it. And this is in software development, a field with less earnings gap than almost any other field in the US. So why do women leave technical fields? I'm guessing it is because they are full of men, men with bias. I don't want to sound misogynistic here - certainly some men were more biased, some less, some not at all, and some were feminists. But they still didn't clean the kitchen.
-kc-
From: Puppy puppy@KillerChihuahua.com I don't want to sound misogynistic here - certainly some men were more biased, some less, some not at all, and some were feminists. But they still didn't clean the kitchen.
If a man doesn't clean the kitchen, he's not a feminist.
GTBacchus
_________________________________________________________________ View Athletes Collections with Live Search http://sportmaps.live.com/index.html?source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=MGA...
On 11/22/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Puppy puppy@KillerChihuahua.com I don't want to sound misogynistic here - certainly some men were more biased, some less, some not at all, and some were feminists. But they still didn't clean the kitchen.
If a man doesn't clean the kitchen, he's not a feminist.
You failed to say when though. Men generally will clean kitchens but only when they view them as unacceptably dirty. This is I suspect the problem.
geni wrote:
On 11/22/06, Tony Jacobs gtjacobs@hotmail.com wrote:
From: Puppy puppy@KillerChihuahua.com I don't want to sound misogynistic here - certainly some men were more biased, some less, some not at all, and some were feminists. But they still didn't clean the kitchen.
If a man doesn't clean the kitchen, he's not a feminist.
You failed to say when though. Men generally will clean kitchens but only when they view them as unacceptably dirty. This is I suspect the problem.
They could have been theoretical feminists, eh?
And I worked there for almost nine years. No man ever cleaned the kitchen, the entire time I was there. Every so often a woman would mention a rotating roster, so the same people would not always be cleaning the kitchen - but the men always shouted it down. Once we went on strike - didn't clean. When the kitchen got too nasty, the men started going out to lunch. One said, the refrigerator in the breakroom is starting to smell. I said, why don't you clean it then? He said, I'm not the maid. I said, we don't have a maid, who do you think has been cleaning the kitchen? And he said, That's right, why don't you clean the kitchen? No lie. He was one of the worst offenders though. He belonged to some church which believed women should subjugate themselves to men, and he had a hard time taking orders from women - not me, he didn't report to me, but he did report to a woman. The situation worsened, and everyone of the men was complaining. We kept asking, why don't you clean it then? And one of the other men said, if we wait long enough one of the women will clean it. He was an avowed feminist. Right. And four women finally cleaned the kitchen when bigwigs from corporate were coming. It seems the men were right - if they waited long enough, a woman would do it. I went to the corporate office several times, and guess who was cleaning the breakroom? A woman.
I'm not claiming my experience and observation hold true everywhere, but there was a study a few years ago - two career households, who did most of the housework - and, more tellingly, what the perception was. Men evaluated the share of the housework they did. Women almost always evaluated their share as larger than their significant others did - if the man said 50/50, the woman would say something like 20/80, or 10/90. Guess what? The men did a lot less than they thought. I cannot locate the study but this seems similar: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2445(198111)43%3A4%3C865%3ADPWHEM%3E2.... "in order not to cross identity tension lines, today's professional women are going through a process of role expansion (adding new responsibilities without relinquishing old ones), rather than a process of role redefinition "And its still true: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20060728/ai_n16635205.. Study after study bears this out. Women with careers simply do it all. This study found that women doctors devote just as much time to patients and workload as men doctors, yet devote a great deal more time to domestic duties: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1983.tb00629.x So women with careers don't get equal support on the domestic front. And this carries over to work - men simply don't realize for the most part how much housework there is. It is done, you see. They "pitch in" and feel they are supporting their wife - yet when their wife does domestic chores, they do not view it as their wife "pitching in" and helping the husband. I'm not sure how much of this is societal, how much is basic differences. We cannot neglect the fact that it is women who bear children, either - even if you take the minimum off from work, your career suffers somewhat. If you have complications it suffers even more. The average woman has gaps in her work history due to children, which a man does not have. This helps keep the wage gap wide, and I think many men - subconsciously or not - feel that if they are making 80% of the money and the woman is making 20% of the money, then a little calculator in his head, buried deep, figures that he only needs to do 20% of the housework. A woman with the same degree and experience as a man makes about 77% the salary, for the same education, experience, and hours at work. Add in lost experience due to having a family, and the gap widens. These statistics are US.
Perceptions are still off, also: a recent study shows that women are currently *under* estimating the amount of housework men do: http://www.careerjournal.com/columnists/workfamily/20050520-workfamily.html which shows that women (on average, based on this study) believe men do 33% of the housework, but the men actually do an average of 39% of the housework - but the men think they do an average of 42% of the housework, so they are still overestimating their contribution. The recent change to women underestimating the effort men put forth may be discouraging to men, however - it seems likely.
It is a complex situation, and I think a little off topic. I don't know if there is anything here which will illuminate the gender bias and/or gender gap which we have on Wikipedia, or give insight as to how to approach better balance. Does any of this cause women to value themselves less? Do they do "cleanup" because they're used to it? Do they shy away from ArbCom or B'crat because they are non-confrontational? due to gender differences, or societal expectations (Pavlovian training)? The email which started this thread talked about "women's subjects" such as blow dryers and curling irons, and that was written by a female, yes? That's horrifying to me.
I'm going off to see if Nail polish could use a "woman's touch" - heaven forfend I actually put any chemistry into the darn article. (yes this is sarcasm, I have no intention of editing Nail polish.)
-kc, who has run on enough about a social issue with no direct bearing on Wikipedia
On 11/22/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
-kc, who has run on enough about a social issue with no direct bearing on Wikipedia
Puppy for ArbCom. :-)
Sarah wrote:
On 11/22/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
-kc, who has run on enough about a social issue with no direct bearing on Wikipedia
Puppy for ArbCom. :-)
Names are more important than you think. "Throbbing Monster Cock" could never be elected.
On Nov 22, 2006, at 11:47, Puppy wrote:
The email which started this thread talked about "women's subjects" such as blow dryers and curling irons, and that was written by a female, yes? That's horrifying to me.
I meant to dismiss the idea of subject coverage; to say that they didn't have equal coverage, but that's not really an issue. Of course it didn't work... and I'd say my tact was off, and for that I apologize. I merely meant that if we had a significant teenage female editing base as we do male, these subjects would perhaps be neglected less.
However! The editorial aspects of women's roles as editors as it plays into policy is far more interesting and pertinent.
--Keitei
On 11/22/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
They could have been theoretical feminists, eh?
And I worked there for almost nine years. No man ever cleaned the kitchen, the entire time I was there. Every so often a woman would mention a rotating roster, so the same people would not always be cleaning the kitchen - but the men always shouted it down. Once we went on strike - didn't clean. When the kitchen got too nasty, the men started going out to lunch.
They spoiled the experiment.
One said, the refrigerator in the breakroom is starting to smell. I said, why don't you clean it then? He said, I'm not the maid. I said, we don't have a maid, who do you think has been cleaning the kitchen? And he said, That's right, why don't you clean the kitchen? No lie. He was one of the worst offenders though. He belonged to some church which believed women should subjugate themselves to men, and he had a hard time taking orders from women - not me, he didn't report to me, but he did report to a woman. The situation worsened, and everyone of the men was complaining. We kept asking, why don't you clean it then? And one of the other men said, if we wait long enough one of the women will clean it. He was an avowed feminist. Right. And four women finally cleaned the kitchen when bigwigs from corporate were coming. It seems the men were right - if they waited long enough, a woman would do it. I went to the corporate office several times, and guess who was cleaning the breakroom? A woman.
Haveing seen the kitchens in all male student acomerdation I can well belive it. If cleaning is left to whoever cracks first it tends to be the woman who end up doing it. Not sure how this applies to wikipedia though.
It is a complex situation, and I think a little off topic. I don't know if there is anything here which will illuminate the gender bias and/or gender gap which we have on Wikipedia, or give insight as to how to approach better balance. Does any of this cause women to value themselves less? Do they do "cleanup" because they're used to it?
I don't know the gender of most of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cleanup_Taskforce/Members/Members_by_...
Do they shy away from ArbCom or B'crat because they are non-confrontational? due to gender differences, or societal expectations (Pavlovian training)? The email which started this thread talked about "women's subjects" such as blow dryers and curling irons, and that was written by a female, yes? That's horrifying to me.
The average woman is likely to know more about blow dryers than the average man (sure there are men with long hair but they are something of a minority even amoung geeks)
I'm going off to see if Nail polish could use a "woman's touch" - heaven forfend I actually put any chemistry into the darn article. (yes this is sarcasm, I have no intention of editing Nail polish.)
Chemistry mostly covered unless people want to go into details of the dyes.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Tony Jacobs stated for the record:
From: Puppy puppy@KillerChihuahua.com I don't want to sound misogynistic here - certainly some men were more biased, some less, some not at all, and some were feminists. But they still didn't clean the kitchen.
If a man doesn't clean the kitchen, he's not a feminist.
But not all men who clean the kitchen are feminists.
- -- Sean Barrett | Hunde, wollt ihr ewig leben? sean@epoptic.com | Friedrich der Große, Kolin, 18 June 1757
David Gerard wrote:
Also, you know how any technical field laments the strange lack of women? Technical fields have had that strange lack of women for a hundred years and still there's no solution to what the heck is culling them so early.
- d.
If you are interested: http://www.springerlink.com/content/v006kt042w30045r/
http://www.american.edu/sadker/thereportcard.htm
http://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/53/2/168
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCG/is_2_30/ai_105478982
http://www.maec.org/beyond.html And from this last link:
*GENDER BIAS IN STUDENT/TEACHER INTERACTIONS*
Although most teachers believe that they treat girls and boys the same, research indicates that they frequently do not. Studies show that teachers often exhibit differential behavior even though circumstances do not warrant it. The teacher' sex seems to have little bearing on the outcome; it is the sex of the student that seems to make a difference. For example:
* Male students receive more of the teacher's attention (acceptance, praise, criticism, and remediation) and are given more time to talk in class from pre-school through college.^8 * Although differences among subject matter areas have not been well examined, recent research has found student-teacher interaction in science classes to be biased toward boys.^9 * Sex is a factor in the assignment of students to ability groups in mathematics, and males are more likely to be assigned to the high ability group.^10 * Males receive harsher punishment than girls even for the same or a similar offense.^11 * Teachers ask boys more higher order questions than they ask girls.^12
Some researchers suggest that differences in treatment contribute to girls' lower self-esteem, lower self-confidence, and reduced risk taking.
From: Puppy puppy@KillerChihuahua.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:18:48 -0500
David Gerard wrote:
Also, you know how any technical field laments the strange lack of women? Technical fields have had that strange lack of women for a hundred years and still there's no solution to what the heck is culling them so early.
- d.
If you are interested: http://www.springerlink.com/content/v006kt042w30045r/
http://www.american.edu/sadker/thereportcard.htm
http://jte.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/53/2/168
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCG/is_2_30/ai_105478982
http://www.maec.org/beyond.html And from this last link:
*GENDER BIAS IN STUDENT/TEACHER INTERACTIONS*
Although most teachers believe that they treat girls and boys the same, research indicates that they frequently do not. Studies show that teachers often exhibit differential behavior even though circumstances do not warrant it. The teacher' sex seems to have little bearing on the outcome; it is the sex of the student that seems to make a difference. For example:
* Male students receive more of the teacher's attention (acceptance, praise, criticism, and remediation) and are given more time to talk in class from pre-school through college.^8 * Although differences among subject matter areas have not been well examined, recent research has found student-teacher interaction in science classes to be biased toward boys.^9 * Sex is a factor in the assignment of students to ability groups in mathematics, and males are more likely to be assigned to the high ability group.^10 * Males receive harsher punishment than girls even for the same or a similar offense.^11 * Teachers ask boys more higher order questions than they askgirls.^12
Some researchers suggest that differences in treatment contribute to girls' lower self-esteem, lower self-confidence, and reduced risk taking.
I gotta say, I just spent 3 years teaching mathematics at a state university where the math department was over 50% female (students, not professors). More of my better students were female, in Calculus, Differential Equations, Group Theory, etc. These were some high self-esteem, confident, risk-taking chicks (to use the PC expression). I realize this school is an exception, but it appears that, at least in some communities, these trends are on the decline.
GTBacchus
_________________________________________________________________ View Athletes Collections with Live Search http://sportmaps.live.com/index.html?source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=MGA...
