Following recent discussions on wikien-l where a number of women said they were not comfortable contributing to the discussion, a new mailing list has been created for female wiki editors to discuss issues of gender bias in wikis and ways to encourage more female editors, and just as a place that females can feel more comfortable posting to.
It's called WikiChix - named after LinuxChix, the women-oriented community for Linux users. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LinuxChix
If you are female and interested in wikis, I would like to encourage to join the mailing list at http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikichix-l
There's also a wiki at http://wikichix.org/ - let me know your username if you'd like an account there. Some of the pages are openly editable, so even if you're not female, you are welcome to post your comments at http://wikichix.org/wiki/Comments
The FAQs for the related communities at http://wikichix.org/wiki/WikiChix#Related_communities answer a lot of questions about why this was created, so please read those for more information until we have our own FAQ.
Angela
-- Angela Beesley wikiangela.com
That's a shame. We could use a bit of female input in a predominantly male wiki. Get over the uncomfortable feeling and speak your mind. I want to hear those female thoughts on the mailing list.
Mgm
On 12/4/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
Following recent discussions on wikien-l where a number of women said they were not comfortable contributing to the discussion, a new mailing list has been created for female wiki editors to discuss issues of gender bias in wikis and ways to encourage more female editors, and just as a place that females can feel more comfortable posting to.
It's called WikiChix - named after LinuxChix, the women-oriented community for Linux users. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LinuxChix
If you are female and interested in wikis, I would like to encourage to join the mailing list at http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikichix-l
There's also a wiki at http://wikichix.org/ - let me know your username if you'd like an account there. Some of the pages are openly editable, so even if you're not female, you are welcome to post your comments at http://wikichix.org/wiki/Comments
The FAQs for the related communities at http://wikichix.org/wiki/WikiChix#Related_communities answer a lot of questions about why this was created, so please read those for more information until we have our own FAQ.
Angela
-- Angela Beesley wikiangela.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/4/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
That's a shame. We could use a bit of female input in a predominantly male wiki.
Having a separate list is not preventing women having input into Wikipedia. It's about getting input from those who otherwise wouldn't participate.
Get over the uncomfortable feeling and speak your mind. I want to hear those female thoughts on the mailing list.
It's this sort of "get over it" attitude that dissuades people from wanting to join this discussion. The sexism, discrimination, and bias present in the Wikipedia community isn't something to "get over".
Angela
On 04/12/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/4/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
That's a shame. We could use a bit of female input in a predominantly male wiki.
Having a separate list is not preventing women having input into Wikipedia. It's about getting input from those who otherwise wouldn't participate.
Such a list seems to encourage a sense of difference where there isn't one. It will also discourage some women from contributing to the general discussion ("why post in two places when I can post here?").
Oldak Quill wrote:
Such a list seems to encourage a sense of difference where there isn't one. It will also discourage some women from contributing to the general discussion ("why post in two places when I can post here?").
This view, and several others like it, are discussed in depth in the FLOSSPOLS gender report:
http://flosspols.org/deliverables/FLOSSPOLS-D16-Gender_Integrated_Report_of_...
On page 20:
"Some people - both men and women - interpret the mere mention of gender as somehow 'reiterating' the 'artificial' differences between the sexes [...] "
"However, our study also found that the attitude of some of the male F/LOSS participants towards women creates an atmosphere which can be described at least as not women-friendly. "Whereas most hackers see themselves as neither sexist nor hostile towards women there is a clear distinction on how women and men perceive and experience interaction within the F/LOSS community."
They present survey results showing that women perceive a bias in open source communities whereas men do not. They go on to discuss why this is. Most of their findings are framed in a way specific to open source software, but they could easily be extended to this forum. The primary issue of relevance to mailing lists and communication is flaming. Men are much more tolerant of it than women. Says Susan Herring in "Gender and Power in Online Communication":
http://rkcsi.indiana.edu/archive/CSI/WP/WP01-05B.html
"Politeness is one common means through which gender is cued in asynchronous CMC. Women are more likely to thank, appreciate and apologize, and to be upset by violations of politeness: they more often challenge offenders who violate online rules of conduct (Smith et al., 1997), and predominantly female groups may have more, and more strictly enforced, posting rules designed to ensure the maintenance of a civil environment (Hall, 1996; Herring, 1996a). In contrast, men generally appear to be less concerned with politeness; they issue bald face-threatening acts such as unmitigated criticisms and insults, violate online rules of conduct, tolerate or even enjoy 'flaming', and tend to be more concerned about threats to freedom of expression than with attending to others' social "face" (Herring, 1994, 1996a, 1999)."
CMC is computer-mediated communication, "asynchronous" CMC refers to newsgroups, mailing lists, etc. as opposed to instant messaging.
Knowing all this, an optimistic man may try to change everyone's mind on the importance of good behaviour and civility, and to create a forum where both men and women can participate comfortably. Wikipedia itself was started with such ideals in mind (e.g. "WikiLove"). But my experience has led me to be more jaded.
I support Wikichix, in the hopes that it may become a platform for women to discuss the implicit bias against them in male-dominated wikis, in a forum where they won't be subjected to instant incredulity and attack, as they have been in this thread. I hope that they will be able to formulate and promote guidelines for non-discrimination, for application at mixed wikis such as Wikipedia. In the meantime, while they're waiting for these guidelines to be accepted by the community at large, Wikichix may be able to expound the problem and discuss coping strategies, so that they can more confidently participate in the present-day wiki culture.
-- Tim Starling
On 12/4/06, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Oldak Quill wrote:
Such a list seems to encourage a sense of difference where there isn't one. It will also discourage some women from contributing to the general discussion ("why post in two places when I can post here?").
This view, and several others like it, are discussed in depth in the FLOSSPOLS gender report:
http://flosspols.org/deliverables/FLOSSPOLS-D16-Gender_Integrated_Report_of_...
On page 20:
"Some people - both men and women - interpret the mere mention of gender as somehow 'reiterating' the 'artificial' differences between the sexes [...] "
"However, our study also found that the attitude of some of the male F/LOSS participants towards women creates an atmosphere which can be described at least as not women-friendly. "Whereas most hackers see themselves as neither sexist nor hostile towards women there is a clear distinction on how women and men perceive and experience interaction within the F/LOSS community."
They present survey results showing that women perceive a bias in open source communities whereas men do not. They go on to discuss why this is. Most of their findings are framed in a way specific to open source software, but they could easily be extended to this forum. The primary issue of relevance to mailing lists and communication is flaming. Men are much more tolerant of it than women. Says Susan Herring in "Gender and Power in Online Communication":
http://rkcsi.indiana.edu/archive/CSI/WP/WP01-05B.html
"Politeness is one common means through which gender is cued in asynchronous CMC. Women are more likely to thank, appreciate and apologize, and to be upset by violations of politeness: they more often challenge offenders who violate online rules of conduct (Smith et al., 1997), and predominantly female groups may have more, and more strictly enforced, posting rules designed to ensure the maintenance of a civil environment (Hall, 1996; Herring, 1996a). In contrast, men generally appear to be less concerned with politeness; they issue bald face-threatening acts such as unmitigated criticisms and insults, violate online rules of conduct, tolerate or even enjoy 'flaming', and tend to be more concerned about threats to freedom of expression than with attending to others' social "face" (Herring, 1994, 1996a, 1999)."
Thanks for the report links, Tim; very interesting.
Knowing all this, an optimistic man may try to change everyone's mind on the
importance of good behaviour and civility, and to create a forum where both men and women can participate comfortably. Wikipedia itself was started with such ideals in mind (e.g. "WikiLove"). But my experience has led me to be more jaded.
I support Wikichix, in the hopes that it may become a platform for women to discuss the implicit bias against them in male-dominated wikis, in a forum where they won't be subjected to instant incredulity and attack, as they have been in this thread. I hope that they will be able to formulate and promote guidelines for non-discrimination, for application at mixed wikis such as Wikipedia. In the meantime, while they're waiting for these guidelines to be accepted by the community at large, Wikichix may be able to expound the problem and discuss coping strategies, so that they can more confidently participate in the present-day wiki culture.
-- Tim Starling
Indeed. Though I just heard about the new list with this message, it makes sense; gender bias is an issue that many of us see as being present in the projects, and it will be nice to have a place to discuss it without every substantive message being followed by twenty posts saying "omg there's no bias what are you talking about!" It doesn't seem much different than other topical lists, which perhaps we need a few more of in general to sort out this kind of big-picture discussions. I would hope that any good discussion, conclusion or recommendation will also get discussed on the appropriate "big" Foundation lists when needed, and I'm sure as the new list sorts itself out this kind of communication will develop.
And Gerard's point upthread that we need to show more consideration for everyone is perhaps well taken. It's not just many women who may find a lot of discussions around here distasteful; it's also a great number of people who don't want to deal with incivility and general stupidness. This may include a number of expert contributors or others who would be a help to the projects and should be welcomed.
phoebe (a female person, longtime list reader but rare poster)
On 04/12/06, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
This view, and several others like it, are discussed in depth in the FLOSSPOLS gender report:
http://flosspols.org/deliverables/FLOSSPOLS-D16-Gender_Integrated_Report_of_...
On page 20:
"Some people - both men and women - interpret the mere mention of gender as somehow 'reiterating' the 'artificial' differences between the sexes [...] "
"However, our study also found that the attitude of some of the male F/LOSS participants towards women creates an atmosphere which can be described at least as not women-friendly. "Whereas most hackers see themselves as neither sexist nor hostile towards women there is a clear distinction on how women and men perceive and experience interaction within the F/LOSS community."
