[Gendergap] Kelly Wearstler, again...

[Audrey Cormier]

I don't think an Admin should get any more weight as any other editor working on writing an article when they are contributing to it in an editor role (like POV-pushing over an info box, to demonstrate the high esteem in which they place pretty breasts). If they keep overriding other editors when the consensus is going against them, then why not complain to another Admin about their behaviour and have them sanctioned for it?  The Admins are not above the rules, and it should be pointed out to them more often by regular editors when they decide to act like assclowns.

I have the impression that a lot of the bias problems, whether sexism, elitism, racism, etc., whatever the expression of the bias, a lot of the time the root problem is all about inflated egos. "Little tin god" syndrome. Some people contributing to Wikipedia set themselves up to be an "expert" on a topic, say Widgets. It doesn't matter that they are really not a world expert on Widgets; they will shout down anyone else who challenges their POV or their perception of themselves as World's Foremost Authority on All Things Widget-Related Because They Control the Wikipedia Article on It and Therefore Influence All Global Knowledge On Widgets.... Sadly, as long as they can succeed at shouting down other contributors by abusing the system (using WP red tape and bureaucracy to their advantage), they are in fact kind of the owner of the WP article in Widgets, and in practical terms, they do have an overly weighty influence over world knowledge of "widgets". I'd
 like to see the WP red tape streamlined, for sure...

When it comes to writing an article on anything that might be perceived as less important to the male-dominated WP editing community than say Human Penis Size (one of Wikipedia's most-read articles), I take a few steps to try to make it less justifiable for any jerks to try to have it deleted. My main tactic is quantifying the subject as much as possible.  A lot of guys think in terms of "How long? How many? How often? How far?"  So, give lots of numbers: she earns $XXXXXX a year, the movie was seen by XX million people, the book was on the NY Times bestseller list for XX weeks, the song was Number 1 on Billboard for XX weeks, she increased sales by XX% last year, she has businesses in XX countries, she sold XXXXX units this year, etc., and cited the numbers properly with reliable sources. I know it's a double standard in demanding more extensive "justification" for a women's topic (or a minority topic, or a global south topic, etc.), but some people
 are idiots, that's just the way it is. Another good tactic is to include an official institution of any kind as a source of info on the subject -- is it possible to connect the article in any way to a museum exhibit? Or a university course, publication, etc.? Has the woman ever spoken at a large conference, or has the topic been the subject of a conference or lecture somewhere? Has the woman been cited as a possible expert source by another writer, in a book, newspaper article, interview, documentary, TV program, etc. (which would make them notable)?

Hth...

Audrey
OttawaAC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/attachments/20111201/d537b1d2/attachment-0001.htm