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, Tony Jacobs wrote:
Some researchers suggest that differences in treatment contribute to girls' lower self-esteem, lower self-confidence, and reduced risk taking.
I gotta say, I just spent 3 years teaching mathematics at a state university where the math department was over 50% female (students, not professors). More of my better students were female, in Calculus, Differential Equations, Group Theory, etc. These were some high self-esteem, confident, risk-taking chicks (to use the PC expression). I realize this school is an exception, but it appears that, at least in some communities, these trends are on the decline.
It's so bad for boys that Newsweek actually published a story about it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965522/site/newsweek/
"Girl behavior becomes the gold standard," says "Raising Cain" coauthor Thompson. "Boys are treated like defective girls."
A quick Google gives me some links: http://www.washingtontimes.com/specialreport/20060122-120546-2696r.htm
They point out that boys: Receive the majority of D and F grades given to students in most schools, as high as 70 percent. Create 80 percent of classroom discipline problems. Account for 80 percent of high school dropouts. Represent 70 percent of children diagnosed with learning disabilities and 80 percent of those diagnosed with behavioral disorders.
http://www.uaf.edu/northern/schools/myth.html
A very famous article (if you've been following the issue) that also debunks the self-esteem canard.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, Tony Jacobs wrote:
Some researchers suggest that differences in treatment contribute to girls' lower self-esteem, lower self-confidence, and reduced risk taking.
I gotta say, I just spent 3 years teaching mathematics at a state university where the math department was over 50% female (students, not professors). More of my better students were female, in Calculus, Differential Equations, Group Theory, etc. These were some high self-esteem, confident, risk-taking chicks (to use the PC expression). I realize this school is an exception, but it appears that, at least in some communities, these trends are on the decline.
It's so bad for boys that Newsweek actually published a story about it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10965522/site/newsweek/
"Girl behavior becomes the gold standard," says "Raising Cain" coauthor Thompson. "Boys are treated like defective girls."
A quick Google gives me some links: http://www.washingtontimes.com/specialreport/20060122-120546-2696r.htm
They point out that boys: Receive the majority of D and F grades given to students in most schools, as high as 70 percent. Create 80 percent of classroom discipline problems. Account for 80 percent of high school dropouts. Represent 70 percent of children diagnosed with learning disabilities and 80 percent of those diagnosed with behavioral disorders.
http://www.uaf.edu/northern/schools/myth.html
A very famous article (if you've been following the issue) that also debunks the self-esteem canard.
Are trends changing? Or are we looking at two different issues? The articles I linked focused specifically on how female students were treated as compared to how male students were treated - the self-esteem issue was only "suggested by some researchers" and would not affect the amount of attention given, questions, etc. The ratio of female to male in science and math was also examined, and the studies found fewer females. Computer use in one study was 3:1. From what you are linking here, it appears that overall however males are having difficulties. Is this a pendulum swing, or something else? If males are having more trouble due to information being presented in a fashion calculated to appeal to, and be more easily comprehended, by females, this may be a factor. All of the studies I linked spoke of the importance of presenting material in a fashion which was more directed towards female learning patterns. This may be merely coincidence, and given the limited data there is no way to know - but it is an interesting possibility. If that is the case, then perhaps our male:female ratio of editors is not without benefit - articles will be more likely to be organized to appeal to the male pattern of learning and thinking. It would be helpful to know the causes of the behavior disorders. And once again, while interesting, I cannot see a way to directly correlate this to anything we do on WP. -kc-
On 11/23/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
Are trends changing? Or are we looking at two different issues? The articles I linked focused specifically on how female students were treated as compared to how male students were treated - the self-esteem issue was only "suggested by some researchers" and would not affect the amount of attention given, questions, etc. The ratio of female to male in science and math was also examined, and the studies found fewer females. Computer use in one study was 3:1. From what you are linking here, it appears that overall however males are having difficulties. Is this a pendulum swing, or something else?
I think that both are true. Boys do get a raw deal in a lot of ways - boys have two options - either internalise the idea of how horrible they are and be left with no positive ideas about their gender, or they can embrace how horrible men are, and live up the stereotype. Neither leaves much self-esteem, which hurts them in school.
If
males are having more trouble due to information being presented in a fashion calculated to appeal to, and be more easily comprehended, by females, this may be a factor. All of the studies I linked spoke of the importance of presenting material in a fashion which was more directed towards female learning patterns. This may be merely coincidence, and given the limited data there is no way to know - but it is an interesting possibility. If that is the case, then perhaps our male:female ratio of editors is not without benefit - articles will be more likely to be organized to appeal to the male pattern of learning and thinking. It would be helpful to know the causes of the behavior disorders. And once again, while interesting, I cannot see a way to directly correlate this to anything we do on WP. -kc-
I don't think that the decline in male performance has been due to shifts in teaching styles. At the university level there has been a movement away from top-down lecturing (which works better with male students than with female students) to more interactive, "cooperative learning"-based ideas, which resonate better with female students. But male students do well with that as well - rather than favouring female learning over male learning, what I have seen is a shift from something that favours male learning to something that is less biased toward one gender or the other. Now that eliminates a large virtual advantage for males, but it doesn't explain the decline in male performance academically in absolute terms.
As an undergrad I had an older, very male-biased professor, who used to lament the decline in young men. Of course, in a class of 25 majors there were only 3 male students. But his main complaint was that his daughterss female friends were intelligent people who you could carry out a conversation with, while their male friends were only capable of one-word communications.
Puppy wrote: <snip>
*GENDER BIAS IN STUDENT/TEACHER INTERACTIONS*
Obviously you're not aware of the problems surrounding males in education then, and how they're falling seriously behind their female peers.
Personally, I am not a big fan of statistics or labelling. But tell me more about this females soaring above the males in education.
On 11/22/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Puppy wrote:
<snip> > *GENDER BIAS IN STUDENT/TEACHER INTERACTIONS* >
Obviously you're not aware of the problems surrounding males in education then, and how they're falling seriously behind their female peers.
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
James Hare wrote:
On 11/22/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Puppy wrote:
<snip> > *GENDER BIAS IN STUDENT/TEACHER INTERACTIONS* > Obviously you're not aware of the problems surrounding males in education then, and how they're falling seriously behind their female peers.
Personally, I am not a big fan of statistics or labelling. But tell me more about this females soaring above the males in education.
http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/policy_initiatives_reviews/k... http://www.cis.org.au/Education/education.htm http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Debates/index2.html
So does anyone have any practical ideas to fix these "problems," or should we just sit around wailing about how horrible it is that the sexes are different?
On Nov 24, 2006, at 9:50 AM, Sean Barrett wrote:
So does anyone have any practical ideas to fix these "problems," or should we just sit around wailing about how horrible it is that the sexes are different?
As I said earlier, women obviously are doing something else which they find more worthwhile. We should continue to have a welcoming attitude, which I maintain we have as is shown by our enthusiasm in advancing women to leadership positions. We should be on the lookout for bias or other bad behavior towards women editors and do what we can to mitigate its effects. I don't think women have significantly less on-line access or that there is any significant technical barrier to participation. Anyone is free to edit. I think this conversation began by inquiring about the number of women candidates for arbcom. Given our welcoming attitude most women who had edited for at least a while would probably be elected, but if you are working hard on your career or other absorbing activities you might not volunteer.
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
As I said earlier, women obviously are doing something else which they find more worthwhile. We should continue to have a welcoming attitude, which I maintain we have as is shown by our enthusiasm in advancing women to leadership positions. We should be on the lookout for bias or other bad behavior towards women editors and do what we can to mitigate its effects.
<snip>
Fred
Would our "welcoming attitude" to women and "being on the lookout for bad behavior and mitigating its effects" include chastising men who make overtly sexist and insulting remarks? Alphax made such remarks, and thus far two people have spoken up - Mindspillage, a female; and Guettarda.
When I first started contributing to this thread I received a number of emails, all from women, all thanking me and encouraging me, yet none of them posted to the list. Now I know why. There is no longer any question of whether there is gender bias on WP: it has been demonstrated here. Sean actually attacked Guettarda for calling bigotry what it is - now, if someone had made comments similar to Alphax's about a minority ethnic group, would anyone have kept quiet? Would Sean have called someone speaking up against it "malicious needling", as he characterized Guettarda's comments? How is Guettarda's email "malicious needling", yet Alphax's overt misogyny doesn't even rate a comment?
-kc-
On Nov 24, 2006, at 5:42 PM, Puppy wrote:
When I first started contributing to this thread I received a number of emails, all from women, all thanking me and encouraging me, yet none of them posted to the list. Now I know why. There is no longer any question of whether there is gender bias on WP: it has been demonstrated here. Sean actually attacked Guettarda for calling bigotry what it is - now, if someone had made comments similar to Alphax's about a minority ethnic group, would anyone have kept quiet? Would Sean have called someone speaking up against it "malicious needling", as he characterized Guettarda's comments? How is Guettarda's email "malicious needling", yet Alphax's overt misogyny doesn't even rate a comment?
This is the mailing list, not Wikipedia. But yes, your reasonable concern was responded to poorly by several people.
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
On Nov 24, 2006, at 5:42 PM, Puppy wrote:
When I first started contributing to this thread I received a number of emails, all from women, all thanking me and encouraging me, yet none of them posted to the list. Now I know why. There is no longer any question of whether there is gender bias on WP: it has been demonstrated here. Sean actually attacked Guettarda for calling bigotry what it is - now, if someone had made comments similar to Alphax's about a minority ethnic group, would anyone have kept quiet? Would Sean have called someone speaking up against it "malicious needling", as he characterized Guettarda's comments? How is Guettarda's email "malicious needling", yet Alphax's overt misogyny doesn't even rate a comment?
This is the mailing list, not Wikipedia. But yes, your reasonable concern was responded to poorly by several people.
Fred
__
I appreciate that, Fred. I am not concerned so much about the lack of response to my concerns, as I am about the lack of response to overt sexist attacks on this mailing list. I am well aware it is not Wikipedia. Most of the people on this list are the same people as on Wikipedia. If you call a black man a nigger in the field, you will at least /think/ he's a nigger in the house. And don't think the attitude doesn't bleed through, because it does.
One puppy's opinion
On Nov 24, 2006, at 5:56 PM, Puppy wrote:
I appreciate that, Fred. I am not concerned so much about the lack of response to my concerns, as I am about the lack of response to overt sexist attacks on this mailing list. I am well aware it is not Wikipedia. Most of the people on this list are the same people as on Wikipedia. If you call a black man a nigger in the field, you will at least /think/ he's a nigger in the house. And don't think the attitude doesn't bleed through, because it does.
Actually, some active mailing list participants have only minimal connection with Wikipedia and their posts are often not read.
Fred
Puppy wrote:
I appreciate that, Fred. I am not concerned so much about the lack of response to my concerns, as I am about the lack of response to overt sexist attacks on this mailing list. I am well aware it is not Wikipedia. Most of the people on this list are the same people as on Wikipedia. If you call a black man a nigger in the field, you will at least /think/ he's a nigger in the house. And don't think the attitude doesn't bleed through, because it does.
Can someone send me a link to the archive where these attacks took place?
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Puppy wrote:
I appreciate that, Fred. I am not concerned so much about the lack of response to my concerns, as I am about the lack of response to overt sexist attacks on this mailing list. I am well aware it is not Wikipedia. Most of the people on this list are the same people as on Wikipedia. If you call a black man a nigger in the field, you will at least /think/ he's a nigger in the house. And don't think the attitude doesn't bleed through, because it does.
Can someone send me a link to the archive where these attacks took place?
--Jimbo
If you are speaking about the incident with a lack of response, which concerned me, it happened on this thread.
When I started posting to this thread, I was taking exception to the categorization of [[Blowdryer]] as a "woman's topic". I tossed out a few observations on gender bias. Until I did, I didn't think gender bias on WP was that bad - but my inbox is proving me wrong. I just received another email, responding to a post I made to this thread: <pasted email> On 11/25/06, Puppy wrote:
When I first started contributing to this thread I received a number of emails, all from women, all thanking me and encouraging me, yet none of them posted to the list.
Private email response:
That doesn't surprise me at all.
Do you think it would be a good idea to have a separate mailing list to discuss the problems of gender bias in Wikipedia (both in terms of the content and the community)? Along the lines of [[LinuxChix]] perhaps?
