"George Herbert" wrote
I have been tilting at the windmill of pseudonymity here for a while.
Given that X is a conspicuous or several-fingers-in-the-pie admin, it is more useful to the project if X is happy to give a real name. Press work, presentations, gladhanding, looking for sponsorship - you name it, for outreach, a real name is what you want.
On the other hand, voluntary projects which make good use of women as well as men (in other words, which aren't stupid) are fundamentally more likely to succeed. I take this as a given. So if a female editor wants to edit pseudonymously, I haven't the slightest problem. It is a small price to pay.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
The women i know in my part of the professional world can defend themselves verbally and otherwise quite as well as the men, and have at least equal sense in knowing what they are likely to get themselves in for. I suspect this hold true for politics and business and reporting and other professions generally. The need for accepting edits on sensitive subjects generally may justify our policy for editors. it does not justify it for administrators.
On 8/27/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"George Herbert" wrote
I have been tilting at the windmill of pseudonymity here for a while.
Given that X is a conspicuous or several-fingers-in-the-pie admin, it is more useful to the project if X is happy to give a real name. Press work, presentations, gladhanding, looking for sponsorship - you name it, for outreach, a real name is what you want.
On the other hand, voluntary projects which make good use of women as well as men (in other words, which aren't stupid) are fundamentally more likely to succeed. I take this as a given. So if a female editor wants to edit pseudonymously, I haven't the slightest problem. It is a small price to pay.
Charles
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
?
Because Administrators should be placed at greater peril than the common person? What on earth is your reasoning here?
David Goodman wrote:
The women i know in my part of the professional world can defend themselves verbally and otherwise quite as well as the men, and have at least equal sense in knowing what they are likely to get themselves in for. I suspect this hold true for politics and business and reporting and other professions generally. The need for accepting edits on sensitive subjects generally may justify our policy for editors. it does not justify it for administrators.
On 8/27/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"George Herbert" wrote
I have been tilting at the windmill of pseudonymity here for a while.
Given that X is a conspicuous or several-fingers-in-the-pie admin, it is more useful to the project if X is happy to give a real name. Press work, presentations, gladhanding, looking for sponsorship - you name it, for outreach, a real name is what you want.
On the other hand, voluntary projects which make good use of women as well as men (in other words, which aren't stupid) are fundamentally more likely to succeed. I take this as a given. So if a female editor wants to edit pseudonymously, I haven't the slightest problem. It is a small price to pay.
Charles
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/28/07, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
?
Because Administrators should be placed at greater peril than the common person? What on earth is your reasoning here?
David Goodman wrote:
The women i know in my part of the professional world can defend themselves verbally and otherwise quite as well as the men, and have at least equal sense in knowing what they are likely to get themselves in for. I suspect this hold true for politics and business and reporting and other professions generally. The need for accepting edits on sensitive subjects generally may justify our policy for editors. it does not justify it for administrators.
Because, in case you missed the earlier parts of the thread, we are one of the largest and most-visited websites in the world. We've pretty much cornered the market for general reference material on the internet. Those who administer the site, as opposed to just contributing, now must recognise they will be subject to heavier scrutiny, just as those who administer NewYorkTimes.com, Slate.com, etc. are.
Johnleemk
Big difference between "recognizing" and being thrown to the wolves.
John Lee wrote:
On 8/28/07, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
?
Because Administrators should be placed at greater peril than the common person? What on earth is your reasoning here?
David Goodman wrote:
The women i know in my part of the professional world can defend themselves verbally and otherwise quite as well as the men, and have at least equal sense in knowing what they are likely to get themselves in for. I suspect this hold true for politics and business and reporting and other professions generally. The need for accepting edits on sensitive subjects generally may justify our policy for editors. it does not justify it for administrators.
Because, in case you missed the earlier parts of the thread, we are one of the largest and most-visited websites in the world. We've pretty much cornered the market for general reference material on the internet. Those who administer the site, as opposed to just contributing, now must recognise they will be subject to heavier scrutiny, just as those who administer NewYorkTimes.com, Slate.com, etc. are.
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 28/08/07, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
Big difference between "recognizing" and being thrown to the wolves.
Yabbut, filing michaelmoore.com with Wikipedia Review is not balanced, sensible or workable.
- d.
Seems to be my day to be unclear, if that's how that was taken.
David Gerard wrote:
On 28/08/07, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
Big difference between "recognizing" and being thrown to the wolves.
Yabbut, filing michaelmoore.com with Wikipedia Review is not balanced, sensible or workable.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 28/08/07, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 28/08/07, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
Big difference between "recognizing" and being thrown to the wolves.
Yabbut, filing michaelmoore.com with Wikipedia Review is not balanced, sensible or workable.
Seems to be my day to be unclear, if that's how that was taken.
I meant the issue in general. Trouble is it's a continuum from reasonable criticism to misinformed criticism to slight gibbering to stalking insane person - there's no sharp cutoff.
- d.
On 8/28/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/08/07, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
Big difference between "recognizing" and being thrown to the wolves.
Yabbut, filing michaelmoore.com with Wikipedia Review is not balanced, sensible or workable.
- d.
The creators of badsites and it's descendants rejected Reductio ad absurdum in theory now they must face it in practice.