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.

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.

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?

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?").

On 12/4/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> 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 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.

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 ;-).

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,

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.

Gregory Maxwell wrote: Wow. You're either with us or against us. Shun the unbelievers. Way to be inclusive there, Greg.

I can see that this new list will be separate, but will it be equal?

--- Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> 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. -- 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(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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.

On 04/12/06, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: 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.

Honestly, I think I am being discriminated against in this community because my patience for endless bickering is thin.

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.

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.

Puppy 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.

This is not discrimination. Unless you consider allowing 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.

The Cunctator wrote: What, are you saying I'm fat?? (note, not actually offended on this one :)

On 12/5/06, niht-hræfn <nihthraefn(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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?

On Dec 5, 2006, at 11:55, Bryan Derksen wrote: 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.

niht-hræfn 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. Guys don't like being called fat either, you know.

The Cunctator wrote: I nothing What, are you saying I'm fat?? (note, not actually offended on this one :)

Bryan Derksen wrote: 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 Shebs wrote: 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.

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

The Cunctator wrote: Why not?

On 12/4/06, Puppy <puppy(a)killerchihuahua.com> wrote: 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, Puppy <puppy(a)killerchihuahua.com> wrote: 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(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 12/4/06, Angela <beesley(a)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.

On 12/5/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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.

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

On Dec 6, 2006, at 12:25 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: 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(a)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(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 12/6/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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(a)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(a)killerchihuahua.com> wrote: _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 12/6/06, Puppy <puppy(a)killerchihuahua.com> wrote: "and *some *decide the answer is no" I would have accepted.

On 12/6/06, Puppy <puppy(a)killerchihuahua.com> wrote: 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.

--- Puppy <puppy(a)KillerChihuahua.com> wrote: I didn't. 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.

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