They present survey results showing that women perceive a bias in open source communities whereas men do not. They go on to discuss why this is. Most of their findings are framed in a way specific to open source software, but they could easily be extended to this forum. The primary issue of relevance to mailing lists and communication is flaming. Men are much more tolerant of it than women. Says Susan Herring in "Gender and Power in Online Communication":
http://rkcsi.indiana.edu/archive/CSI/WP/WP01-05B.html
"Politeness is one common means through which gender is cued in asynchronous CMC. Women are more likely to thank, appreciate and apologize, and to be upset by violations of politeness: they more often challenge offenders who violate online rules of conduct (Smith et al., 1997), and predominantly female groups may have more, and more strictly enforced, posting rules designed to ensure the maintenance of a civil environment (Hall, 1996; Herring, 1996a). In contrast, men generally appear to be less concerned with politeness; they issue bald face-threatening acts such as unmitigated criticisms and insults, violate online rules of conduct, tolerate or even enjoy 'flaming', and tend to be more concerned about threats to freedom of expression than with attending to others' social "face" (Herring, 1994, 1996a, 1999)."
CMC is computer-mediated communication, "asynchronous" CMC refers to newsgroups, mailing lists, etc. as opposed to instant messaging.
Knowing all this, an optimistic man may try to change everyone's mind on the importance of good behaviour and civility, and to create a forum where both men and women can participate comfortably. Wikipedia itself was started with such ideals in mind (e.g. "WikiLove"). But my experience has led me to be more jaded.
I support Wikichix, in the hopes that it may become a platform for women to discuss the implicit bias against them in male-dominated wikis, in a forum where they won't be subjected to instant incredulity and attack, as they have been in this thread. I hope that they will be able to formulate and promote guidelines for non-discrimination, for application at mixed wikis such as Wikipedia. In the meantime, while they're waiting for these guidelines to be accepted by the community at large, Wikichix may be able to expound the problem and discuss coping strategies, so that they can more confidently participate in the present-day wiki culture.
I'm just curious as to why we're making a seperate list based on gender on an essentially genderless medium. The quote states that women are averagely "more likely to thank, appreciate and apologize, and to be upset by violations of politeness", could one not say the same about certain nations, cultures and ages? Should we therefore also create new groups based upon national and cultural identities?
This is all a long-term problem in online communities. Whether we like it or not, there is a significant subset of women (and, I'm sure, a subset of men, but much smaller) who are easily put off by the general male argumentative/competitive (as opposed to supportive/nurturing) tone of online communication. The result tends to be lose-lose; the community loses the valuable participation of these people, and the individuals find themselves unable to participate in areas they might otherwise thrive in. This isn't meant in any way to condemn anyone -- it's just how things are. You shouldn't have to be tough as nails to participate in Wikipedia discussions; however, you do -- and the proposed list will provide a safe place for the issues that men tend to belittle.
--jpgordon ∇∆∇∆
On 04/12/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
I'm just curious as to why we're making a seperate list based on gender on an essentially genderless medium. The quote states that women are averagely "more likely to thank, appreciate and apologize, and to be upset by violations of politeness", could one not say the same about certain nations, cultures and ages? Should we therefore also create new groups based upon national and cultural identities?
wikimediauk-l
- d.
On 12/4/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/12/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
I'm just curious as to why we're making a seperate list based on gender on an essentially genderless medium. The quote states that women are averagely "more likely to thank, appreciate and apologize, and to be upset by violations of politeness", could one not say the same about certain nations, cultures and ages? Should we therefore also create new groups based upon national and cultural identities?
wikimediauk-l
Without commenting on Oldak Quill's point, that list is for the organisation of a chapter, not for discussing non-local issues from a particular viewpoint. And it isn't limited to UK residents.
On Monday 04 December 2006 06:36, Oldak Quill wrote:
Such a list seems to encourage a sense of difference where there isn't one.
I'd be suspect of the empirical claim you are making, how do you know there is no difference? Questions of bias, particularly gender, are difficult. But there is no doubt that some *perceive* a gendered culture in common spaces, otherwise there'd be no impetus to start the list.
It will also discourage some women from contributing to the general discussion ("why post in two places when I can post here?").
Again, another empirical/causal claim. In my informal observation of similar communities, I haven't perceived a decrease in female presence after the provisioning of a female space. A counter hypothesis is that: women who have a more supportive space to fall back upon will become more comfortable in speaking in the common spaces.
In any case, the presumption of equality and the objection to separate spaces -- as this thread evidences -- is quite interesting, and happens again, and again, and again! :) Wilson [1] notes such discussions orbit a *presumption* of equality.
[[ In order to defend their views of a just world and equality, three strategies have been adopted by the participants in the study: 1. The situation is changing (and men seem to believe this) 2. Men and women are seen as equal but different -- women do not enjoy competing as much. This would be supported by the data from both the questionnaires and interviews where women were using computers less, have less confidence in their abilities, and are more attracted to the arts. 3. There is a misperception that computing and technology is for males. ]]
The interesting consequence is that even if there is gender bias no action on the part of females is taken because (1) those females who believe there are equal opportunities will see no reason for action; (2) those who believe there is a misperception or that women feel less confident will be tolerant of encouragement for women, but they are also content see the status quo maintained; and (3) the women who believe in their equal abilities do not want to be singled out for special treatment and may therefore "count themselves out and express ambivalence" (Wilson 2003:138)
[1] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=423703
On 12/4/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/4/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
That's a shame. We could use a bit of female input in a predominantly
male
wiki.
Having a separate list is not preventing women having input into Wikipedia. It's about getting input from those who otherwise wouldn't participate.
Get over the uncomfortable feeling and speak your mind. I want to hear
those
female thoughts on the mailing list.
It's this sort of "get over it" attitude that dissuades people from wanting to join this discussion. The sexism, discrimination, and bias present in the Wikipedia community isn't something to "get over".
Angela
I wasn't even aware such bias existed apart from the occasional help or refdesk request addressed as "Dear Sirs". Can you give any examples of sexism or bias on WP or the mailing list?
Mgm
On 12/4/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/4/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Get over the uncomfortable feeling and speak your mind. I want to hear those female thoughts on the mailing list.
It's this sort of "get over it" attitude that dissuades people from wanting to join this discussion. The sexism, discrimination, and bias present in the Wikipedia community isn't something to "get over".
Yes, not something to "get over", but hopefully to "profoundly challenge". I think it's probably fair to say that this reflects Mgm's wishes - but how we facilitate and realise those wishes is equally as important.
Cormac
Angela wrote:
It's this sort of "get over it" attitude that dissuades people from wanting to join this discussion. The sexism, discrimination, and bias present in the Wikipedia community isn't something to "get over".
This statement implicitly assumes that there _is_ sexism, discrimination and bias present in the Wikipedia community. That's begging the question. I've never seen it, and considering it's a rare thing when I actually know what the gender of another editor is I have trouble figuring out how it would even be practical.
This is a positive initiative. I have only one issue with it, which is that the mailing list is on Wikimedia's servers, while the wiki is not. While we all trust you, of course, to do the right thing, as a matter of fair play towards others with similar ideas, it might be sensible to either host the list separately, or to move the wiki to Wikimedia's servers. Users might also be confused when they subscribe to a Wikimedia mailing list but their Wikimedia username doesn't work on the wiki (I'm speaking about the hypothetical post-single login world ;-).
If I was a woman I would probably start a long thread about being referred to as a member of the genus "chix," but I'm not, so I'll leave that to the "chix" to figure out. :-)
The problem is, I personally believe it's such a condescending name. I would've gone with something more like wikiwomen-l.
On 12/4/06, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
This is a positive initiative. I have only one issue with it, which is that the mailing list is on Wikimedia's servers, while the wiki is not. While we all trust you, of course, to do the right thing, as a matter of fair play towards others with similar ideas, it might be sensible to either host the list separately, or to move the wiki to Wikimedia's servers. Users might also be confused when they subscribe to a Wikimedia mailing list but their Wikimedia username doesn't work on the wiki (I'm speaking about the hypothetical post-single login world ;-).
If I was a woman I would probably start a long thread about being referred to as a member of the genus "chix," but I'm not, so I'll leave that to the "chix" to figure out. :-) -- Peace & Love, Erik
Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/4/06, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
This is a positive initiative. I have only one issue with it, which is that the mailing list is on Wikimedia's servers, while the wiki is not.
I have no objection to the wiki moving to Wikimedia's servers if Wikimedia want it, though the idea is to expand the concept to cover wikis in general, not only Wikimedia ones, so I don't know how well that would fit into Wikimedia's scope. I originally intended to put the mailing list on the same server as the wiki but the company I'm hosting it with has objections to mailman. I didn't want to put it on Wikia and have people thinking the project was just a way of advertising Wikia, freelists.org discourages private or unarchived lists, and, surprisingly, there don't seem to be any other free hosts of mailman mailing lists. Since Anthere approved the list being hosted by Wikimedia, I thought that would be the best place for it for now.
Users might also be confused when they subscribe to a Wikimedia mailing list but their Wikimedia username doesn't work on the wiki (I'm speaking about the hypothetical post-single login world ;-).
Even if Wikimedia hosts it, they will also be confused when their mailing list password doesn't let them into the wiki (a very common problem at Wikia).
Angela.
On 12/4/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
Since Anthere approved the list being hosted by Wikimedia, I thought that would be the best place for it for now.
If it's going to stay there, please put a disclaimer like "The WikiChix mailing list and wiki are not officially endorsed or operated by the Wikimedia Foundation" in the list description.
I don't like this idea at all. It's the first case of sexism I've seen on Wikipedia. Discriminating against men is not a solution to discrimination against women (which as far as I can tell, doesn't exist anyway).
Angela,
Any idea to make Wikipedia a more comfortable place for people to get involved is a worthy one, and I support a forum for editors to discuss issues of gender bias in wikis, to promote wikis to potential female editors, and for general discussion of wikis in a female-friendly environment.
However, I have to confess to being unhappy with the existence of an officially-endorsed *females-only* mailing list and wiki. Discussion isn't enabled by segregating the people who should be talking to each other about a problem, and I do not think Wikipedia should be in the business of excluding people from discussions because of their gender. WikiChix can still be made a female-friendly forum by use of moderation.
Ubuntu Women say, "Ubuntu-Women is not about segregation of women, rather its goal is to integrate women as equals within the mainstream development going on in the Ubuntu world. Remember, membership is open to all and not based on gender alone. If you want to increase diversity and encourage women in Linux please don't hesitate to speak to us."
