?? I appreciate your understanding of and empathy with my experience, and thanks for that, but not sure what to make of the rest of it.
I don't think this has anything to do with being easily intimidated. I don't think anyone who knows me IRL would say I'm easily intimidated. I once faced down a man with a gun who was threatening to kill a friend of mine, and got him to put the gun away. I once, in a meeting room in Washington DC, faced down a panel of political appointees, appointed by the White House, who were intent on making me change the final report of a national study to reflect the agenda of the administration. They said "We want the report to say x." I said, "Our data don't support x." They said, "Have the courage to go beyond your data!" I stood my ground and the report was published as originally written. I once, when I was being pressured to misrepresent some data to serve an agenda in a different context, not only refused to do so but said I would not remain in the meeting. This presented a problem because the meeting was in a conference room that was too small (the table and the people sitting in chairs along the sides of the table filled the entire room); I was at the farthest end of the table from the door and the people along the sides wouldn't stand up to let me get out. So I took off my high heels, climbed up onto the table and walked the length of the table in my stocking feet and off the other end and out the door. I could tell 20 stories like this, but those should suffice to settle the question of how easily intimidated I am. So while I still don't quite understand what that comment about being easily intimidated was about or who it was directed at, I'm just saying it doesn't seem to have anything to do with me.
As for rationality, yes, battling ignorance is rational, but there are different ways and places to battle ignorance, and when considering which one is likely to be the most productive place to put one's time, one must consider (1) the likelihood of success, (2) the possible consequences and (3) one's level of personal and professional responsibility. For Wikipedia, the numbers don't look good, for me. The likelihood of my making a dent against ignorance by editing Wikipedia is 0%, at least that's the cumulative result from three years of trying. The likelihood of negative consequence in the form of personal harassment and offwiki smear campaign is obviously 100%, since it's already happened, and unlike situations I listed above where I was in a position where I had a clear responsibility to the public and to my reputation for professional integrity to be true to the data, in the case of Wikipedia there is no responsibility or necessity at all for me to edit, no reason to put up with the hassle, no possible gain, just a futile, useless, thankless effort.
I have spent my entire life battling ignorance, and will spend what's left doing the same. But editing Wikipedia does not strike me as a productive place to put my efforts. I keep hoping there won't be further responses requiring clarification, but this is starting to seem like an endless game, and I guess the best way to end it will be to unsubscribe and leave the field. Carry on,
Woonpton
On 2/5/11, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
On 2/4/11, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
To me the obvious answer is keep your head and support others, all the more so when the going gets rough.
Fred
That doesn't seem like the obvious answer to me; to me the obvious answer is to stay the (heck) away. Why would anyone deliberately stick around for this? I can't think of any remotely rational reason why any remotely rational person would do that. I think I've kept my head and supported others, all along, but that hasn't changed the situation; nothing I could do myself would change this situation one iota. If people are polite and congenial and supportive, as I have been, if people are rude and insulting, as some others have been who have fought this battle much longer than I and have grown weary and frustrated, the situation remains the same either way; it's not the behavior of neutral editors that is causing the problem I've encountered.
I came to this list to explain why I don't edit Wikipedia, because I (apparently mistakenly) thought someone here might honestly want to know why one woman has chosen not to edit Wikipedia, but so far mainly what I've got is responses that seem to be suggesting that I'm causing the problem myself somehow-- a problem that's caused, not by me, but by the failure of Wikipedia governance structures to address in any meaningful way the problem of tendentious editing in the service of an agenda-- and that if I would just (fill in the blank with random Wikipedia slogans about being a better Wikipedia editor) then all would be well. It's not true.
Woonpton
Battling ignorance is rational. Raising a small army, as we have, to battle ignorance is also rational.
There is stereotype involved here, as demonstrated in the film High Noon: a brave man fighting evil, a woman who deserts him.
I don't think the stereotype is valid, but having experience with my mother, who was easily intimidated, I know there is some truth to it.
With respect to your experience, as I said, I share it, and have given up from time to time on Wikipedia when it seemed that the ignorant and aggressive were getting the upper hand.
Fred
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap