"George Herbert" wrote 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(a)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. >

Big difference between "recognizing" and being thrown to the wolves.

Big difference between "recognizing" and being thrown to the wolves.