I urge you to follow their example, but otherwise keep up the good work,
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
On 12/4/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Any idea to make Wikipedia a more comfortable place for people to get involved is a worthy one, and I support a forum for editors to discuss issues of gender bias in wikis, to promote wikis to potential female editors, and for general discussion of wikis in a female-friendly environment.
However, I have to confess to being unhappy with the existence of an officially-endorsed *females-only* mailing list and wiki. Discussion isn't enabled by segregating the people who should be talking to each other about a problem, and I do not think Wikipedia should be in the business of excluding people from discussions because of their gender. WikiChix can still be made a female-friendly forum by use of moderation.
Ubuntu Women say, "Ubuntu-Women is not about segregation of women, rather its goal is to integrate women as equals within the mainstream development going on in the Ubuntu world. Remember, membership is open to all and not based on gender alone. If you want to increase diversity and encourage women in Linux please don't hesitate to speak to us."
I urge you to follow their example, but otherwise keep up the good work,
I second this completely.
-Kat
On 12/4/06, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/4/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Any idea to make Wikipedia a more comfortable place for people to get
involved
is a worthy one, and I support a forum for editors to discuss issues of
gender
bias in wikis, to promote wikis to potential female editors, and for
general
discussion of wikis in a female-friendly environment.
However, I have to confess to being unhappy with the existence of an officially-endorsed *females-only* mailing list and wiki. Discussion
isn't
enabled by segregating the people who should be talking to each other
about a
problem, and I do not think Wikipedia should be in the business of
excluding
people from discussions because of their gender. WikiChix can still be
made a
female-friendly forum by use of moderation.
Ubuntu Women say, "Ubuntu-Women is not about segregation of women,
rather its
goal is to integrate women as equals within the mainstream development
going on
in the Ubuntu world. Remember, membership is open to all and not based
on
gender alone. If you want to increase diversity and encourage women in
Linux
please don't hesitate to speak to us."
I urge you to follow their example, but otherwise keep up the good work,
I second this completely.
-Kat
Yes, on second thought I'm not happy with the list being female-only either; though that's perhaps a discussion to have on the new list itself. Moderation and a commitment to the discussion at hand seems like it would do the trick. -- phoebe
Hello.
On 12/4/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Angela,
Any idea to make Wikipedia a more comfortable place for people to get involved is a worthy one, and I support a forum for editors to discuss issues of gender bias in wikis, to promote wikis to potential female editors, and for general discussion of wikis in a female-friendly environment.
However, I have to confess to being unhappy with the existence of an officially-endorsed *females-only* mailing list and wiki. Discussion isn't enabled by segregating the people who should be talking to each other about a problem, and I do not think Wikipedia should be in the business of excluding people from discussions because of their gender. WikiChix can still be made a female-friendly forum by use of moderation.
Ubuntu Women say, "Ubuntu-Women is not about segregation of women, rather its goal is to integrate women as equals within the mainstream development going on in the Ubuntu world. Remember, membership is open to all and not based on gender alone. If you want to increase diversity and encourage women in Linux please don't hesitate to speak to us."
I urge you to follow their example, but otherwise keep up the good work,
-- Matt
I fully support this opinion. Although this have surely been done in good faith, I refuse to consider segregation as a good solution to a problem.
I don't understand the problem...
If female editors has problems to participate in discussion I think that this is a general problem which sould be solved in another way.
I could agree with you if female editors are slower than male contributors to write and they need a dedicated list for this reason!
Ilario
On 12/4/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
Following recent discussions on wikien-l where a number of women said they were not comfortable contributing to the discussion, a new mailing list has been created for female wiki editors to discuss
Angela schreef:
Following recent discussions on wikien-l where a number of women said they were not comfortable contributing to the discussion, a new mailing list has been created for female wiki editors to discuss issues of gender bias in wikis and ways to encourage more female editors, and just as a place that females can feel more comfortable posting to.
It's called WikiChix - named after LinuxChix, the women-oriented community for Linux users. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LinuxChix
If you are female and interested in wikis, I would like to encourage to join the mailing list at http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikichix-l
There's also a wiki at http://wikichix.org/ - let me know your username if you'd like an account there. Some of the pages are openly editable, so even if you're not female, you are welcome to post your comments at http://wikichix.org/wiki/Comments
The FAQs for the related communities at http://wikichix.org/wiki/WikiChix#Related_communities answer a lot of questions about why this was created, so please read those for more information until we have our own FAQ.
Angela
Hoi, I have read the threat, and though the motivation saddens me as it shows that this need is felt, I can only welcome it when more women find their way to be part of our community. My experience has been that women typically provide sorely needed level headedness.
One sad thing to remember is, that all things of relevance to women are only some out of many that would benefit from more attention. For instance all subject where "enemies" are seen, need more attention. When it is shown that they are as human as you and I, it will be hard to continue this hatred because you would not want to hate me nor I want to hate you ..
Thanks, GerardM
On 12/4/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
mailing list has been created for female wiki editors to discuss issues of gender bias in wikis and ways to encourage
[snip]
If you are female and interested in wikis, I would like to
[snip]
So we'll continue the time-honored tradition of fighting gender biases simply by performing more prejudiced actions.
Two wrong don't make a right, and I'd like to invite all my friends in Wikimedia to both decline membership in clubs build around overt gender discrimination and to reject their biases by refusing to give voice to their members in our overall community. Subtle biases can be hard to deal with, but creating a club around overt discrimination is not a solution.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I'd like to invite all my friends in Wikimedia to both decline membership in clubs build around overt gender discrimination and to reject their biases by refusing to give voice to their members in our overall community.
Wow. You're either with us or against us. Shun the unbelievers. Way to be inclusive there, Greg.
On 12/4/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I'd like to invite all my friends in Wikimedia to both decline membership in clubs build around overt gender discrimination and to reject their biases by refusing to give voice to their members in our overall community.
Wow. You're either with us or against us. Shun the unbelievers. Way to be inclusive there, Greg.
I reserve the right to shun anyone who would unite under a banner of bigotry and I hope you will take some time to consider it and do the same.
I didn't make my decision on short notice, so I don't expect you to either.
It is, in my view, no different to create a woman-only list to discuss solutions to gender biases within our projects than it would be to create a men-only list to discuss solutions to irrationality within our projects. In both cases a prejudiced determination is made about a persons ability to productively discuss a subject based on an unreasonable application of gender stereotypes.
Unlike affirmative action which can at least be argued to be a mechanism to reduce bigotry by encouraging collaboration, I see no fair justification for this act of segregation.
If the opportunity had existed, I would have implored the board to refuse to allow the foundation's resources to be used for this sexist mailing list but I was not given such an opportunity. I do, however, still have the ability to call on the rest of our community to reject it as thoroughly as possible.
The examples of overt sexism that I've seen posed by people have been examples of mostly-outsider k00ks like Mr. AM. But here today we see what appears to be an offical, if only tacit, endorsement of sexism against men. The great irony is that now that we have within our community a concrete, intentional, and overt act of sexism to discuss ... our only list for discussing sexism is closed to the victims.
I can see that this new list will be separate, but will it be equal?
David
On 04/12/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/4/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I'd like to invite all my friends in Wikimedia to both decline membership in clubs build around overt gender discrimination and to reject their biases by refusing to give voice to their members in our overall community.
Wow. You're either with us or against us. Shun the unbelievers. Way to be inclusive there, Greg.
I reserve the right to shun anyone who would unite under a banner of bigotry and I hope you will take some time to consider it and do the same.
I didn't make my decision on short notice, so I don't expect you to either.
It is, in my view, no different to create a woman-only list to discuss solutions to gender biases within our projects than it would be to create a men-only list to discuss solutions to irrationality within our projects. In both cases a prejudiced determination is made about a persons ability to productively discuss a subject based on an unreasonable application of gender stereotypes.
Unlike affirmative action which can at least be argued to be a mechanism to reduce bigotry by encouraging collaboration, I see no fair justification for this act of segregation.
If the opportunity had existed, I would have implored the board to refuse to allow the foundation's resources to be used for this sexist mailing list but I was not given such an opportunity. I do, however, still have the ability to call on the rest of our community to reject it as thoroughly as possible.
The examples of overt sexism that I've seen posed by people have been examples of mostly-outsider k00ks like Mr. AM. But here today we see what appears to be an offical, if only tacit, endorsement of sexism against men. The great irony is that now that we have within our community a concrete, intentional, and overt act of sexism to discuss ... our only list for discussing sexism is closed to the victims. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David Mestel wrote:
I can see that this new list will be separate, but will it be equal?
All lists are equal, but some lists are more equal than others.
--- Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Unlike affirmative action which can at least be argued to be a mechanism to reduce bigotry by encouraging collaboration, I see no fair justification for this act of segregation.
If the opportunity had existed, I would have implored the board to refuse to allow the foundation's resources to be used for this sexist mailing list but I was not given such an opportunity. I do, however, still have the ability to call on the rest of our community to reject it as thoroughly as possible.
I'm not overjoyed by the "females-only" thing either, so how about we call on the WikiChix to open up their fora to both genders? I feel it's a little premature to start lobbying for them to be hurled from the Foundation's hosting. Wikipedia stands to benefit from initiatives that make it more female-friendly.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
I would like to add my voice to those calling for the new list to be open to all genders. Not only does restricting the list to "female" contributors open up a whole can of worms as to what a "female" is, it also excludes contributors who may add another perspective. I think having a list which is limited to those who wish to join and which is firmly moderated will ameliorate any difficulties with having "men" be on the list.
Makemi, Female bodied Gender less obvious
On 12/4/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
--- Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Unlike affirmative action which can at least be argued to be a mechanism to reduce bigotry by encouraging collaboration, I see no fair justification for this act of segregation.
If the opportunity had existed, I would have implored the board to refuse to allow the foundation's resources to be used for this sexist mailing list but I was not given such an opportunity. I do, however, still have the ability to call on the rest of our community to reject it as thoroughly as possible.
