I'm not willing to fight about so I'll move the list to Wikia, but it's quite upsetting that despite the clear need for this list, Wikimedia are not willing to support it. Perhaps the old Wikimedia WikiChix list can be made into an open but moderated one. Angela. On 12/5/06, florencedevouard <anthere(a)anthere.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikichix-l mailing list Wikichix-l(a)wikia.com http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikichix-l

I knew this subject will end up a huge troll, I knew it.... Puppy wrote: ` For the record, I do not appreciate the implication of your email saying that because the choice is made not to host the list on Wikimedia servers for the peace of our community, that necessarily implies that the women concerns are irrelevant. Since I originally agreed for the opening of that list, and later asked Angela to move it somewhere else, I tend to take your comment very personnally. I understand you are upset, but I still do not appreciate that. So, we have two options. Either a closed list. Or a heavily moderated list. I am not very happy with a closed list, restricted to women. I am not very supportive of positive discrimination. Men and women are different, with different concerns, different sensibilities, different interest, different approaches to things. I have never been of the opinion we should try to be "equal" in everything. I do not think we can be. We are complementing each other. Two parts of a complete piece. We overlap. But we will never be equal. Trying to push things toward an artificial equality will not change that. We need input of both parts and imho, to realise both parts are necessary in the debate. In this, I think the list should not be restricted to women. When the proposal was made to open and heavily moderate the list, Angela comment was quite straight. Very heavy moderation is a good idea. Now, who does it ? Being myself the (very light) moderator of about half a dozen lists, I echo her question. Who will take in charge the heavy moderation ? If you really want women to be safe, you need to approve requests for joining, which means in many cases, you need to know the people. First trap. Either you accept anonymous membership by default and hope all will go well, or you accept only those you know. Which again is discrimination. If you want the women to feel real secure, you need to moderate posts *before* they are posted. Second trap. Are you willing to check all emails before they are posted ? If you are the moderator, how do you judge which comments should be removed and which one kept ? if I wanted to feel *safe*, I would probably delete several emails on this list from the past days, and at least a dozen from wikien on the discussion 2 weeks ago. Do you feel ready to do so for a list on wikimedia servers ? Because as soon as you get the job, you'll have people complaining that you removed this message and not that one. And then, in the name of democratie and equality, you'll find yourself voting on whether to remove a message. or not. I have a memory of such an event on the french wiki pump, maybe a year ago. A clueless visitor had left a honest question. And one of our admin left a very sexist comment/answer there; I was deeply shocked. Very deeply, in particular because the visitor... was just a visitor. I removed the comment. It was immediately restored and I was stormed for several days for having removed the comment. Which was considered censorship. Are you ready to face screams and accusations of censorship for having removed a sexist comment on a wiki ? Are you ready to face screams and accusation of censorship for removing a message containing a sexist comment on the list ? Dunno about you, but me, no more. I choose my fights. I prefer working as best as possible in the Foundation to show that women can perfectly do that. That as long as our specific needs are acknowledged and taken into account (which goes from not bugging us too much when we have our periods, to paying nanny costs of a volunteer mom), we can do just as best, if not better. Wikipedia is plagued by sexism, but at least, it has shown it is an environment where we have a chance to grow and show our own strengths. If you really want that list on wikimedia servers, here is what I recommand you do 1) make it an open list for men and women 2) get the agreement from Eloquence and Jimbo 3) take care of the moderation yourself, do not expect Angela to do it :-) If you do that yourself, you are a winner. anthere No. I don't think so. Its a pity this > was not discussed in any greater detail, rather than being (like so many > of the concerns which *led* to this list) being summarily dismissed. I > also find it telling that the /women's/ concerns were ridiculed and > dismissed as invalid, yet the /men's/ concerns led to almost immediate > action. How sadly typical. > >

Puppy wrote: I was the one who agreed for the list to be open. But also the one who asked for it to be moved somewhere else. So, practically speaking, I "tossed the women from the island".

Speaking of moderation. I am receiving the chix list from wikia, but my posts there are apparently moderated (I can prove my gender if necessary). I am sorry that I depress Brianna. It is a daily amazement to me that people can spend so many mails over a chick issue, and not even one comment on fundraising or budget. Sorry kc, just not the same priorities.