<end pasted email>
Why didn't this woman, like the others who have been emailing me, post to this list? I am getting emails from women, all saying how terrific I am, how glad they are someone is posting these concerns, and now I'm getting suggestions for a women's mailing list. Why do you think that is?
Alphax wrote "Women arguing on this list reinforces the view of "woman-as-empty-headed-shallow-person"."
This is clearly an overt sexist attack. Let's put the shoe on the other foot - what if most of the posts to this list were by men, and a woman wrote "Men arguing on this list reinforces the view of "man-as-stupid-testosterone-driven-lout"? But that isn't really a parallel, because women don't run this society. Try imagining this - lets change "women and men" to "black and white", using gender issues rather than race issues from the r/w: You are a black man. You live in a society where most of the power is wielded by whites. All the bosses you've ever had have been white. The president has always been white. There are people who express openly their beliefs that blacks are substandard. Your religion states you are subservient to whites, and that is God's plan. Until the 1970s, you did not have autonomy over your body, under the law. Until the 1980s, you could not even own property in some states in your name - your white boss owned it, and in fact could do what he wanted with it under the law (See Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 1981). You can be raped by a white person, and if you take it to court, it is often worse than the rape - people make racist remarks, say you "asked for it." You walk into a room. Almost everyone is white. Someone makes a racist comment. None of the other people protest, and some laugh. Do you A) Speak out your convictions strongly and clearly? or B) give a weak laugh and look for the exit door?
I'm thinking the other women are waiting to see if I'm lynched. That's why they are emailing me privately, even suggesting a separate mailing list. *They are intimidated against posting these concerns on this list.* I personally don't think that "separate but equal" works very well. I'm speaking up, myself.
What if the black man had seen a different response? What if someone made a racist comment or joke, and /all/ the white people in the room had spoken out, telling the bigot they didn't tolerate such behavior? Told the bigot to apologize, to take his racist comments elsewhere because they were not welcome? I think the black man would breathe a little easier... but he'd still be outnumbered. I hear about a "welcoming attitude" and "we should be on the lookout for bias or other bad behavior towards women editors and do what we can to mitigate its effects" yet how many spoke out when Alphax posted his clearly anti-female post to this list? I'm saying we are in a biased society, which is reflected in both mens' and womens' attitudes, and if you truly want to get a more balanced editing pool and make women feel welcome here, no gender bias, whether subtle or overt, can be ignored. Or we'll continue to have a few strong women, fewer as we go up the chain of power, and the imbalance will continue.
-kc-
I find it sad that someone feels the need to have a separate mailing list for women. Gender bias is an issue that touches all of us and should be discussed openly by *all of us. *As KC noted, separate but equal is a farce: it is merely separate, not equal, for in the act of separation power is ceded to the majority, a majority that is often boorish and smug in its ignorance.
It is also sad that when some of the men here spoke out in defence of women, they were attacked for piling on (the offender had slinked off without so much as an apology) or are admonished to assume good faith (in the face of overwhelming evidence indicating that so doing would be akin to swallowing cyanide because a con man told you it was safe). That several of us noted the gender bias and spoke out is a clear indication that a problem exists here, and needs to be remedied. Alas, I do not think that that remedy is to merely boot out the offenders, rather we should confront them with reason. Obviously, the possibility of changing any one's opinion is slim as gender bias, like racial, ethnic or religious bias, is deeply ingrained within the psyche of the offender, and is endemic to our society (both in the real world and at Wikipedia). However, it is certainly worth our every effort to do what we can to break down the the wall of ignorance that isolates and protects the bigoted and biased.
On 11/25/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Puppy wrote:
I appreciate that, Fred. I am not concerned so much about the lack of response to my concerns, as I am about the lack of response to overt sexist attacks on this mailing list. I am well aware it is not Wikipedia. Most of the people on this list are the same people as on Wikipedia. If you call a black man a nigger in the field, you will at least /think/ he's a nigger in the house. And don't think the attitude doesn't bleed through, because it does.
Can someone send me a link to the archive where these attacks took
place?
--Jimbo
If you are speaking about the incident with a lack of response, which concerned me, it happened on this thread.
When I started posting to this thread, I was taking exception to the categorization of [[Blowdryer]] as a "woman's topic". I tossed out a few observations on gender bias. Until I did, I didn't think gender bias on WP was that bad - but my inbox is proving me wrong. I just received another email, responding to a post I made to this thread:
<pasted email> On 11/25/06, Puppy wrote: > > When I first started contributing to this thread I received a number of > > emails, all from women, all thanking me and encouraging me, yet none of > > them posted to the list.
Private email response:
That doesn't surprise me at all.
Do you think it would be a good idea to have a separate mailing list to discuss the problems of gender bias in Wikipedia (both in terms of the content and the community)? Along the lines of [[LinuxChix]] perhaps?
<end pasted email>
Why didn't this woman, like the others who have been emailing me, post to this list? I am getting emails from women, all saying how terrific I am, how glad they are someone is posting these concerns, and now I'm getting suggestions for a women's mailing list. Why do you think that is?
Alphax wrote "Women arguing on this list reinforces the view of "woman-as-empty-headed-shallow-person"."
This is clearly an overt sexist attack. Let's put the shoe on the other foot - what if most of the posts to this list were by men, and a woman wrote "Men arguing on this list reinforces the view of "man-as-stupid-testosterone-driven-lout"? But that isn't really a parallel, because women don't run this society. Try imagining this - lets change "women and men" to "black and white", using gender issues rather than race issues from the r/w: You are a black man. You live in a society where most of the power is wielded by whites. All the bosses you've ever had have been white. The president has always been white. There are people who express openly their beliefs that blacks are substandard. Your religion states you are subservient to whites, and that is God's plan. Until the 1970s, you did not have autonomy over your body, under the law. Until the 1980s, you could not even own property in some states in your name - your white boss owned it, and in fact could do what he wanted with it under the law (See Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 1981). You can be raped by a white person, and if you take it to court, it is often worse than the rape - people make racist remarks, say you "asked for it." You walk into a room. Almost everyone is white. Someone makes a racist comment. None of the other people protest, and some laugh. Do you A) Speak out your convictions strongly and clearly? or B) give a weak laugh and look for the exit door?
I'm thinking the other women are waiting to see if I'm lynched. That's why they are emailing me privately, even suggesting a separate mailing list. *They are intimidated against posting these concerns on this list.* I personally don't think that "separate but equal" works very well. I'm speaking up, myself.
What if the black man had seen a different response? What if someone made a racist comment or joke, and /all/ the white people in the room had spoken out, telling the bigot they didn't tolerate such behavior? Told the bigot to apologize, to take his racist comments elsewhere because they were not welcome? I think the black man would breathe a little easier... but he'd still be outnumbered. I hear about a "welcoming attitude" and "we should be on the lookout for bias or other bad behavior towards women editors and do what we can to mitigate its effects" yet how many spoke out when Alphax posted his clearly anti-female post to this list? I'm saying we are in a biased society, which is reflected in both mens' and womens' attitudes, and if you truly want to get a more balanced editing pool and make women feel welcome here, no gender bias, whether subtle or overt, can be ignored. Or we'll continue to have a few strong women, fewer as we go up the chain of power, and the imbalance will continue.
-kc-
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Jim Schuler wrote:
I find it sad that someone feels the need to have a separate mailing list for women. Gender bias is an issue that touches all of us and should be discussed openly by *all of us. *As KC noted, separate but equal is a farce: it is merely separate, not equal, for in the act of separation power is ceded to the majority, a majority that is often boorish and smug in its ignorance.
It is also sad that when some of the men here spoke out in defence of women, they were attacked for piling on (the offender had slinked off without so much as an apology)
Do you think I'm proud of what I said? Do you think I actually meant it? Do you think that continuing to attack me would have helped the situation? Do you think that there was any apology I could have give that wouldn't have been just brushed off as insincere?
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Jim Schuler wrote:
I find it sad that someone feels the need to have a separate mailing list for women. Gender bias is an issue that touches all of us and should be discussed openly by *all of us. *As KC noted, separate but equal is a farce: it is merely separate, not equal, for in the act of separation power is ceded to the majority, a majority that is often boorish and smug in its ignorance.
It is also sad that when some of the men here spoke out in defence of women, they were attacked for piling on (the offender had slinked off without so much as an apology)
Do you think I'm proud of what I said? Do you think I actually meant it? Do you think that continuing to attack me would have helped the situation? Do you think that there was any apology I could have give that wouldn't have been just brushed off as insincere?
Speaking strictly for myself, I would have accepted a simple "That was inappropriate. I apologize."
So far as I can tell, you (Alphax) and I are dialogueing with no continuing recriminations or incivility, and I have no wish to pursue the incident any further, with the exception that the general lack of response to the remark has become a secondary, yet larger, issue.
-kc-
Actually, "I'm sorry I said that" would have worked nicely. "I'm sorry that you took me seriously" places the onus on the offended, not the offender. In any case, the issue is much larger than you alone, it is at least as much about the responses of those who leapt to the defense of something that is indefensible. As for "attacking" you, it was you who began the assault, even if you did not mean it, and I and others who took issue with you comments have every right to point out the foolhardiness of those comments.
On 11/25/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Jim Schuler wrote:
I find it sad that someone feels the need to have a separate mailing
list
for women. Gender bias is an issue that touches all of us and should be discussed openly by *all of us. *As KC noted, separate but equal is a farce: it is merely separate, not equal, for in the act of separation
power
is ceded to the majority, a majority that is often boorish and smug in
its
ignorance.
It is also sad that when some of the men here spoke out in defence of
women,
they were attacked for piling on (the offender had slinked off without
so
much as an apology)
Do you think I'm proud of what I said? Do you think I actually meant it? Do you think that continuing to attack me would have helped the situation? Do you think that there was any apology I could have give that wouldn't have been just brushed off as insincere?
-- Alphax _______________________________________________ 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 25, 2006, at 7:28 AM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Jim Schuler wrote:
I find it sad that someone feels the need to have a separate mailing list for women. Gender bias is an issue that touches all of us and should be discussed openly by *all of us. *As KC noted, separate but equal is a farce: it is merely separate, not equal, for in the act of separation power is ceded to the majority, a majority that is often boorish and smug in its ignorance.
It is also sad that when some of the men here spoke out in defence of women, they were attacked for piling on (the offender had slinked off without so much as an apology)
Do you think I'm proud of what I said? Do you think I actually meant it? Do you think that continuing to attack me would have helped the situation? Do you think that there was any apology I could have give that wouldn't have been just brushed off as insincere?
Just say you are sorry and get it over with. Then sin no more. I think most of us are aware that there is an element of trolling involved in this thread, but there are also real problems which we need to deal with effectively.
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
On Nov 25, 2006, at 7:28 AM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Jim Schuler wrote:
I find it sad that someone feels the need to have a separate mailing list for women. Gender bias is an issue that touches all of us and should be discussed openly by *all of us. *As KC noted, separate but equal is a farce: it is merely separate, not equal, for in the act of separation power is ceded to the majority, a majority that is often boorish and smug in its ignorance.
It is also sad that when some of the men here spoke out in defence of women, they were attacked for piling on (the offender had slinked off without so much as an apology)
Do you think I'm proud of what I said? Do you think I actually meant it? Do you think that continuing to attack me would have helped the situation? Do you think that there was any apology I could have give that wouldn't have been just brushed off as insincere?
Just say you are sorry and get it over with. Then sin no more. I think most of us are aware that there is an element of trolling involved in this thread, but there are also real problems which we need to deal with effectively.
Fred
_
Well put. I fear there is some conflation of the comment, the response (or lack thereof), and the overall situation. -kc-
Puppy wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
On Nov 25, 2006, at 7:28 AM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Jim Schuler wrote:
I find it sad that someone feels the need to have a separate mailing list for women. Gender bias is an issue that touches all of us and should be discussed openly by *all of us. *As KC noted, separate but equal is a farce: it is merely separate, not equal, for in the act of separation power is ceded to the majority, a majority that is often boorish and smug in its ignorance.
It is also sad that when some of the men here spoke out in defence of women, they were attacked for piling on (the offender had slinked off without so much as an apology)
Do you think I'm proud of what I said? Do you think I actually meant it? Do you think that continuing to attack me would have helped the situation? Do you think that there was any apology I could have give that wouldn't have been just brushed off as insincere?
Just say you are sorry and get it over with. Then sin no more. I think most of us are aware that there is an element of trolling involved in this thread, but there are also real problems which we need to deal with effectively.