I'm not overjoyed by the "females-only" thing either, so how about we call on the WikiChix to open up their fora to both genders? I feel it's a little premature to start lobbying for them to be hurled from the Foundation's hosting. Wikipedia stands to benefit from initiatives that make it more female-friendly.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/4/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I'm not overjoyed by the "females-only" thing either, so how about we call on the WikiChix to open up their fora to both genders? I feel it's a little premature to start lobbying for them to be hurled from the Foundation's hosting. Wikipedia stands to benefit from initiatives that make it more female-friendly.
My derision only lasts only as far as my opposition. So I think that such a solution would bring a reasonable resolution. :)
However, I've heard that neither you nor I were the first to oppose the discriminatory nature of the list so I didn't think simply repeating that request would serve any purpose.
On 12/4/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I'm not overjoyed by the "females-only" thing either, so how about we call on the WikiChix to open up their fora to both genders? I feel it's a little premature to start lobbying for them to be hurled from the Foundation's hosting. Wikipedia stands to benefit from initiatives that make it more female-friendly.
I agree that segregation is problematic, first and foremost because it reminds me of many patriarchal religious groups, which have their own women's groups that meet separately from the males, but who (unlike the males) have no authority whatsoever. Declaration of gender identity, active participation in all processes, and demands for immediate action against obviously sexist or otherwise rude behavior, seem preferable to me. From this view, I've always preferred open forms of association such as http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_WikiWomen.
That being said, I don't think it's for us males to demand that the womenfolk open up their new clubhouse to us. If it is the right thing to do, I do believe that initiative can and will come from the group itself.
I wonder if allowing anonymous posts to the list (through trusted individuals acting as gateways) might be a good way to encourage people who feel intimidated for whichever reason, to participate.
On 04/12/06, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
That being said, I don't think it's for us males to demand that the womenfolk open up their new clubhouse to us. If it is the right thing to do, I do believe that initiative can and will come from the group itself.
I don't see what's wrong with the community determining what official clubhouses there are. I object to this divisive and discriminatory list as a human being, not as a man. When I contribute, I do not think of myself as a "male contributor", a "homosexual contributor", or a "student contributor" and fail to see why any of these aspects should deny me access to particular areas of discussion.
If the real reason for this list is the level of aggression on this list, then make the list based upon that aspect. I'm sure there are many non-female contributors who object to some of the aggression on this list.
Now *that* would be a Good Idea, if we could keep the trolls off it. I argued against a women's list from the beginning, as I feel it would widen the gap. LinuxChix was incredibly helpful (and probably still is) to a number of women, though, and I think /especially/ because the list is not closed to men. The list belongs to the women, so they feel safe - and men who join the list find out very quickly what women consider bias, because (it being "their turf") they don't hesitate to tell men when they are being offensive. It surprises a lot of men what women find offensive, and why - so it has educated a lot of men, too, who initially were highly dismissive and refused to believe there was bias. Several of the posts on this list would have received a good deal of attention had they been made on LinuxChix - here some of them were barely noticed, others not at all. The women's list here might serve the same purpose, were it open to men as well. -puppy
Oldak Quill wrote:
On 04/12/06, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
That being said, I don't think it's for us males to demand that the womenfolk open up their new clubhouse to us. If it is the right thing to do, I do believe that initiative can and will come from the group itself.
I don't see what's wrong with the community determining what official clubhouses there are. I object to this divisive and discriminatory list as a human being, not as a man. When I contribute, I do not think of myself as a "male contributor", a "homosexual contributor", or a "student contributor" and fail to see why any of these aspects should deny me access to particular areas of discussion.
If the real reason for this list is the level of aggression on this list, then make the list based upon that aspect. I'm sure there are many non-female contributors who object to some of the aggression on this list.
On 12/4/06, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
<snip>
That being said, I don't think it's for us males to demand that the womenfolk open up their new clubhouse to us. If it is the right thing to do, I do believe that initiative can and will come from the group itself.
Yes, thank you. To expand on what I said earlier: my personal view is that it'd be best to open the list to both genders; that view may not be shared amongst all women in the community. I respect that there may well be women who will not want to participate in the list/group if there is open membership, and I think most people who are seriously interested in the issue don't want to have to discuss it in a hostile environment, such has been shown in some of the comments here. Because of this, it's appropriate to first have a series of considered discussions about the place of the list and who it is for amongst the initial (invited, female) membership; those discussions haven't happened yet. People of both genders are (I presume) welcome to continue discussing the issue on existing mailing lists.
Honestly, I think I am being discriminated against in this community because my patience for endless bickering is thin. -- phoebe
On 05/12/06, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Honestly, I think I am being discriminated against in this community because my patience for endless bickering is thin.
And we have a winner!
The big problem with Wikipedia is that working with people you consider completely worthless idiots is not optional. And they think you're an idiot too.
- d.
phoebe wrote:
Honestly, I think I am being discriminated against in this community because my patience for endless bickering is thin.
Hear, hear. Without belittling your concern, I'm sure you're far from the only person who feels this way.
(The saving grace is that, some if not much of the time, you can ignore the endless petty bickering and go off and edit the encyclopedia instead.)
Erik Moeller wrote:
That being said, I don't think it's for us males to demand that the womenfolk open up their new clubhouse to us. If it is the right thing to do, I do believe that initiative can and will come from the group itself.
Continuing the analogy, the women-only clubhouse (mailing list) in question is built on community land (WikiMedia Foundation servers). I think it's entirely reasonable for members of that community to be objecting to this.
WikiMedia Foundation shouldn't be supporting a mailing list founded on a fundamental principle of gender discrimination. Wikichix already has a separate host for their wiki, why can't they host their own mailing list there too?
Reverse discrimination would be (for example) if women admins were promoted on a basis of lower community support, in order to achieve a more balanced ratio - a process often referred to as affirmative action, and strongly supported by many. Providing women, who feel very much attacked and unwelcome, a safe place to discuss this issue, where they can receive support from other women, reality-checks, and advice on how to handle it, all without the fear that some man will dismiss their valid concerns as irrelevant or nonsense (which can be devastating to an already hurt woman), is helping to make this family of projects more women-friendly. This is not discrimination. Unless you consider allowing women to feel safe is discrimination.
One puppy's opinion.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
That being said, I don't think it's for us males to demand that the womenfolk open up their new clubhouse to us. If it is the right thing to do, I do believe that initiative can and will come from the group itself.
Continuing the analogy, the women-only clubhouse (mailing list) in question is built on community land (WikiMedia Foundation servers). I think it's entirely reasonable for members of that community to be objecting to this.
WikiMedia Foundation shouldn't be supporting a mailing list founded on a fundamental principle of gender discrimination. Wikichix already has a separate host for their wiki, why can't they host their own mailing list there too?
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:
Reverse discrimination would be (for example) if women admins were promoted on a basis of lower community support, in order to achieve a more balanced ratio - a process often referred to as affirmative action, and strongly supported by many.
There is a comparatively higher concentration of women in the cab^W^W leadership positions on Wikipedia than throughout the project in general. AFAICT it is through merit, not so-called "affirmative action" - which, like all discrimination, I find objectionable.
Puppy wrote:
Reverse discrimination would be (for example) if women admins were promoted on a basis of lower community support, in order to achieve a more balanced ratio - a process often referred to as affirmative action, and strongly supported by many.
This is all semantic quibbling. The basic situation is simply this; Wikimedia has a mailing list for the discussion of editing Wikipedia, and I am not permitted to join this mailing list because I happen to be male (a "condition" that has no affect whatsoever on my editing, and which is only known because years back I decided to use my real name instead of some uninformative pseudonym).
That is discrimination. Whether it's "reverse" of not is of no concern to me, the effect is exactly the same.
This is not discrimination. Unless you consider allowing women to feel safe is discrimination.
And _this_ is pure tripe. Do you really think that my position is that I don't want women to feel safe? If that's what you're implying here I'm quite offended and suggest you retract it immediately. I've said nothing remotely of the sort.
On 12/5/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Puppy wrote:
Reverse discrimination would be (for example) if women admins were promoted on a basis of lower community support, in order to achieve a more balanced ratio - a process often referred to as affirmative action, and strongly supported by many.
This is all semantic quibbling. The basic situation is simply this; Wikimedia has a mailing list for the discussion of editing Wikipedia, and I am not permitted to join this mailing list because I happen to be male (a "condition" that has no affect whatsoever on my editing, and which is only known because years back I decided to use my real name instead of some uninformative pseudonym).
That is discrimination. Whether it's "reverse" of not is of no concern to me, the effect is exactly the same.
Not any more. The list has been moved to Wikia. Moot point, hooray! Let's move on, nothing to see here, yadda yadda.
This is not discrimination. Unless you consider allowing
women to feel safe is discrimination.
And _this_ is pure tripe. Do you really think that my position is that I don't want women to feel safe? If that's what you're implying here I'm quite offended and suggest you retract it immediately. I've said nothing remotely of the sort.
Umm.... (looking desperately to change the direction of the conversation....) How about those Nazi userboxes?
The Cunctator wrote:
On 12/5/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
And _this_ is pure tripe. Do you really think that my position is that I don't want women to feel safe? If that's what you're implying here I'm quite offended and suggest you retract it immediately. I've said nothing remotely of the sort.
Umm.... (looking desperately to change the direction of the conversation....) How about those Nazi userboxes?
What, are you saying I'm fat??
(note, not actually offended on this one :)
On Dec 5, 2006, at 11:55, Bryan Derksen wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
On 12/5/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
And _this_ is pure tripe. Do you really think that my position is that I don't want women to feel safe? If that's what you're implying here I'm quite offended and suggest you retract it immediately. I've said nothing remotely of the sort.
Umm.... (looking desperately to change the direction of the conversation....) How about those Nazi userboxes?
What, are you saying I'm fat??
(note, not actually offended on this one :)
Despite the fact that you're joking, and despite the fact that I'm not personally offended, that is a sexist remark. I find it especially inappropriate to make jokes at women's expense in a thread protesting the idea that women are treated in any way badly on this list. If Jew jokes were made every other post or so and this was considered okay and funny, I wouldn't be surprised if the Jews on list wanted a wikijews-l. More likely though, I'd think they'd leave the Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects on the basis that the Wikimedia Foundation allows rampant anti-Semitism on their mailing lists.
