[Gendergap] Drama issue ... not my experience

Thu Feb 3 20:40:37 UTC 2011

I asked what AN/I was!

:)  And we still won a Barnstar, even if I didn't know anything about 
Wikipedia history. I think I was the most un-informed editor in that room.

I do get turned off by jerky editors. I've complained about run-ins with 
some people who seem like they are trying to make up for something, and 
yeah, most of them are guys. I hate fighting, I hate vicious arguments, 
and I really dislike when I ask people to explain things and they talk 
down to me like a child. It seems a common thing in the "computer tech" 
world, from my personal experience, and it seems to flow over into WP. 
I'm not on Wikipedia to fight about things, I'm here to learn things, 
explore, educate others and use the platform to utilize the research 
that I'm doing.

I totally empathize with those who believe Wikipedia is a combative 
environment. I ceased doing any edits until I was asked about working 
with the Public Art team, who continue to this day to work closely with 
myself and one another to work towards our common goals, even if it's 
often a bumpy road.  I had no desire to be a part of a "Boys club" and 
knowing that I was working with two great women, and a really great man, 
made me want to dive back in.

Many organizations offer classes on tolerance and cultural differences, 
perhaps we need one about gender gaps! Ha!

On 2/3/2011 3:21 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case wrote:
>> When I entered Wikipedia, I discovered a side of the internet I had
>> never encountered before, and intend never to encounter again; it's a
>> menacing and combative atmosphere that is extremely aversive to me.  I
>> recently read somewhere that Wikipedia regulars, as a rule, come from
>> usenet or from gaming, where that kind of atmosphere is apparently an
>> integral and desired part of the experience (I wouldn't know, having
>> no experience with either), and have brought that atmosphere to
>> Wikipedia.  As long as that atmosphere characterizes Wikipedia, it is
>> going to drive away anyone who doesn't thrive on that kind of
>> pugnacious taunting get-the-enemy-before-he-gets-you kind of attitude,
>> and I suspect a lot of women would be included in those who don't
>> thrive in that kind of environment.
> I'm not singling your post out, Ism, but just quoting this as an example of
> a theme I've seen in other posts here and on the Times' discussions.
>
> This is so *not* the Wikipedia I've been actively involved in for six years
> now. I allow that it exists for some people; I've never been one. I have had
> some intemperate moments in discussions and differences of opinion with
> other editors over article content or policy issues, but I have always kept
> our civility and no-personal-attacks policies in mind and have done my best
> to remain collegial. And by and large I've felt the same reciprocated by
> almost all the other editors involved.
>
> I venture to suggest that perhaps this is because what I'm most interested
> in doing, and what I put a great deal of effort into, is creating,
> maintaining and improving content. When I hear (or rather, read) editors who
> complain about this, it's almost a given that you can look at their contrib
> histories and see very little in the way of recent edits to article
> namespace, and of those even fewer that aren't related to talk-page or
> policy-page discussions they were devoting most of their energy to.
>
> Now, there are some people who are good at online conflict resolution, and
> they should not be discouraged from this type of editing. But there are
> plenty of other editors who let themselves get sucked into long discussions
> on AN/I or elsewhere that have little to do with them directly when they
> really ought to be doing what they came to Wikipedia to do. And I also grant
> that I don't regularly edit in any topic areas, such as those mirroring
> real-life ethnic or political conflicts, that have been notably rancorous.
>
> That said, I recall at WikiXDC a couple of weekends ago one of my best
> Wikipedia moments ever. During the trivia contest at the end, one question
> was "This page, the largest one on the project, takes up an entire gigabyte
> when all of its archives are included." The answer, of course, is AN/I. When
> that was announced, someone near me, a longtime member of the community and
> active editor whom I'd not met or even known of before the event, asked
> "What's AN/I?"
>
> I wish we had a hundred highly active editors who had to ask that question.
> A thousand, even.
>
> And so to bring this back to the gendergap subject, I would pass along my
> observation that I have noticed in most of the female editors I am
> acquainted with who've been part of the project for a long time is that
> they, too, have concentrated primarily on the content areas they've been
> interested in and seem to keep the drama to a minimum.
>
> Daniel Case
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>

-- 
Sarah Stierch Consulting
Historical, cultural & artistic research, advising & event planning.
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sarahstierch.com/ <http://www.sarahstierch.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/attachments/20110203/4c88afc4/attachment.htm 