Well put. I fear there is some conflation of the comment, the response (or lack thereof), and the overall situation.
The comments were inappropriate, and I'm sorry for making them. The response is sadly lacking, and I'm sorry for contributing to an atmosphere that discourages appropriate responses. The situation is a mess, and I'm sorry for having started it.
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
The comments were inappropriate, and I'm sorry for making them. The response is sadly lacking, and I'm sorry for contributing to an atmosphere that discourages appropriate responses. The situation is a mess, and I'm sorry for having started it.
I'm not sorry you made them, although I know it has been uncomfortable for you - I'm grateful. You made some ill considered remarks, which have brought attention to a problem. This is a Good Thing.With the exception of Sean Barrett, whose recent sarcastic tirade addresses no issues whatsoever, everyone seems to be giving this a serious look now. You are aware that off hand sexist comments, whether meant jokingly or not, have impact, so you have learned something too, yes? I learned a great deal - I did not think there was much of a problem on WP until this thread took off, and now my inbox is convincing me there is a serious issue. If nothing else, most of the readers of this list are at least more aware, and that is something.
Thank you for the apology - accepted with no reserve.
-kc-
Separate mailing lists for women? What perfenander.
Guys, we're not going to be improving an encyclopedia/news site/dictionary/quote database/species directory/education wiki/series of textbooks/media repository/primary source library if we keep bickering.
Jimmy-Jimmy said it best: kick out the bad people.
Then get back to work.
On 11/25/06, Jim Schuler jim62sch@gmail.com wrote:
I find it sad that someone feels the need to have a separate mailing list for women. Gender bias is an issue that touches all of us and should be discussed openly by *all of us. *As KC noted, separate but equal is a farce: it is merely separate, not equal, for in the act of separation power is ceded to the majority, a majority that is often boorish and smug in its ignorance.
It is also sad that when some of the men here spoke out in defence of women, they were attacked for piling on (the offender had slinked off without so much as an apology) or are admonished to assume good faith (in the face of overwhelming evidence indicating that so doing would be akin to swallowing cyanide because a con man told you it was safe). That several of us noted the gender bias and spoke out is a clear indication that a problem exists here, and needs to be remedied. Alas, I do not think that that remedy is to merely boot out the offenders, rather we should confront them with reason. Obviously, the possibility of changing any one's opinion is slim as gender bias, like racial, ethnic or religious bias, is deeply ingrained within the psyche of the offender, and is endemic to our society (both in the real world and at Wikipedia). However, it is certainly worth our every effort to do what we can to break down the the wall of ignorance that isolates and protects the bigoted and biased.
On 11/25/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Puppy wrote:
I appreciate that, Fred. I am not concerned so much about the lack of response to my concerns, as I am about the lack of response to overt sexist attacks on this mailing list. I am well aware it is not Wikipedia. Most of the people on this list are the same people as on Wikipedia. If you call a black man a nigger in the field, you will at least /think/ he's a nigger in the house. And don't think the
attitude
doesn't bleed through, because it does.
Can someone send me a link to the archive where these attacks took
place?
--Jimbo
If you are speaking about the incident with a lack of response, which concerned me, it happened on this thread.
When I started posting to this thread, I was taking exception to the categorization of [[Blowdryer]] as a "woman's topic". I tossed out a few observations on gender bias. Until I did, I didn't think gender bias on WP was that bad - but my inbox is proving me wrong. I just received another email, responding to a post I made to this thread:
<pasted email> On 11/25/06, Puppy wrote: > > When I first started contributing to this thread I received a number of > > emails, all from women, all thanking me and encouraging me, yet none of > > them posted to the list.
Private email response:
That doesn't surprise me at all.
Do you think it would be a good idea to have a separate mailing list to discuss the problems of gender bias in Wikipedia (both in terms of the content and the community)? Along the lines of [[LinuxChix]] perhaps?
<end pasted email>
Why didn't this woman, like the others who have been emailing me, post to this list? I am getting emails from women, all saying how terrific I am, how glad they are someone is posting these concerns, and now I'm getting suggestions for a women's mailing list. Why do you think that
is?
Alphax wrote "Women arguing on this list reinforces the view of "woman-as-empty-headed-shallow-person"."
This is clearly an overt sexist attack. Let's put the shoe on the other foot - what if most of the posts to this list were by men, and a woman wrote "Men arguing on this list reinforces the view of "man-as-stupid-testosterone-driven-lout"? But that isn't really a parallel, because women don't run this society. Try imagining this - lets change "women and men" to "black and white", using gender issues rather than race issues from the r/w: You are a black man. You live in a society where most of the power is wielded by whites. All the bosses you've ever had have been white. The president has always been white. There are people who express openly their beliefs that blacks are substandard. Your religion states you are subservient to whites, and that is God's plan. Until the 1970s, you did not have autonomy over your body, under the law. Until the 1980s, you could not even own property in some states in your name - your white boss owned it, and in fact could do what he wanted with it under the law (See Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 1981). You can be raped by a white person, and if you take it to court, it is often worse than the rape - people make racist remarks, say you "asked for it." You walk into a room. Almost everyone is white. Someone makes a racist comment. None of the other people protest, and some laugh. Do you A) Speak out your convictions strongly and clearly? or B) give a weak laugh and look for the exit door?
I'm thinking the other women are waiting to see if I'm lynched. That's why they are emailing me privately, even suggesting a separate mailing list. *They are intimidated against posting these concerns on this list.* I personally don't think that "separate but equal" works very well. I'm speaking up, myself.
What if the black man had seen a different response? What if someone made a racist comment or joke, and /all/ the white people in the room had spoken out, telling the bigot they didn't tolerate such behavior? Told the bigot to apologize, to take his racist comments elsewhere because they were not welcome? I think the black man would breathe a little easier... but he'd still be outnumbered. I hear about a "welcoming attitude" and "we should be on the lookout for bias or other bad behavior towards women editors and do what we can to mitigate its effects" yet how many spoke out when Alphax posted his clearly anti-female post to this list? I'm saying we are in a biased society, which is reflected in both mens' and womens' attitudes, and if you truly want to get a more balanced editing pool and make women feel welcome here, no gender bias, whether subtle or overt, can be ignored. Or we'll continue to have a few strong women, fewer as we go up the chain of power, and the imbalance will continue.
-kc-
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Jim http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The sweep it under the rug defence? No, that will not do.
On 11/25/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Separate mailing lists for women? What perfenander.
Guys, we're not going to be improving an encyclopedia/news site/dictionary/quote database/species directory/education wiki/series of textbooks/media repository/primary source library if we keep bickering.
Jimmy-Jimmy said it best: kick out the bad people.
Then get back to work.
On 11/25/06, Jim Schuler jim62sch@gmail.com wrote:
I find it sad that someone feels the need to have a separate mailing
list
for women. Gender bias is an issue that touches all of us and should be discussed openly by *all of us. *As KC noted, separate but equal is a farce: it is merely separate, not equal, for in the act of separation power is ceded to the majority, a majority that is often boorish and smug in
its
ignorance.
It is also sad that when some of the men here spoke out in defence of women, they were attacked for piling on (the offender had slinked off without
so
much as an apology) or are admonished to assume good faith (in the face
of
overwhelming evidence indicating that so doing would be akin to
swallowing
cyanide because a con man told you it was safe). That several of us
noted
the gender bias and spoke out is a clear indication that a problem
exists
here, and needs to be remedied. Alas, I do not think that that remedy
is
to merely boot out the offenders, rather we should confront them with
reason.
Obviously, the possibility of changing any one's opinion is slim as
gender
bias, like racial, ethnic or religious bias, is deeply ingrained within the psyche of the offender, and is endemic to our society (both in the real world and at Wikipedia). However, it is certainly worth our every
effort
to do what we can to break down the the wall of ignorance that isolates and protects the bigoted and biased.
On 11/25/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Puppy wrote:
I appreciate that, Fred. I am not concerned so much about the lack
of
response to my concerns, as I am about the lack of response to
overt
sexist attacks on this mailing list. I am well aware it is not Wikipedia. Most of the people on this list are the same people as
on
Wikipedia. If you call a black man a nigger in the field, you will
at
least /think/ he's a nigger in the house. And don't think the
attitude
doesn't bleed through, because it does.
Can someone send me a link to the archive where these attacks took
place?
--Jimbo
If you are speaking about the incident with a lack of response, which concerned me, it happened on this thread.
When I started posting to this thread, I was taking exception to the categorization of [[Blowdryer]] as a "woman's topic". I tossed out a
few
observations on gender bias. Until I did, I didn't think gender bias
on
WP was that bad - but my inbox is proving me wrong. I just received another email, responding to a post I made to this thread:
<pasted email> On 11/25/06, Puppy wrote: > > When I first started contributing to this thread I received a
number
of
emails, all from women, all thanking me and encouraging me, yet
none
of
them posted to the list.
Private email response:
That doesn't surprise me at all.
Do you think it would be a good idea to have a separate mailing list to discuss the problems of gender bias in Wikipedia (both in terms
of
the content and the community)? Along the lines of [[LinuxChix]] perhaps?
<end pasted email>
Why didn't this woman, like the others who have been emailing me, post to this list? I am getting emails from women, all saying how terrific
I
am, how glad they are someone is posting these concerns, and now I'm getting suggestions for a women's mailing list. Why do you think that
is?
Alphax wrote "Women arguing on this list reinforces the view of "woman-as-empty-headed-shallow-person"."
This is clearly an overt sexist attack. Let's put the shoe on the
other
foot - what if most of the posts to this list were by men, and a woman wrote "Men arguing on this list reinforces the view of "man-as-stupid-testosterone-driven-lout"? But that isn't really a parallel, because women don't run this society. Try imagining this - lets change "women and men" to "black and white", using gender issues rather than race issues from the r/w: You are a black man. You live in
a
society where most of the power is wielded by whites. All the bosses you've ever had have been white. The president has always been white. There are people who express openly their beliefs that blacks are substandard. Your religion states you are subservient to whites, and that is God's plan. Until the 1970s, you did not have autonomy over
your
body, under the law. Until the 1980s, you could not even own property
in
some states in your name - your white boss owned it, and in fact could do what he wanted with it under the law (See Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 1981). You can be raped by a white person, and if you take it to
court,
it is often worse than the rape - people make racist remarks, say you "asked for it." You walk into a room. Almost everyone is white.
Someone
makes a racist comment. None of the other people protest, and some laugh. Do you A) Speak out your convictions strongly and clearly? or
B)
give a weak laugh and look for the exit door?
I'm thinking the other women are waiting to see if I'm lynched. That's why they are emailing me privately, even suggesting a separate mailing list. *They are intimidated against posting these concerns on this list.* I personally don't think that "separate but equal" works very well. I'm speaking up, myself.
What if the black man had seen a different response? What if someone made a racist comment or joke, and /all/ the white people in the room had spoken out, telling the bigot they didn't tolerate such behavior? Told the bigot to apologize, to take his racist comments elsewhere because they were not welcome? I think the black man would breathe a little easier... but he'd still be outnumbered. I hear about a "welcoming attitude" and "we should be on the lookout for bias or
other
bad behavior towards women editors and do what we can to mitigate its effects" yet how many spoke out when Alphax posted his clearly anti-female post to this list? I'm saying we are in a biased society, which is reflected in both mens' and womens' attitudes, and if you
truly
want to get a more balanced editing pool and make women feel welcome here, no gender bias, whether subtle or overt, can be ignored. Or
we'll
continue to have a few strong women, fewer as we go up the chain of power, and the imbalance will continue.
-kc-
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Jim http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
James Hare wrote:
Separate mailing lists for women? What perfenander.
Guys, we're not going to be improving an encyclopedia/news site/dictionary/quote database/species directory/education wiki/series of textbooks/media repository/primary source library if we keep bickering.
Jimmy-Jimmy said it best: kick out the bad people.
Then get back to work.
That's a bit simplistic, IMHO. "Bad people"? Truly horrific cases, like the person who vandalized SlimVirgin's user page about a year ago, I have no problem calling "bad people" and banning. But the overall atmosphere, the lack of concern, that is not so clear cut. I just received yet /another/ email from a women, and I replied asking why she didn't post to this list? and she replied that /she was afraid of being attacked/ if she did. Now, obviously I don't suffer from the same intimidation - but it seems I am more an anomaly than I realized. I am concerned I sound like a rabid feminist, which I'm not - but the volume of email I am receiving tells me there is an issue. And simply "kicking out the bad people" won't work. The "bad people" is us.
