[Gendergap] Hello and a (small!) manifesto

[Andreas Kolbe]

--- On Mon, 7/2/11, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:
> From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>
> Not saying anything about what you think is a serious issue
> is passive
> aggression, saving up issues while neglecting to give
> notice that there
> is a problem.

I have given notice that I perceive there to be a problem on-Wiki many 
times, and the reply has always been the same: Wikipedia is not censored. 

The suggestion that our editorial judgment with respect to illustration 
should reflect and be based on the judgment our sources exercise in that
regard has not gone down well. We are all agreed that when it comes to
text content, we must follow sources. When it comes to images, however, the
community claims the freedom to apply its own ("OR") standards, which 
naturally reflect our skewed demographics.
 
> Wikiproject? Yes, go do it, tell us where you put it.
> Although perhaps a
> bit of discussion about the exact nature of the project
> might be in
> order.

Perhaps WikiProject:Gender_neutrality. But I agree there should be extensive
discussion first. I am not sure whether this should be an en:WP project, or be located somewhere else like Meta. Some of the problems in WP are 
imported from Commons: people will often argue that what is available in 
Commons should be used, and what is not available in Commons can't be used.

So if it just so happens that there are only hogtie bondage images of 
women, then, the reasoning goes, those images that are there should be used, 
because Wikipedia is not censored, but images of men just aren't available,
sorry, and therefore can't be used. 

A gender neutrality project could look at systemic bias in Wikimedia's 
coverage, be it biographies or images of nudity, and do work to ensure that
the female POV is given equal weight to the male POV, males' numeric 
preponderance notwithstanding. This would be quite a revolutionary 
undertaking, because it would mean that in some way women editors' views 
should be given greater weight than male editors' views, to make up for the 
numerical imbalance. Starting a discussion on such a proposal might be quite 
instructive to gauge underlying community attitudes.

Has there been any further progress with the work group looking at the 
recommendations from the Study of Controversial Content? There is some
overlap.

Andreas