On 12/5/06, Puppy <puppy(a)killerchihuahua.com> wrote: I don't think the concerns are irrelevant at all, but I don't see how not allowing me to learn about the concerns will help solve them. In other words, I don't see how blocking this information off in a closed list, which I am not allowed to read because I have the wrong genitals will further the cause of helping us get more woman contributors. Judson [[User:Cohesion]]

On 12/5/06, Puppy <puppy(a)killerchihuahua.com> wrote: I don't think you would have nearly the negative reaction if you started a WikipediaWomen-l that was open, and had the stated mission that it was to discuss solutions to gender bias on wikipedia. Not to discuss whether there *was* gender bias, but solutions. If people wanted to flame on about how no one feels excluded based on gender, moderate them, it's obviously untrue anyway. We are discussing two things it seems like. A list about gender bias, and a closed list. I don't think that many people are opposed to a list about gender bias, some are of course, but a small minority. Many people are concerned about a closed group. I would rather this be on wikimedia servers if it is open, this is a real issue, and I for one would like to learn more about it. Judson [[en:User:Cohesion]]

cohesion wrote: I concur. I also respect that some women feel that having a "safe place" to discuss issues would be helpful to them. There has been much ridicule on this list, and the en list, concerning the hostile atmosphere towards women, which would seem to underscore their concerns. Why bring up an issue when a large number of men will respond "There's no problem! You're just too sensitive!" and dismiss their concerns? -kc- _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Anthere, Any of these lists which are troublesome or sites wikimedia feels are too hot to handle are welcome at my server complex, if this will assist the foundation. It sounds like Angela is taking over this list, however, in the future, I am always happy to assist the foundation in hosting some of these more controversial topics. Jeff

Anthere, Any of these lists which are troublesome or sites wikimedia feels are too hot to handle are welcome at my server complex, if this will assist the foundation. It sounds like Angela is taking over this list, however, in the future, I am always happy to assist the foundation in hosting some of these more controversial topics. Jeff _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Nope, this is foundation-l, a general foundation list. Bryan On 12/5/06, Erica Flynn <fangaili(a)gmail.com> wrote: like _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 05/12/06, Angela <beesley(a)gmail.com> wrote: I don't want to speak for anyone else, but many of the objectors (me included) seemed to support an open-to-all moderated list on the Wikimedia servers.

As did I. However, strong points have been made in favor of a women's only list, and reinforced by the unbelievable hostility and trolling which this whole issue has received on the en and foundation lists.

http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/011864.html

2006/12/5, Puppy <puppy(a)killerchihuahua.com>om>: Having a worried opinion is a trolling? If you're used to label as troll everyone who has an opinion different than yours, then it's useless to continue this discussion. Gatto Nero / Claudio _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

--- Puppy <puppy(a)KillerChihuahua.com> wrote: kc, it's entirely not clear, but from the immediate context of the thread it seems you're saying that all those responses you quoted are examples of trolling. Disagreement or failure to see a problem isn't trolling. If the WikiChix are going to have an impact on Wikipedia at large, one of the things they're going to have to do is talk to men about it at some point. And in doing that, they're going to have to be willing to give evidence to those who can't see a problem and otherwise respectfully interact with people who disagree. -- Matt Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com ___________________________________________________________ Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

It is not necessarily their aim to address you or all men.

When you fail to grasp the examples of this problem as they are presented, the amount of traffic that this topic generates might serve as an indicator that there is an issue for many that needs to be addressed.

2006/12/5, Puppy <puppy(a)killerchihuahua.com>om>: this and not believe be worse than you announcement of wikichix's These comments show that there's people who don't think a women-only channel is necessary. Somehow I don't see how that is a proof that it *is* necessary.... -- Andre Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels _______________________________________________

Had they all been actually discussing how to address gender bias in what they felt were more constructive ways, I would be more inclined to agree with you.

the problem itself, and you are enforcing the perception of the women who feel this list is necessary in order to /discuss/ bias rather than /prove to a man's satisfaction that they feel discriminated against/, I cannot possibly support your assertion.

the fence about this issue. I am not, however, dismissing it out-of-hand because men don't see that it might help, or that there is a problem to be addressed.