-kc-
Indeed: the ignorance of even the few tarnishes the image of the many, especially when that ignorance is allowed to fester.
On 11/25/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
James Hare wrote:
Separate mailing lists for women? What perfenander.
Guys, we're not going to be improving an encyclopedia/news site/dictionary/quote database/species directory/education wiki/series
of
textbooks/media repository/primary source library if we keep bickering.
Jimmy-Jimmy said it best: kick out the bad people.
Then get back to work.
That's a bit simplistic, IMHO. "Bad people"? Truly horrific cases, like the person who vandalized SlimVirgin's user page about a year ago, I have no problem calling "bad people" and banning. But the overall atmosphere, the lack of concern, that is not so clear cut. I just received yet /another/ email from a women, and I replied asking why she didn't post to this list? and she replied that /she was afraid of being attacked/ if she did. Now, obviously I don't suffer from the same intimidation - but it seems I am more an anomaly than I realized. I am concerned I sound like a rabid feminist, which I'm not - but the volume of email I am receiving tells me there is an issue. And simply "kicking out the bad people" won't work. The "bad people" is us.
-kc- _______________________________________________ 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 25, 2006, at 7:33 AM, James Hare wrote:
Separate mailing lists for women? What perfenander.
Guys, we're not going to be improving an encyclopedia/news site/dictionary/quote database/species directory/education wiki/ series of textbooks/media repository/primary source library if we keep bickering.
Jimmy-Jimmy said it best: kick out the bad people.
Then get back to work.
If truly "bad people" could be identified, sure. But not a remedy available to deal with those who did not criticize sexist remarks. Or to deal with someone who obviously knows he is in the wrong, despite lack of an explicit apology.
Our work here is to discuss issues such as this.
Fred
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Jimmy Wales stated for the record:
Puppy wrote:
I appreciate that, Fred. I am not concerned so much about the lack of response to my concerns, as I am about the lack of response to overt sexist attacks on this mailing list. I am well aware it is not Wikipedia. Most of the people on this list are the same people as on Wikipedia. If you call a black man a nigger in the field, you will at least /think/ he's a nigger in the house. And don't think the attitude doesn't bleed through, because it does.
Can someone send me a link to the archive where these attacks took place?
--Jimbo
The attacks were an ill-considered remark from Alphax, and then my wondering why Alphax was being lynched for what was to me clearly a mere grumble rather than a truly hateful remark. But wait! My questioning of their lynching revealed that I too am a vicious misogynist! From there, the script is playing out as usual -- there is of course no defense against a charge of misogyny; /any/ response whatsoever (other than immediate public self-abasement followed by a good long self-flagellation) proves the charge.
- -- Sean Barrett | I was forced to live for days sean@epoptic.com | on nothing but food and water.
On Nov 25, 2006, at 8:19 AM, Sean Barrett wrote:
The attacks were an ill-considered remark from Alphax, and then my wondering why Alphax was being lynched for what was to me clearly a mere grumble rather than a truly hateful remark. But wait! My questioning of their lynching revealed that I too am a vicious misogynist! From there, the script is playing out as usual -- there is of course no defense against a charge of misogyny; /any/ response whatsoever (other than immediate public self-abasement followed by a good long self-flagellation) proves the charge.
That response is just another way of saying I'm afraid to post because I might be attacked.
Fred
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Fred Bauder stated for the record:
On Nov 25, 2006, at 8:19 AM, Sean Barrett wrote:
The attacks were an ill-considered remark from Alphax, and then my wondering why Alphax was being lynched for what was to me clearly a mere grumble rather than a truly hateful remark. But wait! My questioning of their lynching revealed that I too am a vicious misogynist! From there, the script is playing out as usual -- there is of course no defense against a charge of misogyny; /any/ response whatsoever (other than immediate public self-abasement followed by a good long self-flagellation) proves the charge.
That response is just another way of saying I'm afraid to post because I might be attacked.
Fred
You are absolutely right! That's one thing I can take away from three years of serving this community -- I'm no longer afraid of being attacked. Prior to that experience, this atmosphere of "chant the correct slogans or be kick-banned" would certainly drive me away.
You will find very few people willing to express any doubt about the assumptions behind this passion play; those who do will be tarred and feathered, then run out of town on a rail to the tune of comparisons to the Nazis.
- -- Sean Barrett | I was forced to live for days sean@epoptic.com | on nothing but food and water.
Sean Barrett wrote: <snip>
You will find very few people willing to express any doubt about the assumptions behind this passion play; those who do will be tarred and feathered, then run out of town on a rail to the tune of comparisons to the Nazis.
Shall we get back to Wikipedia: Arbeit macht die freie Enzyklopädie, and does Godwin approve?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Alphax (Wikipedia email) stated for the record:
Sean Barrett wrote:
<snip> > You will find very few people willing to express any doubt about the > assumptions behind this passion play; those who do will be tarred and > feathered, then run out of town on a rail to the tune of comparisons to > the Nazis. >
Shall we get back to Wikipedia: Arbeit macht die freie Enzyklopädie, and does Godwin approve?
You may not have caught it, but Godwin kicked in up-thread. For failing to damn you sufficiently, I'm Neville Chamberlain, which makes you more powerful than I thought, and hurts my feelings deeply -- I was hoping for the part of Uncle Joe.
- -- Sean Barrett | I was forced to live for days sean@epoptic.com | on nothing but food and water.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Fred Bauder stated for the record:
On Nov 25, 2006, at 8:53 AM, Sean Barrett wrote:
the assumptions behind this passion play
What are the assumptions?
Primarily that:
#1 there can never be any doubt that hateful bigotry is running rampant, crippling the functioning of our society
#2 anyone who wonders whether the alleged oppression is really as bad as is claimed is a hateful bigot who must be immediately reeducated if not exiled from the community
Please remember that we started talking about -- and I'm still talking about -- Wikipedia, the place where we write articles, not this mailing list or IRC. As I think you pointed out, there are different players as well as different sets of rules for each, making them distinct communities.
- -- Sean Barrett | I was forced to live for days sean@epoptic.com | on nothing but food and water.
Sean Barrett wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Fred Bauder stated for the record:
On Nov 25, 2006, at 8:53 AM, Sean Barrett wrote:
the assumptions behind this passion play
What are the assumptions?
Primarily that:
#1 there can never be any doubt that hateful bigotry is running rampant, crippling the functioning of our society
#2 anyone who wonders whether the alleged oppression is really as bad as is claimed is a hateful bigot who must be immediately reeducated if not exiled from the community
Please remember that we started talking about -- and I'm still talking about -- Wikipedia, the place where we write articles, not this mailing list or IRC. As I think you pointed out, there are different players as well as different sets of rules for each, making them distinct communities.
Sean Barrett | I was forced to live for days sean@epoptic.com | on nothing but food and water.
regarding #1: I assumed the precise opposite until this thread. regarding #2: Bit dramatic, aren't you? Try rephrasing with less sturm und drang. Regarding both: Who are you saying made those assumptions?
-kc-
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Puppy stated for the record:
Sean Barrett wrote:
#1 there can never be any doubt that hateful bigotry is running rampant, crippling the functioning of our society
#2 anyone who wonders whether the alleged oppression is really as bad as is claimed is a hateful bigot who must be immediately reeducated if not exiled from the community
Please remember that we started talking about -- and I'm still talking about -- Wikipedia, the place where we write articles, not this mailing list or IRC. As I think you pointed out, there are different players as well as different sets of rules for each, making them distinct communities.
Sean Barrett | I was forced to live for days sean@epoptic.com | on nothing but food and water.
regarding #1: I assumed the precise opposite until this thread. regarding #2: Bit dramatic, aren't you? Try rephrasing with less sturm und drang. Regarding both: Who are you saying made those assumptions?
-kc-
I find it difficult to hold a conversation with someone who thinks I am mocking them when I am not. It tends to make "the climate ... hostile to speaking up," as someone just said. To be clear: I am not mocking you. I am trying to write from a moderate position, neither bigoted nor overly concerned about Wikipedia being crippled by bigotry. However, I'm being rather clearly told that a moderate position is unacceptable.
#1: This thread is indeed very bad. This mailing list can be, but is not always, very bad. IRC is so bad I don't bother logging on, which is bad for an Arbiter because quite a lot of significant activity occurs there. I do not think that Wikipedia-the-place-where-we-write-articles is bad. If you have evidence to the contrary, point me at it, and I will block the bad guys and bring the ArbComm case against them myself. We are commissioned to protect the article-writing community, and I think we've done a not-bad job for the past three years. Any bigotry in Wikipedia-the-place-where-we-write-articles is only there because the ArbComm has not been made aware of it.
#2: Okay, perhaps over-dramatic, but this just in: "telling Alphax to put his head in a bucket 100 times, and take it out 99, is treating him too kind." Banning has been mentioned several times up-thread, which seems a bit much to me. Rhetoric-escalation runs rampant, and of that particular crime I am as guilty as anyone.
QUESTION: So can we make my comment #2 unquestionably over-dramatic? Is there any way to bring the emotional intensity of this thread down? I would like more information on the problems people have when trying to contribute to Wikipedia-the-place-where-we-write-articles. I signed up to support that community, lo these many moons ago. I'm still on duty, at least for another few weeks.
- -- Sean Barrett | I was forced to live for days sean@epoptic.com | on nothing but food and water.
On Nov 25, 2006, at 10:26 AM, Sean Barrett wrote:
I do not think that Wikipedia-the-place-where-we-write-articles is bad. If you have evidence to the contrary, point me at it, and I will block the bad guys and bring the ArbComm case against them myself. We are commissioned to protect the article-writing community, and I think we've done a not-bad job for the past three years. Any bigotry in Wikipedia-the-place-where-we-write-articles is only there because the ArbComm has not been made aware of it.
While the Arbcom is prepared to tromp all over overt misogyny, I think most problems are too subtle to come to our attention in the form of a case. Or occur off-wiki on other sites. Actually I, and I think most other arbitrators, routinely work on problems presented by off-wiki harassment and attempts to ferret out personal information. This work is informal and often not a part of an actual case.
Fred
Seems to me that Wales first mentioned banning, no? Nonetheless, quite a few of us have indicated our disagreement with such a stance.
If your idea of moderation is biting sarcasm and a dismissive attitude I'm afraid you do not put forth a good image of the Arbcomm.
On 11/25/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Puppy stated for the record:
Sean Barrett wrote:
#1 there can never be any doubt that hateful bigotry is running
rampant,
crippling the functioning of our society
#2 anyone who wonders whether the alleged oppression is really as bad
as
is claimed is a hateful bigot who must be immediately reeducated if not exiled from the community
Please remember that we started talking about -- and I'm still talking about -- Wikipedia, the place where we write articles, not this mailing list or IRC. As I think you pointed out, there are different players
as
well as different sets of rules for each, making them distinct
communities.
Sean Barrett | I was forced to live for days sean@epoptic.com | on nothing but food and water.
regarding #1: I assumed the precise opposite until this thread. regarding #2: Bit dramatic, aren't you? Try rephrasing with less sturm und drang. Regarding both: Who are you saying made those assumptions?
-kc-
I find it difficult to hold a conversation with someone who thinks I am mocking them when I am not. It tends to make "the climate ... hostile to speaking up," as someone just said. To be clear: I am not mocking you. I am trying to write from a moderate position, neither bigoted nor overly concerned about Wikipedia being crippled by bigotry. However, I'm being rather clearly told that a moderate position is unacceptable.
#1: This thread is indeed very bad. This mailing list can be, but is not always, very bad. IRC is so bad I don't bother logging on, which is bad for an Arbiter because quite a lot of significant activity occurs there. I do not think that Wikipedia-the-place-where-we-write-articles is bad. If you have evidence to the contrary, point me at it, and I will block the bad guys and bring the ArbComm case against them myself. We are commissioned to protect the article-writing community, and I think we've done a not-bad job for the past three years. Any bigotry in Wikipedia-the-place-where-we-write-articles is only there because the ArbComm has not been made aware of it.
#2: Okay, perhaps over-dramatic, but this just in: "telling Alphax to put his head in a bucket 100 times, and take it out 99, is treating him too kind." Banning has been mentioned several times up-thread, which seems a bit much to me. Rhetoric-escalation runs rampant, and of that particular crime I am as guilty as anyone.