I really am shocked at the responses on this list. I'd think that the proper response would be, "I'm really sorry that you feel this way and that we never noticed it before. Is there any way we can make help make Wikipedia a more welcoming place for women?" and if the women said, "You know, it'd really help to have an all-women mailing list where we can talk about things without being ignored or dismissed," I'd hope you'd say, "It's a shame it's come to this, but if that will help, let's give it a try."
What I really never expected was that the community as it were would belittle the concerns brought forward by the women and go so far as to make fun of them.
--Keitei
On 12/5/06, niht-hræfn nihthraefn@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2006, at 11:55, Bryan Derksen wrote:
What, are you saying I'm fat??
Despite the fact that you're joking, and despite the fact that I'm not personally offended, that is a sexist remark. I find it especially inappropriate to make jokes at women's expense in a thread protesting the idea that women are treated in any way badly on this list.
I didn't get his joke, so I can't say that you're wrong... but I totally don't get the exchange here. What the #$@# does being obese have to do with being female?
I really am shocked at the responses on this list. I'd think that the proper response would be, "I'm really sorry that you feel this way and that we never noticed it before. Is there any way we can make help make Wikipedia a more welcoming place for women?" and if the women said, "You know, it'd really help to have an all-women mailing list where we can talk about things without being ignored or dismissed," I'd hope you'd say, "It's a shame it's come to this, but if that will help, let's give it a try."
You're making it out like the opposition to the sexist list was a woman vs men thing. It's not. Yes, you have more men opposing.. but we have more men in total.
Lets put it another way: We've had women get harassed from their involvement on the wiki and their presence has attracted a number of trolls who specifically get their jollies from harassing women. If someone suggested that we should exclude women from editing the wiki, should we "try it"?
What I really never expected was that the community as it were would belittle the concerns brought forward by the women and go so far as to make fun of them.
You. Do. Not. Speak. For. All. Women.
If you honestly wish to fight sexism then you need to stop perpetuating it yourself.
On 12/5/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/5/06, niht-hræfn nihthraefn@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2006, at 11:55, Bryan Derksen wrote:
What, are you saying I'm fat??
Despite the fact that you're joking, and despite the fact that I'm not personally offended, that is a sexist remark. I find it especially inappropriate to make jokes at women's expense in a thread protesting the idea that women are treated in any way badly on this list.
I didn't get his joke, so I can't say that you're wrong... but I totally don't get the exchange here. What the #$@# does being obese have to do with being female?
Hopefully this will help explain: http://www.mopie.com/0309/15.html
It also has to do with the stereotype of the hypersensitive hysterical body-image obsessed female:
http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/index.php?showtopic=3145970&st=2...
The Cunctator wrote:
On 12/5/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/5/06, niht-hræfn nihthraefn@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2006, at 11:55, Bryan Derksen wrote:
What, are you saying I'm fat??
Despite the fact that you're joking, and despite the fact that I'm not personally offended, that is a sexist remark. I find it especially inappropriate to make jokes at women's expense in a thread protesting the idea that women are treated in any way badly on this list.
I didn't get his joke, so I can't say that you're wrong... but I totally don't get the exchange here. What the #$@# does being obese have to do with being female?
Hopefully this will help explain: http://www.mopie.com/0309/15.html
Actually, it had nothing to do with being female at all. It's a stock phrase from my local group of friends that we use when one of us wants to pretend he's misunderstood an inoffensive comment as being an insult, to humorous effect. I only realized that it could be interpreted as a gender-specific thing after niht-hræfn's response.
I could have used any insult at all, it's just bad luck that this one particular insult and one particular thread meshed so poorly. And, having explained the attempt at humour so thoroughly now, any chance at salvaging it is long past. Oh well.
On 12/5/06, niht-hræfn nihthraefn@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2006, at 11:55, Bryan Derksen wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
On 12/5/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
And _this_ is pure tripe. Do you really think that my position is that I don't want women to feel safe? If that's what you're implying here I'm quite offended and suggest you retract it immediately. I've said nothing remotely of the sort.
Umm.... (looking desperately to change the direction of the conversation....) How about those Nazi userboxes?
What, are you saying I'm fat??
(note, not actually offended on this one :)
Despite the fact that you're joking, and despite the fact that I'm not personally offended, that is a sexist remark. I find it especially inappropriate to make jokes at women's expense in a thread protesting the idea that women are treated in any way badly on this list. If Jew jokes were made every other post or so and this was considered okay and funny, I wouldn't be surprised if the Jews on list wanted a wikijews-l. More likely though, I'd think they'd leave the Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects on the basis that the Wikimedia Foundation allows rampant anti-Semitism on their mailing lists.
I really am shocked at the responses on this list. I'd think that the proper response would be, "I'm really sorry that you feel this way and that we never noticed it before. Is there any way we can make help make Wikipedia a more welcoming place for women?" and if the women said, "You know, it'd really help to have an all-women mailing list where we can talk about things without being ignored or dismissed," I'd hope you'd say, "It's a shame it's come to this, but if that will help, let's give it a try."
What I really never expected was that the community as it were would belittle the concerns brought forward by the women and go so far as to make fun of them.
I'm not particularly interested in defending the responses -- a number of them were shockingly inconsiderate and tellingly misguided -- but it did not help that an invite-only NO MEN ALLOWED list was announced in response to the question of making Wikipedia a more welcoming place for women.
A not unreasonable interpretation of that is "You're part of the problem, but you can't be part of the solution."
At least Wikipedia isn't as bad as most physics departments or investment banking firms. Not that that's really high bar to hurdle.
niht-hræfn wrote:
On Dec 5, 2006, at 11:55, Bryan Derksen wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
On 12/5/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
And _this_ is pure tripe. Do you really think that my position is that I don't want women to feel safe? If that's what you're implying here I'm quite offended and suggest you retract it immediately. I've said nothing remotely of the sort.
Umm.... (looking desperately to change the direction of the conversation....) How about those Nazi userboxes?
What, are you saying I'm fat??
(note, not actually offended on this one :)
Despite the fact that you're joking, and despite the fact that I'm not personally offended, that is a sexist remark.
Ah, hell. It wasn't even intended to be; my local group of male friends here in real life use the "are you saying I'm fat?" mock-offense thing back and forth quite often between us. The joke was supposed to just be that it was a complete non-sequitur.
Guys don't like being called fat either, you know.
On Dec 5, 2006, at 12:30, Bryan Derksen wrote:
niht-hræfn wrote:
On Dec 5, 2006, at 11:55, Bryan Derksen wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
On 12/5/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
And _this_ is pure tripe. Do you really think that my position is that I don't want women to feel safe? If that's what you're implying here I'm quite offended and suggest you retract it immediately. I've said nothing remotely of the sort.
Umm.... (looking desperately to change the direction of the conversation....) How about those Nazi userboxes?
What, are you saying I'm fat??
(note, not actually offended on this one :)
Despite the fact that you're joking, and despite the fact that I'm not personally offended, that is a sexist remark.
Ah, hell. It wasn't even intended to be; my local group of male friends here in real life use the "are you saying I'm fat?" mock-offense thing back and forth quite often between us. The joke was supposed to just be that it was a complete non-sequitur.
Guys don't like being called fat either, you know.
Okay, good. I've heard that line used to make fun of women's concerns before, so perhaps I was a little quick to respond...
--Keitei
niht-hræfn wrote:
On Dec 5, 2006, at 12:30, Bryan Derksen wrote:
Ah, hell. It wasn't even intended to be; my local group of male friends here in real life use the "are you saying I'm fat?" mock-offense thing back and forth quite often between us. The joke was supposed to just be that it was a complete non-sequitur.
Okay, good. I've heard that line used to make fun of women's concerns before, so perhaps I was a little quick to respond...
I guess in hindsight it is somewhat appropriate that my line poking fun at people getting offended as a result of misunderstanding would itself be misunderstood and cause offence. My bad, hopefully next time I make an attempt to defuse tension with humour I'll be less clumsy about it.
On 12/5/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
On 12/5/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
And _this_ is pure tripe. Do you really think that my position is that
I
don't want women to feel safe? If that's what you're implying here I'm quite offended and suggest you retract it immediately. I've said
nothing
remotely of the sort.
Umm.... (looking desperately to change the direction of the conversation....) How about those Nazi userboxes?
What, are you saying I'm fat??
(note, not actually offended on this one :)
I'm not saying you're fat, but when you go to the beach, you're the one there who gets a tan.
I'm not saying you're fat, but when you go to KFC, you lick other people's fingers.
I'm not saying you're fat, but when you step on a scale, it reads "One at a time, please".
Bryan Derksen wrote:
This is all semantic quibbling. The basic situation is simply this; Wikimedia has a mailing list for the discussion of editing Wikipedia, and I am not permitted to join this mailing list because I happen to be male (a "condition" that has no affect whatsoever on my editing, and which is only known because years back I decided to use my real name instead of some uninformative pseudonym).
That is discrimination. Whether it's "reverse" of not is of no concern to me, the effect is exactly the same.
Yawn. Sorry, you're not Rosa Parks. Do you barge into women's restrooms and start declaiming about reverse discrimination there too?
If wikichix-l members develop a consensus decision about something that actually affects WP, they'll have to present it more widely sooner or later, which will give you plenty of opportunity to savage it.
Stan
On 12/5/06, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
This is all semantic quibbling. The basic situation is simply this; Wikimedia has a mailing list for the discussion of editing Wikipedia, and I am not permitted to join this mailing list because I happen to be male (a "condition" that has no affect whatsoever on my editing, and which is only known because years back I decided to use my real name instead of some uninformative pseudonym).
That is discrimination. Whether it's "reverse" of not is of no concern to me, the effect is exactly the same.
Yawn. Sorry, you're not Rosa Parks. Do you barge into women's restrooms and start declaiming about reverse discrimination there too?
If wikichix-l members develop a consensus decision about something that actually affects WP, they'll have to present it more widely sooner or later, which will give you plenty of opportunity to savage it.