It was about a solution to women not being comfortable on WP due to bias. Whether that solution is a good one or not was /not/ being addressed.

So why are you dismissing it? I think "it doesn't help" is the best ground I didn't dismiss it. That's what "firmly on the fence" means - that I do not support nor oppose it, and am still considering the concept. And I have yet to see any reason why it would not help. I have reasons why it would, and I have seen concerns that it might hurt the project in other ways, but I have not seen any reason given that it would not help.

From what I read below, we are in agreement - yet many women feel it would be beneficial to have somewhere to discuss bias where they do not have to worry about immediately being attacked for even bringing up the bias issue. That is not, as yet, here.

2006/12/5, Puppy <puppy(a)killerchihuahua.com>om>: many women feel it bias where they do not even bringing up the I don't see any indication that people get attacked for bringing up the issue. I don't see much attacking going on, although the discussion isn't as civil as it should be either - from both sides. But if you see everyone who has doubts about the extent of sexism in Wikipedia as attacking you for bringing it forward, you are indeed too thin-skinned. Why not see those as requests for information instead? You know what's attacking? Attacking is what I did to my furniture about an hour ago :-( -- Andre Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels

That last remark was made jokingly.

One of my deep sorrow and worriness on this mailinglist is I need to bear full of swears and sexism even if subtle if I would like to follow the discussion. It makes me feel there no serious discussion without mocking is possible. A discusssion place without such people, heuristically males, could be a solution for such discouragement. On 12/6/06, Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com> wrote: of -- KIZU Naoko Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org * Nessuna poesia prima di noi * _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2006/12/5, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com>om>: And that from the person who talks about people attacking... Fuck off yourself. -- Andre Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2006/12/5, Puppy <puppy(a)killerchihuahua.com>om>: I don't see any indication that people get attacked for bringing up the issue. I don't see much attacking going on, although the discussion isn't as civil as it should be either - from both sides. But if you see everyone who has doubts about the extent of sexism in Wikipedia as attacking you for bringing it forward, you are indeed too thin-skinned. Why not see those as requests for information instead?

In fact, would you have said "as attacking *you* " if you had thought I was a man?

2006/12/5, Puppy <puppy(a)killerchihuahua.com>om>: Of course. I rarely let people's gender influence my judgement on Wikipedia, though it might inadvertedly happen elsewhere, because there's so many people where I can't be sure of their gender anyway.

> >

>>> From what I read below, we are in agreement - yet many women feel it >>> would be beneficial to have somewhere to discuss bias where they do not >>> have to worry about immediately being attacked for even bringing up the >>> bias issue. That is not, as yet, here.

2006/12/5, Puppy <puppy(a)killerchihuahua.com>om>: Well, simply speaking, the way *I* read this, is that you feel that either you or someone else has been attacked because they brought up the issue. Of course, I cannot judge whether you are being hurt by it, but if you do not feel that there have been attacks, I don't see why you would consider such a worry.

2006/12/5, Puppy <puppy(a)killerchihuahua.com>om>: Well, I felt it was, but maybe it just means I and others have not been clear in our arguments. I think it would be a very bad solution, because it would not help one iota. If we want to make Wikipedia more woman-friendly, then Wikipedia is the place to work. That might sound like a triviality, but someone who finds Wikipedia an unhospitable place for them, will still find it unhospitable if there is a small secluded corner to talk with others of the same feeling.

You are truly clueless if you think what I'm calling "trolling" is a difference of opinion.

I read the following:

-- -- as ridiculing the idea, comparing a list for women (not WikiBitches, not WikiWhores, not WikiCunts, not some derogatory term) with your intentionally offensive terms for blacks and gays.

This has the result of implying that women who perceive the need for this list are "less than" - as calling a black person a "nigger" implies he or she is "less than" and so underlines the bias and bigotry.

This is trolling.

The "Oh. My. God." is clearly expressing contempt for the idea.

This is trolling.

A clearly reasoned statement, such as Bryan Tong Minh's post: --

-- is a disagreement without being trolling. Do you see the difference? Or am I being unclear?

Fair enough?

I'm not willing to fight about so I'll move the list to Wikia, but it's quite upsetting that despite the clear need for this list, Wikimedia are not willing to support it.