QUESTION: So can we make my comment #2 unquestionably over-dramatic? Is there any way to bring the emotional intensity of this thread down? I would like more information on the problems people have when trying to contribute to Wikipedia-the-place-where-we-write-articles. I signed up to support that community, lo these many moons ago. I'm still on duty, at least for another few weeks.
Sean Barrett | I was forced to live for days sean@epoptic.com | on nothing but food and water. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFFaHyw/SVOiq2uhHMRAh2OAKDkWeV7EyZRjte4CE5YZq0EBPQlyACgv80d +kj+3nIpCDTGbHMfZYn/fpI= =HFWd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ 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 25, 2006, at 9:35 AM, Sean Barrett wrote:
Fred Bauder stated for the record:
On Nov 25, 2006, at 8:53 AM, Sean Barrett wrote:
the assumptions behind this passion play
What are the assumptions?
Primarily that:
#1 there can never be any doubt that hateful bigotry is running rampant, crippling the functioning of our society
#2 anyone who wonders whether the alleged oppression is really as bad as is claimed is a hateful bigot who must be immediately reeducated if not exiled from the community
Please remember that we started talking about -- and I'm still talking about -- Wikipedia, the place where we write articles, not this mailing list or IRC. As I think you pointed out, there are different players as well as different sets of rules for each, making them distinct communities.
Perhaps those assumptions explain the drama, but I would advance these assumptions for work:
We have problems, but could do better.
Dialog is productive.
Fred
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Fred Bauder stated for the record:
Perhaps those assumptions explain the drama, but I would advance these assumptions for work:
We have problems, but could do better.
Dialog is productive.
Dialog is indeed productive, and I'll be glad to start there.
Other than the recent unpleasantness on the mailing list, what problems are you seeing?
- -- Sean Barrett | Warning: Dates on calendar sean@epoptic.com | are closer than they appear.
On Nov 25, 2006, at 11:12 AM, Sean Barrett wrote:
Other than the recent unpleasantness on the mailing list, what problems are you seeing?
Biggest problem is off-wiki targeting and stalking. No names, but at least 4 prominent women were strongly affected. And I can think of two others. Mostly it is framed as trying to access personal information, calling employers, etc. Imagining that one demonic woman is oppressing.
Fred
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Fred Bauder stated for the record:
On Nov 25, 2006, at 11:12 AM, Sean Barrett wrote:
Other than the recent unpleasantness on the mailing list, what problems are you seeing?
Biggest problem is off-wiki targeting and stalking. No names, but at least 4 prominent women were strongly affected. And I can think of two others. Mostly it is framed as trying to access personal information, calling employers, etc. Imagining that one demonic woman is oppressing.
Fred
Very true, and very much a severe problem. I'm aware of at least a few of those you mention.
Do you have any ideas what we as Wikipedians can do that we aren't already doing? Law enforcement was notified in at least one case. I think that all of the perps are blocked for eternity from both the site and the mailing list.
(Fred, is your last sentence what you wanted to say?)
- -- Sean Barrett | Warning: Dates on calendar sean@epoptic.com | are closer than they appear.
On Nov 25, 2006, at 11:24 AM, Sean Barrett wrote:
Fred Bauder stated for the record:
On Nov 25, 2006, at 11:12 AM, Sean Barrett wrote:
Other than the recent unpleasantness on the mailing list, what problems are you seeing?
Biggest problem is off-wiki targeting and stalking. No names, but at least 4 prominent women were strongly affected. And I can think of two others. Mostly it is framed as trying to access personal information, calling employers, etc. Imagining that one demonic woman is oppressing.
Fred
Very true, and very much a severe problem. I'm aware of at least a few of those you mention.
Do you have any ideas what we as Wikipedians can do that we aren't already doing? Law enforcement was notified in at least one case. I think that all of the perps are blocked for eternity from both the site and the mailing list.
(Fred, is your last sentence what you wanted to say?)
That is what they do. They imagine a Wikipedia administrator as some sort of spider queen with a host of minions.
Fred
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Fred Bauder stated for the record:
(Fred, is your last sentence ["Imagining that one demonic woman is oppressing."] what you wanted to say?)
That is what they do. They imagine a Wikipedia administrator as some sort of spider queen with a host of minions.
Fred
Thanks -- I'm trying to read people's messages extra-carefully, that just wouldn't parse for me.
Back on the dialog: the truly nasty stalkers are easy to spot, and there's little debate on how to deal with them (ie, as harshly as possible as quickly as possible). Apparently there is also a more subtle problem. We've seen the quality-of-article example; can anyone give me another?
- -- Sean Barrett | Warning: Dates on calendar sean@epoptic.com | are closer than they appear.
On 11/25/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Back on the dialog: the truly nasty stalkers are easy to spot, and there's little debate on how to deal with them (ie, as harshly as possible as quickly as possible).
Actually that doesn't always work. While the instances of which I am aware may not be representative, it seems like most (but by no means all) of the instances where editors have been harrassed at home or work have involved female editors. We don't have much by way to tools to protect against things like that.
On Nov 25, 2006, at 12:16 PM, Guettarda wrote:
Actually that doesn't always work. While the instances of which I am aware may not be representative, it seems like most (but by no means all) of the instances where editors have been harrassed at home or work have involved female editors. We don't have much by way to tools to protect against things like that.
Those of us with checkuser and oversight stand ready to do anything we can to deal with these situations, including deleting user and talk pages, and removing personal information using oversight. Best defense is maintaining anonymity.
Fred
On 11/25/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Those of us with checkuser and oversight stand ready to do anything we can to deal with these situations, including deleting user and talk pages, and removing personal information using oversight. Best defense is maintaining anonymity.
Perhaps the worst cases of material harm to our users that we've seen are to users who thought there were anonymous and edited in ways which they wouldn't want made public... only to later discover that anonymity is terribly fragile.
We're not an anonymity service. Anonymity is by it's very nature terribly fragile. We take a great risk of causing harm if we encourage people to believe they are more anonymous than they actually are.
The world is a scary place at time, we can't solve that. We can, and do, avoid our own project being a fertile breeding grow for the worst of the loons.
We need to keep focused on culling the worst and not waste our time with impossible goals like providing a nutcase free zone or providing unbreakable anonymity.
On Nov 25, 2006, at 12:42 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
We need to keep focused on culling the worst and not waste our time with impossible goals like providing a nutcase free zone or providing unbreakable anonymity.
No, everyone eventually forgets to log in.
Fred
On 11/25/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Fred Bauder stated for the record:
Biggest problem is off-wiki targeting and stalking. No names, but at least 4 prominent women were strongly affected. And I can think of two others. Mostly it is framed as trying to access personal information, calling employers, etc. Imagining that one demonic woman is oppressing.
Do you have any ideas what we as Wikipedians can do that we aren't already doing? Law enforcement was notified in at least one case. I think that all of the perps are blocked for eternity from both the site and the mailing list.
Sean, one thing that would help is for editors who are doing it to be banned without hesitation, and admins to be desysopped. Currently, even that isn't happening. It might not stop the attacks, but it's pretty galling to have to edit alongside someone who's engaged in trying to track down your personal details on an attack site; even more galling when that person is a Wikipedia administrator.
Sarah
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Sarah stated for the record:
Sean, one thing that would help is for editors who are doing it to be banned without hesitation, and admins to be desysopped. Currently, even that isn't happening. It might not stop the attacks, but it's pretty galling to have to edit alongside someone who's engaged in trying to track down your personal details on an attack site; even more galling when that person is a Wikipedia administrator.
Sarah
Please send me details by private e-mail and I will dig in.
- -- Sean Barrett | Warning: Dates on calendar sean@epoptic.com | are closer than they appear.
I, too, don't see Alphax's comments as anything other than ill-conceived, rather than/as opposed to fully hateful.
On 11/25/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Jimmy Wales stated for the record:
Puppy wrote:
I appreciate that, Fred. I am not concerned so much about the lack of response to my concerns, as I am about the lack of response to overt sexist attacks on this mailing list. I am well aware it is not Wikipedia. Most of the people on this list are the same people as on Wikipedia. If you call a black man a nigger in the field, you will at least /think/ he's a nigger in the house. And don't think the attitude doesn't bleed through, because it does.
Can someone send me a link to the archive where these attacks took place?
--Jimbo
The attacks were an ill-considered remark from Alphax, and then my wondering why Alphax was being lynched for what was to me clearly a mere grumble rather than a truly hateful remark. But wait! My questioning of their lynching revealed that I too am a vicious misogynist! From there, the script is playing out as usual -- there is of course no defense against a charge of misogyny; /any/ response whatsoever (other than immediate public self-abasement followed by a good long self-flagellation) proves the charge.
Sean Barrett | I was forced to live for days sean@epoptic.com | on nothing but food and water. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFFaF72/SVOiq2uhHMRAgEiAKDctyR34JwaJu730yaD6iN1a5/o+gCfcDO3 6Q0uAFYbyT90u3QGrytsJqw= =TRrQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Puppy wrote:
I appreciate that, Fred. I am not concerned so much about the lack of response to my concerns, as I am about the lack of response to overt sexist attacks on this mailing list.
I personally didn't respond because it looked like trolling, and you're not supposed to feed the trolls. But apparently my attempt at troll starvation is evidence of misogyny? Bummer...
Stan
Stan Shebs wrote:
Puppy wrote:
I appreciate that, Fred. I am not concerned so much about the lack of response to my concerns, as I am about the lack of response to overt sexist attacks on this mailing list.
I personally didn't respond because it looked like trolling, and you're not supposed to feed the trolls. But apparently my attempt at troll starvation is evidence of misogyny? Bummer...
Stan
I almost didn't respond for that very reason, but now I'm glad I did. Women are emailing me telling me how intimidated they feel - they don't want to post their concerns to this list because they also feel intimidated here. That I would have never known had I not replied. -kc-
Puppy wrote:
Stan Shebs wrote:
Puppy wrote:
I appreciate that, Fred. I am not concerned so much about the lack of response to my concerns, as I am about the lack of response to overt sexist attacks on this mailing list.
I personally didn't respond because it looked like trolling, and you're not supposed to feed the trolls. But apparently my attempt at troll starvation is evidence of misogyny? Bummer...
Stan
I almost didn't respond for that very reason, but now I'm glad I did. Women are emailing me telling me how intimidated they feel - they don't want to post their concerns to this list because they also feel intimidated here. That I would have never known had I not replied.
Generally this list is home to not sexism but general stupidity. What will it take before people feel safe enough to post here?
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Puppy wrote:
Stan Shebs wrote:
Puppy wrote:
I appreciate that, Fred. I am not concerned so much about the lack of response to my concerns, as I am about the lack of response to overt sexist attacks on this mailing list.
I personally didn't respond because it looked like trolling, and you're not supposed to feed the trolls. But apparently my attempt at troll starvation is evidence of misogyny? Bummer...
Stan
I almost didn't respond for that very reason, but now I'm glad I did. Women are emailing me telling me how intimidated they feel - they don't want to post their concerns to this list because they also feel intimidated here. That I would have never known had I not replied.
Generally this list is home to not sexism but general stupidity. What will it take before people feel safe enough to post here?
I don't have a solution. I do, however, now recognize there is a serious problem. I didn't add anything to the recent threads about trying to increase female participation in WP because I had no idea why women would /not/ be editing, standing for admin, standing for arbcom, etc. Now I know at least one reason, and it is something I can do something about.
It appears I'm one of those "thick skinned" women Keitei refers to - I didn't even think there was much of a problem until this started, as I've said. I have now received multiple emails from different women, all stating they are intimidated and afraid to post on this list, and thanking me for talking about this. The mere fact that gender bias is being discussed seems to be encouraging to them. I think we may need to adopt a vigilant attitude towards sexist comments, and not ever let them slide or slip under the radar. If there is a concerted message that sexist comments are not welcome, gradually the climate should change. As Larry Pieniazek pointed out, we cannot change the world - but we can change how we respond to sexism in our little sphere of influence, which includes all things wp - wp itself, this mailing list, and yes irc. We have no control over irc, of course, yet if there is concerted response towards any sexism, it should have an effect. I am speaking here of personal responsibility, not Wikipedia policy or responsibility. It behooves us to remember that what may seem like a "shrug it off" comment to us, to women who are already intimidated, it may be the kiss of death insofar as their participation in Wikipedia is concerned. Keitei said
"I am afraid to say anything about feeling harassed on #wikipedia because it seems that I would be told that they were just joking or I need to lighten up or that's not a bannable offense. Not that I hate everyone who does it either, and I don't even know if they know they're doing it, but it's a shame that it's allowed and overlooked. Although I am part of the problem here for not speaking up."