When you wrote "savage it" I believe you misspelled "carefully consider and respectfully discuss it".
Stan Shebs wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
That is discrimination. Whether it's "reverse" of not is of no concern to me, the effect is exactly the same.
Yawn. Sorry, you're not Rosa Parks. Do you barge into women's restrooms and start declaiming about reverse discrimination there too?
I wasn't aware that substantive discussions of Wikipedia policy took place in women's restrooms. They don't in any of the men's restrooms I've been in.
On 12/5/06, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Stan Shebs wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
That is discrimination. Whether it's "reverse" of not is of no concern to me, the effect is exactly the same.
Yawn. Sorry, you're not Rosa Parks. Do you barge into women's restrooms and start declaiming about reverse discrimination there too?
I wasn't aware that substantive discussions of Wikipedia policy took place in women's restrooms. They don't in any of the men's restrooms I've been in.
Then maybe you need to look for some more intellectually stimulating men's restrooms. I'm sure there are some that are used for things other than picking up strangers for sex.
As for the comment about Wikipedia policy being discussed in women's restrooms - haven't you figured out that the reason women go to the restroom in groups is so that they can talk (about Wikipedia policy, obviously) without men around?
On 12/4/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
--- Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Unlike affirmative action which can at least be argued to be a mechanism to reduce bigotry by encouraging collaboration, I see no fair justification for this act of segregation.
If the opportunity had existed, I would have implored the board to refuse to allow the foundation's resources to be used for this sexist mailing list but I was not given such an opportunity. I do, however, still have the ability to call on the rest of our community to reject it as thoroughly as possible.
I'm not overjoyed by the "females-only" thing either, so how about we call on the WikiChix to open up their fora to both genders? I feel it's a little premature to start lobbying for them to be hurled from the Foundation's hosting. Wikipedia stands to benefit from initiatives that make it more female-friendly.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
What would the reactions be if a "men only, not women allowed" list had been created.
Women's list: GOOD Women's list no males allowed: BAD
On 12/4/06, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
What would the reactions be if a "men only, not women allowed" list had been created.
Women's list: GOOD Women's list no males allowed: BAD
I'd still complain just as loudly either way.. but the fact that the woman-only list was created implies that not everyone shares my perspective.
I wouldn't be shocked to see someone propose that the problem of the sexist womans list could be solved by the creation of a sexist mens list. After all, "separate but equal" in one guise or another is a reoccurring ugliness in human civilization.
On 12/4/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
mailing list has been created for female wiki editors to discuss issues of gender bias in wikis and ways to encourage
[snip]
If you are female and interested in wikis, I would like to
This is the most disappointing thing I have seen wikimedia do. I very rarely post on these lists, and even more rarely on the non-technical ones. When I first read this proposal I thought, "Oh that would be an interesting list to listen to". I was then shocked and saddened when I read that I would be excluded on my gender. Don't think this doesn't hurt people when you exclude them, and don't think that every man reading this lacks the same sense of hurt and rejection you would have if there was a male only list, or a white only list. I can assure you, it's the same, and some people are hurt by it just as much.
Our gender bias is a fine topic of discussion, but instead of discriminating based on gender, why not discriminate based on who is interested?
If this proposal continues I would strongly support it being entirely hosted by non foundation resources. I don't want to support discrimination of any kind.
Very saddened,
Judson
This should not be one the Wikmedia servers. Just start a googlegroup.
On 12/4/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
Following recent discussions on wikien-l where a number of women said they were not comfortable contributing to the discussion, a new mailing list has been created for female wiki editors to discuss issues of gender bias in wikis and ways to encourage more female editors, and just as a place that females can feel more comfortable posting to.
It's called WikiChix - named after LinuxChix, the women-oriented community for Linux users. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LinuxChix
If you are female and interested in wikis, I would like to encourage to join the mailing list at http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikichix-l
There's also a wiki at http://wikichix.org/ - let me know your username if you'd like an account there. Some of the pages are openly editable, so even if you're not female, you are welcome to post your comments at http://wikichix.org/wiki/Comments
The FAQs for the related communities at http://wikichix.org/wiki/WikiChix#Related_communities answer a lot of questions about why this was created, so please read those for more information until we have our own FAQ.
Angela
-- Angela Beesley wikiangela.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/4/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
This should not be one the Wikmedia servers. Just start a googlegroup.
Why not?
Because: * The list is restricted based on the discriminatory preference of gender * A goal of the list is to provide an outside forum for advocating change in Wikimedia/Wikipedia * Having Wikimedia resources be used to support the list implies endorsement of its standards and goals * Having Wikimedia resources be used to support the list means that Wikimedia can apply pressure on/control over the users of the list
Or, in more classical Cunctator language, it's a bad idea. So do it on your own dime.
On 12/4/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/4/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
This should not be one the Wikmedia servers. Just start a googlegroup.
Why not?
Because:
- The list is restricted based on the discriminatory preference of gender
- A goal of the list is to provide an outside forum for advocating change
in Wikimedia/Wikipedia
- Having Wikimedia resources be used to support the list implies
endorsement of its standards and goals
- Having Wikimedia resources be used to support the list means that
Wikimedia can apply pressure on/control over the users of the list
Or, in more classical Cunctator language, it's a bad idea. So do it on your own dime.
"do it on your own dime"? A bit dismissive. In any case, was the original point missed here? Remember the comments about separate but equal?
On Dec 4, 2006, at 18:38, The Cunctator wrote:
On 12/4/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
This should not be one the Wikmedia servers. Just start a googlegroup.
Why not?
Because:
- The list is restricted based on the discriminatory preference of
gender
- A goal of the list is to provide an outside forum for advocating
change in Wikimedia/Wikipedia
- Having Wikimedia resources be used to support the list implies
endorsement of its standards and goals
- Having Wikimedia resources be used to support the list means that
Wikimedia can apply pressure on/control over the users of the list
Or, in more classical Cunctator language, it's a bad idea. So do it on your own dime.
My impression has been that the list was to provide a "safe space" for women to discuss Wikipedia or some such. Many women apparently feel safer in an all women environment. Additionally, the study Tim linked earlier in the thread ( http://flosspols.org/deliverables/ FLOSSPOLS-D16-Gender_Integrated_Report_of_Findings.pdf ) found that "Furthermore many of our female participants reported the helpfulness of an an all-girl environment during their first phase of getting into computing and programming (e.g. schools, workshops, mailing lists). Whereas we do acknowledge that this might not be necessary for all potential female F/LOSS contributors it is important to understand that this is very effective for some." Of course wiki and programming are not one and the same, but some women find the environment helpful, and I'd think that making women feel welcome to edit and discuss Wikipedia would be a noble enough goal for us.
That being said, I don't personally think an all women environment is crucial or even necessarily desirable, but it's not a ludicrous idea that we should kick out of Wikimedia.
--Keitei
On 12/4/06, niht-hræfn nihthraefn@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
understand that this is very effective for some." Of course wiki and programming are not one and the same, but some women find the environment helpful, and I'd think that making women feel welcome to edit and discuss Wikipedia would be a noble enough goal for us.
That being said, I don't personally think an all women environment is crucial or even necessarily desirable, but it's not a ludicrous idea that we should kick out of Wikimedia.
"During their first phase", it further emphasise the limited duration of such things with language like "short term interventions".
The list that was created, however, wasn't a mechanism for introduction but a forum for the discussion of an important issue most likely to interest vested contributors.
It is also the case that the recommendations in the paper are made in a vacuum. Not only did they not substantially verify their suggestions through experimentation, to the extent that they had evidence it appears they did not consider the results outside of improving the involvement of women. So, for example, if following their suggestions would increase the involvement of women but otherwise harm the productivity of the community it's not clear whether they would have noticed or noted that impact.
On the subject of new member introduction we can probably do much better than what is suggested by the paper: We could perform one-on-one introductions and tutorials for new users. It would be logical and not-at-all unreasonably prejudicial to try to pair new users up with people who have similar interests, backgrounds, and working styles. I expect that this would frequently result in women introducing women to the community. Furthermore, this an activity which could be taken up by anyone on this list without prior approval or even discussion ([[Special:Log/newusers]])).
Our welcome process used to be a lot more helpful, today I see many junior users pumping their edit count with scads of impersonal robotic welcomes... sometimes they even welcome people whos only edits have been blatant unreverted vandalism. I think this is unfortunate and it certainly doesn't help us increase the number of quality women in our ranks (or quality men for that matter). ... but any of us can step up to solve this, so perhaps it's just not so fun to discuss on the lists.
It seems to me the answer is to open the list to all genders, as has already been pointed out. Its like Cleanup vs. Delete.
The Cunctator wrote:
On 12/4/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
This should not be one the Wikmedia servers. Just start a googlegroup.
Why not?
Because:
- The list is restricted based on the discriminatory preference of gender
- A goal of the list is to provide an outside forum for advocating change in
Wikimedia/Wikipedia
- Having Wikimedia resources be used to support the list implies endorsement
of its standards and goals
- Having Wikimedia resources be used to support the list means that
Wikimedia can apply pressure on/control over the users of the list
Or, in more classical Cunctator language, it's a bad idea. So do it on your own dime. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/4/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
Following recent discussions on wikien-l where a number of women said they were not comfortable contributing to the discussion, a new mailing list has been created for female wiki editors to discuss issues of gender bias in wikis and ways to encourage more female editors, and just as a place that females can feel more comfortable posting to.
Personally, like others, I'm slightly saddened that there is a need for this. However, there *being* a need for it, satisfying that need is the right thing to do. Hopefully one day the list will disband from lack of use.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 12/4/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
Following recent discussions on wikien-l where a number of women said they were not comfortable contributing to the discussion, a new mailing list has been created for female wiki editors to discuss issues of gender bias in wikis and ways to encourage more female editors, and just as a place that females can feel more comfortable posting to.
Personally, like others, I'm slightly saddened that there is a need for this. However, there *being* a need for it, satisfying that need is the right thing to do. Hopefully one day the list will disband from lack of use.
... whoa. Care to rephrase that?
On 12/5/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, like others, I'm slightly saddened that there is a need for this. However, there *being* a need for it, satisfying that need is the right thing to do. Hopefully one day the list will disband from lack of use.
... whoa. Care to rephrase that?
Hopefully one day the women in the Wikipedia community will no longer feel threatened on the main list, and will thus not need their own list. That is, if their list is a cure, I hope the ailment goes away.
Steve
On Dec 6, 2006, at 12:25 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 12/5/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, like others, I'm slightly saddened that there is a need for this. However, there *being* a need for it, satisfying that need is the right thing to do. Hopefully one day the list will disband from lack of use.
... whoa. Care to rephrase that?
Hopefully one day the women in the Wikipedia community will no longer feel threatened on the main list, and will thus not need their own list. That is, if their list is a cure, I hope the ailment goes away.
Well put. Allow me to briefly put my gender privilege to good use and to engage in some of the flaming that Tim Starling has observed that I, as a male, am apparently more likely to enjoy.
I have never been so disgusted with this community as I am right now, and particularly with Greg and The Cunctator, both users I have in the past had tremendous respect for. Greg's public shunning of the idea of gendered discussion and The Cunctator's stunt of subscribing to the list so he could play martyr were bald-faced power moves that had no content other than sending a clear message to female contributors that they'd better not get out of line. They were shameful power plays. And if anyone fails to understand why that is, I can only say that you are why this list needs to exist, and why it needs to be female-only.
We do not get to define the terms of the gender debate. We do not get to insist that we have a gender-neutral space, or a sufficiently gender-neutral space that it is clear that any discussion of gender can happen publicly. We, in short, do not get to dictate to women how they ought to feel about the systemic bias we've set up.
Is it useful to completely exclude us from the conversation? Probably not, but that doesn't seem to be what's happening. What's happening is that there's a desire on the part of some women to be able to have a conversation amongst the people who get to define the problem, instead of amongst the people who don't. When the problem is defined, some aspects of the solution will probably have to include men. But men don't get to define sexism. You can't both cause the problem and define it for the people you're affecting.
Why is the list not open to men? Because there are men like The Cunctator and Greg, who are happy to declare that they know how discrimination should be talked about, and anybody who feels uncomfortable talking to them can go to hell. (One wonders, of course, why anyone in their right mind would feel comfortable talking to them after that.) And men who will deny the very existence and possibility of the systemic bias every time it comes down, struggling mightily to shut down the discussion. Because there are complaints, frustrations, and problems that people want to express without having a chorus of men commenting on it and denying it. Because one of the first steps in healing a community with broken gender relations is to give women (it is, sadly, always women) a forum where they can express things and get a response of "God, yes, I know what you mean. I thought it was just me!" instead of some form of "I don't think that's valid."
As for the Wiki Chix (A great name, by the way), sorry I haven't been more active in this discussion (either this one or the systemic bias one), and sorry the situation is such that the separatist move is necessary. If there's anything I can do to help the cause, let me know. And if there's nothing whatsoever I can do to help the cause, well, good luck.
Best, Phil Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
On 12/6/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 6, 2006, at 12:25 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 12/5/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, like others, I'm slightly saddened that there is a need for this. However, there *being* a need for it, satisfying that need is the right thing to do. Hopefully one day the list will disband from lack of use.
... whoa. Care to rephrase that?
Hopefully one day the women in the Wikipedia community will no longer feel threatened on the main list, and will thus not need their own list. That is, if their list is a cure, I hope the ailment goes away.
Well put. Allow me to briefly put my gender privilege to good use and to engage in some of the flaming that Tim Starling has observed that I, as a male, am apparently more likely to enjoy.
I have never been so disgusted with this community as I am right now, and particularly with Greg and The Cunctator, both users I have in the past had tremendous respect for. Greg's public shunning of the idea of gendered discussion and The Cunctator's stunt of subscribing to the list so he could play martyr were bald-faced power moves that had no content other than sending a clear message to female contributors that they'd better not get out of line. They were shameful power plays. And if anyone fails to understand why that is, I can only say that you are why this list needs to exist, and why it needs to be female-only.
I think you misunderstood my motives and actions entirely.
Why is the list not open to men? Because there are men like The Cunctator and Greg, who are happy to declare that they know how discrimination should be talked about, and anybody who feels uncomfortable talking to them can go to hell.
When you start attacking me like this, you really better have evidence to back it up.
--- Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
We do not get to define the terms of the gender debate. We do not get to insist that we have a gender-neutral space
Wikipedians (including men) can insist that WikiChix may not discriminate on gender if they use Foundation resources.
Further, males have every right to comment on the approach of WikiChix, and on gender issues in general, without being insulted or flamed for it.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Matt R wrote:
--- Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
We do not get to define the terms of the gender debate. We do not get to insist that we have a gender-neutral space
Wikipedians (including men) can insist that WikiChix may not discriminate on gender if they use Foundation resources.
... which they're no longer doing, so it's a moot point.
Further, males have every right to comment on the approach of WikiChix, and on gender issues in general, without being insulted or flamed for it.
Good. Everyone, regardless of gender, has every right to comment on the approach of WikiChix, and on gender issues in general, without being insulted or flamed for it.
But separatist action just doesn't seem to me like a wiki-friendly concept. That said, I don't have any problem with WikiChix or its mailing list, especially now that the latter is no longer hosted by the WMF.
--Ryan
On 12/6/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 6, 2006, at 12:25 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 12/5/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, like others, I'm slightly saddened that there is a need for this. However, there *being* a need for it, satisfying that need is the right thing to do. Hopefully one day the list will disband from lack of use.
... whoa. Care to rephrase that?
Hopefully one day the women in the Wikipedia community will no longer feel threatened on the main list, and will thus not need their own list. That is, if their list is a cure, I hope the ailment goes away.
Well put. Allow me to briefly put my gender privilege to good use and to engage in some of the flaming that Tim Starling has observed that I, as a male, am apparently more likely to enjoy.
I have never been so disgusted with this community as I am right now, and particularly with Greg and The Cunctator, both users I have in the past had tremendous respect for. Greg's public shunning of the idea of gendered discussion and The Cunctator's stunt of subscribing to the list so he could play martyr were bald-faced power moves that had no content other than sending a clear message to female contributors that they'd better not get out of line. They were shameful power plays. And if anyone fails to understand why that is, I can only say that you are why this list needs to exist, and why it needs to be female-only.
We do not get to define the terms of the gender debate. We do not get to insist that we have a gender-neutral space, or a sufficiently gender-neutral space that it is clear that any discussion of gender can happen publicly. We, in short, do not get to dictate to women how they ought to feel about the systemic bias we've set up.
Is it useful to completely exclude us from the conversation? Probably not, but that doesn't seem to be what's happening. What's happening is that there's a desire on the part of some women to be able to have a conversation amongst the people who get to define the problem, instead of amongst the people who don't. When the problem is defined, some aspects of the solution will probably have to include men. But men don't get to define sexism. You can't both cause the problem and define it for the people you're affecting.
Why is the list not open to men? Because there are men like The Cunctator and Greg, who are happy to declare that they know how discrimination should be talked about, and anybody who feels uncomfortable talking to them can go to hell. (One wonders, of course, why anyone in their right mind would feel comfortable talking to them after that.) And men who will deny the very existence and possibility of the systemic bias every time it comes down, struggling mightily to shut down the discussion. Because there are complaints, frustrations, and problems that people want to express without having a chorus of men commenting on it and denying it. Because one of the first steps in healing a community with broken gender relations is to give women (it is, sadly, always women) a forum where they can express things and get a response of "God, yes, I know what you mean. I thought it was just me!" instead of some form of "I don't think that's valid."
As for the Wiki Chix (A great name, by the way), sorry I haven't been more active in this discussion (either this one or the systemic bias one), and sorry the situation is such that the separatist move is necessary. If there's anything I can do to help the cause, let me know. And if there's nothing whatsoever I can do to help the cause, well, good luck.
Best, Phil Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/6/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Allow me to briefly put my gender privilege to good use
I wish that you had. Instead, some of your antagonism and rhetoric were only pouring gasoline on the discussion, and your characterization of the positions taken by those you've singled out seems at best mistaken. Casting those you see as your opponents in an unfairly negative light damages your own side and your own credibility.
The question of whether a single-sex list is 1) needed and 2) appropriate for Wikimedia to host is a valid one. For discussion by everyone. Its existence does *not* affect only the women; it affects the whole community. (Those women who would at the present time like to discuss the issue in a more private forum can do so -- and have done so.) So I would like to hear discussion from everyone it affects, including you -- but if you're not going to raise the tone of that open discussion, don't join it. Which applies to everyone, including several others in the many spawned threads, but particularly those who would otherwise claim to value respectful discourse and consideration of others' needs.
-Kat
-- "I am not a pretty girl / that is not what I do / I ain't no damsel in distress / and I don't need to be rescued / so put me down punk" - Ani DiFranco, "Not A Pretty Girl"
I found his statements well considered and well written. I did not read it that he was chastising anyone who had not, indeed, demonstrated the very bias and intimidation which has led to this discussion. The only "tone" I saw was not turning a blind eye to the hostile actions of others - and this, more than anything else, can help to shame those who participate in such activities into no longer doing so - and the problem goes away - which is, after all, the ultimate goal is it not?
-kc-
Kat Walsh wrote:
On 12/6/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Allow me to briefly put my gender privilege to good use
I wish that you had. Instead, some of your antagonism and rhetoric were only pouring gasoline on the discussion, and your characterization of the positions taken by those you've singled out seems at best mistaken. Casting those you see as your opponents in an unfairly negative light damages your own side and your own credibility.
The question of whether a single-sex list is 1) needed and 2) appropriate for Wikimedia to host is a valid one. For discussion by everyone. Its existence does *not* affect only the women; it affects the whole community. (Those women who would at the present time like to discuss the issue in a more private forum can do so -- and have done so.) So I would like to hear discussion from everyone it affects, including you -- but if you're not going to raise the tone of that open discussion, don't join it. Which applies to everyone, including several others in the many spawned threads, but particularly those who would otherwise claim to value respectful discourse and consideration of others' needs.