If someone feels the climate is hostile to speaking up, we are not making this a supportive or even neutral environment to women. Sean Barrett is apparently mocking any concern, if I understand his emails correctly. This is not conducive to women feeling free to voice concerns, and goes beyond "allowed and overlooked" into outright hostility - if women are already afraid, mocking their concerns is definitely adding to and exacerbating the problem.
Those are my thoughts currently - does anyone else have any ideas?
-kc-
Sean is merely mocking himself with his allegedly witty posts. He has no doubt also opened the eyes of a few people who might previously have thought highly of him, even if only because of his position on Wiki. Sad really.
On 11/25/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Puppy wrote:
Stan Shebs wrote:
Puppy wrote:
I appreciate that, Fred. I am not concerned so much about the lack of response to my concerns, as I am about the lack of response to overt sexist attacks on this mailing list.
I personally didn't respond because it looked like trolling, and
you're
not supposed to feed the trolls. But apparently my attempt at troll starvation is evidence of misogyny? Bummer...
Stan
I almost didn't respond for that very reason, but now I'm glad I did. Women are emailing me telling me how intimidated they feel - they don't want to post their concerns to this list because they also feel intimidated here. That I would have never known had I not replied.
Generally this list is home to not sexism but general stupidity. What will it take before people feel safe enough to post here?
I don't have a solution. I do, however, now recognize there is a serious problem. I didn't add anything to the recent threads about trying to increase female participation in WP because I had no idea why women would /not/ be editing, standing for admin, standing for arbcom, etc. Now I know at least one reason, and it is something I can do something about.
It appears I'm one of those "thick skinned" women Keitei refers to - I didn't even think there was much of a problem until this started, as I've said. I have now received multiple emails from different women, all stating they are intimidated and afraid to post on this list, and thanking me for talking about this. The mere fact that gender bias is being discussed seems to be encouraging to them. I think we may need to adopt a vigilant attitude towards sexist comments, and not ever let them slide or slip under the radar. If there is a concerted message that sexist comments are not welcome, gradually the climate should change. As Larry Pieniazek pointed out, we cannot change the world - but we can change how we respond to sexism in our little sphere of influence, which includes all things wp - wp itself, this mailing list, and yes irc. We have no control over irc, of course, yet if there is concerted response towards any sexism, it should have an effect. I am speaking here of personal responsibility, not Wikipedia policy or responsibility. It behooves us to remember that what may seem like a "shrug it off" comment to us, to women who are already intimidated, it may be the kiss of death insofar as their participation in Wikipedia is concerned. Keitei said
"I am afraid to say anything about feeling harassed on #wikipedia because it seems that I would be told that they were just joking or I need to lighten up or that's not a bannable offense. Not that I hate everyone who does it either, and I don't even know if they know they're doing it, but it's a shame that it's allowed and overlooked. Although I am part of the problem here for not speaking up."
If someone feels the climate is hostile to speaking up, we are not making this a supportive or even neutral environment to women. Sean Barrett is apparently mocking any concern, if I understand his emails correctly. This is not conducive to women feeling free to voice concerns, and goes beyond "allowed and overlooked" into outright hostility - if women are already afraid, mocking their concerns is definitely adding to and exacerbating the problem.
Those are my thoughts currently - does anyone else have any ideas?
-kc-
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Jim Schuler stated for the record:
Sean is merely mocking himself with his allegedly witty posts. He has no doubt also opened the eyes of a few people who might previously have thought highly of him, even if only because of his position on Wiki. Sad really.
More of point #2: any questioning of the assumptions renders the questioner irredeemably worthless as a human being.
I really wish I were being over-dramatic.
- -- Sean Barrett | I was forced to live for days sean@epoptic.com | on nothing but food and water.
Uh, correct me if I'm wrong -- was it not you who posted the assumptions? Has anyone agreed that they are universal or even valid?
On 11/25/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Jim Schuler stated for the record:
Sean is merely mocking himself with his allegedly witty posts. He has
no
doubt also opened the eyes of a few people who might previously have
thought
highly of him, even if only because of his position on Wiki. Sad
really.
More of point #2: any questioning of the assumptions renders the questioner irredeemably worthless as a human being.
I really wish I were being over-dramatic.
Sean Barrett | I was forced to live for days sean@epoptic.com | on nothing but food and water. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFFaIAR/SVOiq2uhHMRAppkAKDLFglLg/JETjfA0UuicaU0ENjWIQCZAXp5 gxYuw1EhCiQ5+6N8cRveiWE= =Tsyb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/25/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
Those are my thoughts currently - does anyone else have any ideas?
End this painful thread, its forking off child threads that my mailer isn't able to keep together.
If someone feels the climate is hostile to speaking up, we are not making this a supportive or even neutral environment to women.
I honestly thought the OP was trolling and ignored the thread.... So I was happily ignoring the thread until I saw Kat post .... I saw that it was even worse than I expected it do be, so I tried to continue to ignore it... but it's getting rather hard now.
The argument appeared to be of the form of "Look at [[indisputably bad thing X]]. How can we reduce the harm thing Y is causing.", where the blanks were filled in with "our bad coverage of subjects which tend to be more interesting to woman" and "the material biases in our caused by the over-representation of men in our decision making".
Bad examples (in my house it's me that uses the hair drier, I'm as able to write about them as any typical woman, .. it's just that no one finds hair driers interesting) notwithstanding...
The fallacy here is that no suggestion was ever made that thing Y even exists, much less is related to bad thing X.
This is the same form of argument we see in posts Gregory Kohs, where he points out the deletion of some marginally notable corporate stub and then waves his hands asking us what to do with this corporate bias.
Why must we start off viewing poor coverage of ballet as some kind of insidious bias against women? Because that agrees with someone's agenda? ... Why not consider it a part of a larger unevenness of coverage, and look for solutions which work independently of the root cause? ... Because a 17 year old doesn't care that our coverage is biased in favor of pop-culture when compared against subjects interesting to the blue-hairs?
In any case, the attacking tone this thread has taken.. especially by those who are claiming to be attacked is especially troublesome. I was and am honestly afraid to post my thoughts as a result of it. I think you should take a step back and think about that before replying.
On 11/25/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
The argument appeared to be of the form of "Look at [[indisputably bad thing X]]. How can we reduce the harm thing Y is causing.", where the blanks were filled in with "our bad coverage of subjects which tend to be more interesting to woman" and "the material biases in our caused by the over-representation of men in our decision making".
gah. edit! edit! darnit.
I intended to wrote "the material biases in our policy caused by the over-representation of men in our decision making".
At least thats how I view the implication and undertone of the OP.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
<snip>
In any case, the attacking tone this thread has taken.. especially by those who are claiming to be attacked is especially troublesome. I was and am honestly afraid to post my thoughts as a result of it. I think you should take a step back and think about that before replying.
</snip>
Why do you find this thread intimidating? And who has claimed to be attacked, and counter-attacked? I am not being flippant, I am truly puzzled, and would appreciate clarification. Thanks -
-kc-
Puppy wrote:
Women are emailing me telling me how intimidated they feel - they don't want to post their concerns to this list because they also feel intimidated here. That I would have never known had I not replied.
Women feeling intimidated by public mailing lists, and complaining about it in private email, has been going on steadily since I first got on the net nearly 25 years ago. It's an interesting phenomenon for the sociologists - if you look at the subscriber list, you'll see that there are plenty of male lurkers, but of course they don't give their reasons for not speaking up. Once in a great while I've met one of these male lurkers in person, and a couple (almost shamefacedly) admitted to feeling intimidated by the risks of public posting. In any case, this is not unique to WP mailing lists, and as far as I know it's never been satisfactorily resolved for public lists - having a women-only or approved-members-only list is the usual tactic, but then it's not really a public list anymore. Any other ideas that have been tried?
Stan
Drawing an odd inference there -- if anything was implied it was that silence is tolerance of misogyny, not misogyny itself.
On 11/25/06, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Puppy wrote:
I appreciate that, Fred. I am not concerned so much about the lack of response to my concerns, as I am about the lack of response to overt sexist attacks on this mailing list.
I personally didn't respond because it looked like trolling, and you're not supposed to feed the trolls. But apparently my attempt at troll starvation is evidence of misogyny? Bummer...
Stan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Huh?
On 11/26/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Jim Schuler wrote:
Drawing an odd inference there -- if anything was implied it was that silence is tolerance of misogyny, not misogyny itself.
Bullshit. That inference is too odd to be taken seriously.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Jim Schuler wrote:
Huh?
On 11/26/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Jim Schuler wrote:
Drawing an odd inference there -- if anything was implied it was that silence is tolerance of misogyny, not misogyny itself.
Bullshit. That inference is too odd to be taken seriously.
You said yourself that the inference was odd. The majority is normally silent. Some people are silent because they don't want to flood the carburetor with too much gas.
Ec
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Puppy stated for the record:
Would our "welcoming attitude" to women and "being on the lookout for bad behavior and mitigating its effects" include chastising men who make overtly sexist and insulting remarks? Alphax made such remarks, and thus far two people have spoken up - Mindspillage, a female; and Guettarda.
When I first started contributing to this thread I received a number of emails, all from women, all thanking me and encouraging me, yet none of them posted to the list. Now I know why. There is no longer any question of whether there is gender bias on WP: it has been demonstrated here. Sean actually attacked Guettarda for calling bigotry what it is - now, if someone had made comments similar to Alphax's about a minority ethnic group, would anyone have kept quiet? Would Sean have called someone speaking up against it "malicious needling", as he characterized Guettarda's comments? How is Guettarda's email "malicious needling", yet Alphax's overt misogyny doesn't even rate a comment?
Damned right I pointed out his malicious needling. Guettarda began attacking Alphax only after Alphax had stopped his admittedly hostile remarks, saying "I'm putting myself on moderation." So, please explain: Is launching personal attacks at a person who has said he is refraining from responding a virtue? If Guettarda had succeeded in provoking an angry response from Alphax, would he be considered even more admirable?
Demonize enough people vigorously enough, and some of them will, oddly, decide that since they have been cast in it, they might as well enjoy the role.
- -- Sean Barrett | I was forced to live for days sean@epoptic.com | on nothing but food and water.
On 11/24/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Damned right I pointed out his malicious needling. Guettarda began attacking Alphax only after Alphax had stopped his admittedly hostile remarks, saying "I'm putting myself on moderation." So, please explain: Is launching personal attacks at a person who has said he is refraining from responding a virtue? If Guettarda had succeeded in provoking an angry response from Alphax, would he be considered even more admirable?
From my point of view, Alphax jumped into the conversation to say
several pretty insulting and stupid things, then as soon as anyone took issue with that, left the conversation without apology. Not sure that should save him from criticism.
-Matt
Matthew Brown wrote:
On 11/24/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Damned right I pointed out his malicious needling. Guettarda began attacking Alphax only after Alphax had stopped his admittedly hostile remarks, saying "I'm putting myself on moderation." So, please explain: Is launching personal attacks at a person who has said he is refraining from responding a virtue? If Guettarda had succeeded in provoking an angry response from Alphax, would he be considered even more admirable?
From my point of view, Alphax jumped into the conversation to say
several pretty insulting and stupid things, then as soon as anyone took issue with that, left the conversation without apology. Not sure that should save him from criticism.
-Matt
Second that. -kc-
On 11/24/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
Would our "welcoming attitude" to women and "being on the lookout for bad behavior and mitigating its effects" include chastising men who make overtly sexist and insulting remarks? Alphax made such remarks, and thus far two people have spoken up - Mindspillage, a female; and Guettarda.
Personally, I found that Mindspillage and Guettarda said any point I was about to make as well or better than I would have done.
That said, the sheer level of nastiness that some display towards female admins - particularly those not afraid of controversy - is enough to put people off, I'm sure.
-Matt
Puppy wrote: <snip>
How is Guettarda's email "malicious needling", yet Alphax's overt misogyny doesn't even rate a comment?
Trolling rarely rates a comment. I'm sorry that you took me seriously.
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Puppy wrote:
<snip>
How is Guettarda's email "malicious needling", yet Alphax's overt misogyny doesn't even rate a comment?
Trolling rarely rates a comment. I'm sorry that you took me seriously.