-Kat
-- "I am not a pretty girl / that is not what I do / I ain't no damsel in distress / and I don't need to be rescued / so put me down punk" - Ani DiFranco, "Not A Pretty Girl" _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'm sorry you think I was being intimidating. My goal is certainly not to shame those who participate in trying to reduce bias into no longer doing so.
On 12/6/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
I found his statements well considered and well written. I did not read it that he was chastising anyone who had not, indeed, demonstrated the very bias and intimidation which has led to this discussion. The only "tone" I saw was not turning a blind eye to the hostile actions of others - and this, more than anything else, can help to shame those who participate in such activities into no longer doing so - and the problem goes away - which is, after all, the ultimate goal is it not?
-kc-
Kat Walsh wrote:
On 12/6/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Allow me to briefly put my gender privilege to good use
I wish that you had. Instead, some of your antagonism and rhetoric were only pouring gasoline on the discussion, and your characterization of the positions taken by those you've singled out seems at best mistaken. Casting those you see as your opponents in an unfairly negative light damages your own side and your own credibility.
The question of whether a single-sex list is 1) needed and 2) appropriate for Wikimedia to host is a valid one. For discussion by everyone. Its existence does *not* affect only the women; it affects the whole community. (Those women who would at the present time like to discuss the issue in a more private forum can do so -- and have done so.) So I would like to hear discussion from everyone it affects, including you -- but if you're not going to raise the tone of that open discussion, don't join it. Which applies to everyone, including several others in the many spawned threads, but particularly those who would otherwise claim to value respectful discourse and consideration of others' needs.
-Kat
-- "I am not a pretty girl / that is not what I do / I ain't no damsel in distress / and I don't need to be rescued / so put me down punk" - Ani DiFranco, "Not A Pretty Girl" _______________________________________________ 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
Apology and clarification much appreciated. This is at the heart of the issue, I think - many men are intimidating without realizing they are doing so. They even "turn the tables" in their heads - "would I be intimidated if someone did that?" decide the answer is no, its not intimidating - yet that does not help, it is not germane. Because they are not a women wondering if its intimidating.
-kc-
The Cunctator wrote:
I'm sorry you think I was being intimidating. My goal is certainly not to shame those who participate in trying to reduce bias into no longer doing so.
On 12/6/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
I found his statements well considered and well written. I did not read it that he was chastising anyone who had not, indeed, demonstrated the very bias and intimidation which has led to this discussion. The only "tone" I saw was not turning a blind eye to the hostile actions of others - and this, more than anything else, can help to shame those who participate in such activities into no longer doing so - and the problem goes away - which is, after all, the ultimate goal is it not?
-kc-
Kat Walsh wrote:
On 12/6/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Allow me to briefly put my gender privilege to good use
I wish that you had. Instead, some of your antagonism and rhetoric were only pouring gasoline on the discussion, and your characterization of the positions taken by those you've singled out seems at best mistaken. Casting those you see as your opponents in an unfairly negative light damages your own side and your own credibility.
The question of whether a single-sex list is 1) needed and 2) appropriate for Wikimedia to host is a valid one. For discussion by everyone. Its existence does *not* affect only the women; it affects the whole community. (Those women who would at the present time like to discuss the issue in a more private forum can do so -- and have done so.) So I would like to hear discussion from everyone it affects, including you -- but if you're not going to raise the tone of that open discussion, don't join it. Which applies to everyone, including several others in the many spawned threads, but particularly those who would otherwise claim to value respectful discourse and consideration of others' needs.
-Kat
-- "I am not a pretty girl / that is not what I do / I ain't no damsel in distress / and I don't need to be rescued / so put me down punk" - Ani DiFranco, "Not A Pretty Girl" _______________________________________________ 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
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/6/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
Apology and clarification much appreciated. This is at the heart of the issue, I think - many men are intimidating without realizing they are doing so. They even "turn the tables" in their heads - "would I be intimidated if someone did that?" decide the answer is no, its not intimidating - yet that does not help, it is not germane. Because they are not a women wondering if its intimidating.
-kc-
"and *some *decide the answer is no" I would have accepted.
The Cunctator wrote:
I'm sorry you think I was being intimidating. My goal is certainly not
to
shame those who participate in trying to reduce bias into no longer
doing
so.
On 12/6/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
I found his statements well considered and well written. I did not read it that he was chastising anyone who had not, indeed, demonstrated the very bias and intimidation which has led to this discussion. The only "tone" I saw was not turning a blind eye to the hostile actions of others - and this, more than anything else, can help to shame those who participate in such activities into no longer doing so - and the
problem
goes away - which is, after all, the ultimate goal is it not?
-kc-
Kat Walsh wrote:
On 12/6/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Allow me to briefly put my gender privilege to good use
I wish that you had. Instead, some of your antagonism and rhetoric were only pouring gasoline on the discussion, and your characterization of the positions taken by those you've singled out seems at best mistaken. Casting those you see as your opponents in an unfairly negative light damages your own side and your own credibility.
The question of whether a single-sex list is 1) needed and 2) appropriate for Wikimedia to host is a valid one. For discussion by everyone. Its existence does *not* affect only the women; it affects the whole community. (Those women who would at the present time like to discuss the issue in a more private forum can do so -- and have done so.) So I would like to hear discussion from everyone it affects, including you -- but if you're not going to raise the tone of that open discussion, don't join it. Which applies to everyone, including several others in the many spawned threads, but particularly those who would otherwise claim to value respectful discourse and consideration of others' needs.
-Kat
-- "I am not a pretty girl / that is not what I do / I ain't no damsel in distress / and I don't need to be rescued / so put me down punk" - Ani DiFranco, "Not A Pretty Girl" _______________________________________________ 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
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
Jim Schuler wrote:
On 12/6/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
Apology and clarification much appreciated. This is at the heart of the issue, I think - many men are intimidating without realizing they are doing so. They even "turn the tables" in their heads - "would I be intimidated if someone did that?" decide the answer is no, its not intimidating - yet that does not help, it is not germane. Because they are not a women wondering if its intimidating.
-kc-
"and *some *decide the answer is no" I would have accepted.
As I had qualified with "many men" I did not see the need for a further qualifier. I apologize if my post read that I was making a statement about all, or most, men.
-kc-
On 12/6/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
Jim Schuler wrote:
On 12/6/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
Apology and clarification much appreciated. This is at the heart of the issue, I think - many men are intimidating without realizing they are doing so. They even "turn the tables" in their heads - "would I be intimidated if someone did that?" decide the answer is no, its not intimidating - yet that does not help, it is not germane. Because they are not a women wondering if its intimidating.
-kc-
"and *some *decide the answer is no" I would have accepted.
As I had qualified with "many men" I did not see the need for a further qualifier, I apologize if my post read that I was making a statement about all, or most, men.
-kc-
The many carries over as it's the only qualifier, thus the statement becomes that *all* men who turn the tables decide that it isn't intimidating. Yes, I'm being picky.
Jim Schuler wrote:
On 12/6/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
Jim Schuler wrote:
On 12/6/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
Apology and clarification much appreciated. This is at the heart of the issue, I think - many men are intimidating without realizing they are doing so. They even "turn the tables" in their heads - "would I be intimidated if someone did that?" decide the answer is no, its not intimidating - yet that does not help, it is not germane. Because they are not a women wondering if its intimidating.
-kc-
"and *some *decide the answer is no" I would have accepted.
As I had qualified with "many men" I did not see the need for a further qualifier, I apologize if my post read that I was making a statement about all, or most, men.
-kc-
The many carries over as it's the only qualifier, thus the statement becomes that *all* men who turn the tables decide that it isn't intimidating. Yes, I'm being picky.
I intended the many to carry over, but to mean that many men consider and thus decide - not that all men who consider thus decide. Again, I apologise for being unclear.
-kc-
--- Puppy puppy@KillerChihuahua.com wrote:
I found his statements well considered and well written.
I didn't.
it can help to shame those who participate in such activities into no longer doing so - and the problem goes away
So in response to an environment where women feel uncomfortable about posting because men may disagree with them, you would have it that men cannot disagree with women over gender issues without running the risk of being flamed and shamed? I don't believe that would result in the problem going away.
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
On 12/6/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
--- Puppy puppy@KillerChihuahua.com wrote:
I found his statements well considered and well written.
I didn't.
it can help to shame those who participate in such activities into no longer doing so - and the problem goes away
So in response to an environment where women feel uncomfortable about posting because men may disagree with them, you would have it that men cannot disagree with women over gender issues without running the risk of being flamed and shamed? I don't believe that would result in the problem going away.
I think you're misunderstanding what Puppy said -- there was some ambiguity about antecedents.
Matt R wrote:
<snip> So in response to an environment where women feel uncomfortable about posting because men may disagree with them, you would have it that men cannot disagree with women over gender issues without running the risk of being flamed and shamed? I don't believe that would result in the problem going away.
-- Matt
I have no idea where you got the idea that is my position. It is completely opposite of my position. -kc-
On Dec 6, 2006, at 10:49 AM, Kat Walsh wrote:
The question of whether a single-sex list is 1) needed and 2) appropriate for Wikimedia to host is a valid one. For discussion by everyone. Its existence does *not* affect only the women; it affects the whole community. (Those women who would at the present time like to discuss the issue in a more private forum can do so -- and have done so.) So I would like to hear discussion from everyone it affects, including you -- but if you're not going to raise the tone of that open discussion, don't join it. Which applies to everyone, including several others in the many spawned threads, but particularly those who would otherwise claim to value respectful discourse and consideration of others' needs.
-Kat
I think this should be up to the women who feel there is a need. I support hosting if a significant number of women want it. Whether it has value can be determined by participation and outcome. That is an experiential thing. Such groups provide an opportunity for gossip and backbiting, but so do a host of other venues. It is up to the women who participate to weigh the negative as well as the positive outcomes. One positive aspect might be development of the confidence to appropriately assert yourself, should anyone feel reluctant or unable to.
Fred
I cannot begin to say how much I hate everything about this WikiChix - there is no need for it and it will merely cause further problems.
~~~~ Violet/Riga