As I had asked for confirmation of your post, I feel rather strongly that at that point it was incumbent upon you to clarify matters if they were not as they appeared. As you chose rather to confirm that you were indeed insulting me (and indeed all females who post to the en mailing list), I took you at your word, and I do not see that is any poor reflection on any but you. In short: your defense of your uncivil and bigoted posts is now "Oh, I was just trolling"? Not seeing how this casts your posts in any better light, but so be it.
As to why it would rate a response, I was thinking Fred's assertion that "we should be on the lookout for bias or other bad behavior towards women editors and do what we can to mitigate its effects" might actually include discouraging blanket attacks on women.
-kc-
On Nov 24, 2006, at 8:39 PM, Puppy wrote:
As to why it would rate a response, I was thinking Fred's assertion that "we should be on the lookout for bias or other bad behavior towards women editors and do what we can to mitigate its effects" might actually include discouraging blanket attacks on women.
It does. But especially to targeting people in the manner of Wikipedia Review.
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
On Nov 24, 2006, at 8:39 PM, Puppy wrote:
As to why it would rate a response, I was thinking Fred's assertion that "we should be on the lookout for bias or other bad behavior towards women editors and do what we can to mitigate its effects" might actually include discouraging blanket attacks on women.
It does. But especially to targeting people in the manner of Wikipedia Review.
Fred
So where is the limit, Fred? Attack women on the mailing list, ok. Call them a cunt, that's ok too. Say all women are idiots, that's ok. As long as we don't out their personal information? Where is your line for "bad behavior" drawn, precisely? There has been a thread for a couple of months about the imbalance of the ratio of men to women editors for months now, and I am saying attacking women /because they are women/ is, to put it mildly, off-putting. Its beyond uncivil. It is, as David Gerard's friend pointed out, "hopelessly patriarchally biased and useless to harmful."
-kc-
On Nov 24, 2006, at 8:50 PM, Puppy wrote:
So where is the limit, Fred? Attack women on the mailing list, ok. Call them a cunt, that's ok too. Say all women are idiots, that's ok. As long as we don't out their personal information? Where is your line for "bad behavior" drawn, precisely? There has been a thread for a couple of months about the imbalance of the ratio of men to women editors for months now, and I am saying attacking women /because they are women/ is, to put it mildly, off-putting. Its beyond uncivil. It is, as David Gerard's friend pointed out, "hopelessly patriarchally biased and useless to harmful."
None of that is acceptable.
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
On Nov 24, 2006, at 8:50 PM, Puppy wrote:
So where is the limit, Fred? Attack women on the mailing list, ok. Call them a cunt, that's ok too. Say all women are idiots, that's ok. As long as we don't out their personal information? Where is your line for "bad behavior" drawn, precisely? There has been a thread for a couple of months about the imbalance of the ratio of men to women editors for months now, and I am saying attacking women /because they are women/ is, to put it mildly, off-putting. Its beyond uncivil. It is, as David Gerard's friend pointed out, "hopelessly patriarchally biased and useless to harmful."
None of that is acceptable.
So what should we do about it?
On Nov 24, 2006, at 9:14 PM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
On Nov 24, 2006, at 8:50 PM, Puppy wrote:
So where is the limit, Fred? Attack women on the mailing list, ok. Call them a cunt, that's ok too. Say all women are idiots, that's ok. As long as we don't out their personal information? Where is your line for "bad behavior" drawn, precisely? There has been a thread for a couple of months about the imbalance of the ratio of men to women editors for months now, and I am saying attacking women /because they are women/ is, to put it mildly, off-putting. Its beyond uncivil. It is, as David Gerard's friend pointed out, "hopelessly patriarchally biased and useless to harmful."
None of that is acceptable.
So what should we do about it?
Do better personally and not tolerate such behavior from others. However, we cannot, by taking thought on it, cause more women to edit. We can only encourage and support.
Fred
On Nov 24, 2006, at 23:22, Fred Bauder wrote:
On Nov 24, 2006, at 9:14 PM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
On Nov 24, 2006, at 8:50 PM, Puppy wrote:
So where is the limit, Fred? Attack women on the mailing list, ok. Call them a cunt, that's ok too. Say all women are idiots, that's ok. As long as we don't out their personal information? Where is your line for "bad behavior" drawn, precisely? There has been a thread for a couple of months about the imbalance of the ratio of men to women editors for months now, and I am saying attacking women /because they are women/ is, to put it mildly, off-putting. Its beyond uncivil. It is, as David Gerard's friend pointed out, "hopelessly patriarchally biased and useless to harmful."
None of that is acceptable.
So what should we do about it?
Do better personally and not tolerate such behavior from others. However, we cannot, by taking thought on it, cause more women to edit. We can only encourage and support.
Fred
There are some who would argue that there is no bias against women in internet contexts because they receive so much more attention and everyone is all "omg grrls" (They're full of crap, btw). However, I'd say on Wikipedia, I get more attention when I want something and little to no attention when I'm saying something.
The attention I do receive in #wikipedia is often what I would consider sexual harassment (I wholly understand that IRC is not Wikipedia, but maybe 200 of our editors are there). In #uncyclopedia, I kickban anyone that I feel isn't respecting me/my gender as they should. However, there I am level 24, bureaucrat and sysop on wiki and generally pull more weight. I am afraid to say anything about feeling harassed on #wikipedia because it seems that I would be told that they were just joking or I need to lighten up or that's not a bannable offense. Not that I hate everyone who does it either, and I don't even know if they know they're doing it, but it's a shame that it's allowed and overlooked. Although I am part of the problem here for not speaking up.
On-wiki the problem of gender discrimination is probably not as pronounced because one often needs to look at the user page and find the area where the user decides or declines to state their gender. I'd be interested to know how well-known females are treated compared to their well-known male counterparts (I mean admins, etc, those that people know are female because they've heard of them), although it would seem with the actions of Wikipedia Review, that the answer is going to be "less well".
Anyhow, it'd seem that to be female and stick around Wikipedia IRC, one has to have very thick skin. I don't know why females, in my experience, feel more intimidated to edit Wikipedia or why they aren't jumping on the editing bandwagon. They certainly /use/ it..
--Keitei, who's just typed more than she'd intended
On Nov 25, 2006, at 8:11 AM, niht-hræfn wrote:
I'd be interested to know how well-known females are treated compared to their well-known male counterparts (I mean admins, etc, those that people know are female because they've heard of them), although it would seem with the actions of Wikipedia Review, that the answer is going to be "less well".
In at least 3 cases they have been targeted by off-wiki sites, but so have prominent males. There has to be some crack in the armor for effective targeting, but simply being female and aggressive seems to serve.
Fred
This is a rather serious problem, and I regret that more hasn't been done about it. On the one hand, you /could/ just ban everyone who acts like this, but I don't think they'd particularly learn. For the most part, these people just need to mature, and learn to think with their brains rather than their sex organs. How one would educate these individuals is another thing entirely, however.
~~Sean
There are some who would argue that there is no bias against women in internet contexts because they receive so much more attention and everyone is all "omg grrls" (They're full of crap, btw). However, I'd say on Wikipedia, I get more attention when I want something and little to no attention when I'm saying something.
The attention I do receive in #wikipedia is often what I would consider sexual harassment (I wholly understand that IRC is not Wikipedia, but maybe 200 of our editors are there). In #uncyclopedia, I kickban anyone that I feel isn't respecting me/my gender as they should. However, there I am level 24, bureaucrat and sysop on wiki and generally pull more weight. I am afraid to say anything about feeling harassed on #wikipedia because it seems that I would be told that they were just joking or I need to lighten up or that's not a bannable offense. Not that I hate everyone who does it either, and I don't even know if they know they're doing it, but it's a shame that it's allowed and overlooked. Although I am part of the problem here for not speaking up.
On-wiki the problem of gender discrimination is probably not as pronounced because one often needs to look at the user page and find the area where the user decides or declines to state their gender. I'd be interested to know how well-known females are treated compared to their well-known male counterparts (I mean admins, etc, those that people know are female because they've heard of them), although it would seem with the actions of Wikipedia Review, that the answer is going to be "less well".
Anyhow, it'd seem that to be female and stick around Wikipedia IRC, one has to have very thick skin. I don't know why females, in my experience, feel more intimidated to edit Wikipedia or why they aren't jumping on the editing bandwagon. They certainly /use/ it..
--Keitei, who's just typed more than she'd intended _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
On Nov 24, 2006, at 8:50 PM, Puppy wrote:
So where is the limit, Fred? Attack women on the mailing list, ok. Call them a cunt, that's ok too. Say all women are idiots, that's ok. As long as we don't out their personal information? Where is your line for "bad behavior" drawn, precisely? There has been a thread for a couple of months about the imbalance of the ratio of men to women editors for months now, and I am saying attacking women /because they are women/ is, to put it mildly, off-putting. Its beyond uncivil. It is, as David Gerard's friend pointed out, "hopelessly patriarchally biased and useless to harmful."
None of that is acceptable.
So what should we do about it?
Where has anyone done those things? The simple answer is: kick the bad people out, end of story.
--Jimbo
Excellent points.
On 11/24/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
On Nov 24, 2006, at 8:39 PM, Puppy wrote:
As to why it would rate a response, I was thinking Fred's assertion that "we should be on the lookout for bias or other bad behavior towards women editors and do what we can to mitigate its effects" might actually include discouraging blanket attacks on women.
It does. But especially to targeting people in the manner of Wikipedia Review.
Fred
So where is the limit, Fred? Attack women on the mailing list, ok. Call them a cunt, that's ok too. Say all women are idiots, that's ok. As long as we don't out their personal information? Where is your line for "bad behavior" drawn, precisely? There has been a thread for a couple of months about the imbalance of the ratio of men to women editors for months now, and I am saying attacking women /because they are women/ is, to put it mildly, off-putting. Its beyond uncivil. It is, as David Gerard's friend pointed out, "hopelessly patriarchally biased and useless to harmful."
-kc-
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Some of the worst ignorant bias toward Wikipedians that I've seen isn't even on the wiki.
On 11/24/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
On Nov 24, 2006, at 8:39 PM, Puppy wrote:
As to why it would rate a response, I was thinking Fred's assertion that "we should be on the lookout for bias or other bad behavior towards women editors and do what we can to mitigate its effects" might actually include discouraging blanket attacks on women.
It does. But especially to targeting people in the manner of Wikipedia Review.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ah, the non-apology apology. Very good. Nonetheless, trolling is not a defense for asininity, no matter how much good faith one is willing to assume.
On 11/24/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Puppy wrote:
<snip> > How is Guettarda's email "malicious needling", yet Alphax's overt > misogyny doesn't even rate a comment? >
Trolling rarely rates a comment. I'm sorry that you took me seriously.
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/22/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Puppy wrote:
<snip> > *GENDER BIAS IN STUDENT/TEACHER INTERACTIONS* >
Obviously you're not aware of the problems surrounding males in education then, and how they're falling seriously behind their female peers.
That's true, but they still get more attention - in fact, they get even more attention from male teachers because there is concern about male achievement. I'm in a field which is overwhelmingly female at the undergrad level, predominantly female at the grad student level, and predominantly male at the tenured faculty level. And it isn't because the demographics have shifted recently, it's because of retention of women in grad school and in academia beyond grad school. And a large part of it has to do with the fact that professors are more encouraging to male students and junior faculty. While the best students are usually female, it's the one male student who performs well who gets most of the attention. Of course, it's also the male students who are socialised to take the initiative and chat with the professors.
I've spent a lot of time in classroom situations, both as a student and as a teacher. Over the course of the semester you get to know certain groups of students who you can chat with as you wander around the lab. Somehow there are always more knots of male students who talk to you than there are groups of female students (the lab I teach is mostly non-majors, and it's about even in terms of gender ratio).
On 22/11/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting in that one of the nastier bits of systemic bias to fix is when you're pissing off people and you don't realise it.
(c.f. issues on foundation-l re: open content licences and possible social unworkability in France.)
It was also interesting in that it was said as if she was quoting someone else rather than composing the sentence as it was being said. So yes, there might be a critique available.
I'd be very interested to see this. The only "self-describing" feminist criticism of Wikipedia I've run across was about a year ago at most, maybe a bit less - if memory serves, it was comparing [[Man]] and [[Woman]] and not being entirely impressed, mainly on the grounds that the latter had a tasteful section of "slang terms for women".
(Looking at it as a followup just now... huh. Those two articles could probably do with a bit of deliberate convergence...)