[Gendergap] Hello and a (small!) manifesto
jayen466 at yahoo.com
Mon Feb 7 22:57:17 UTC 2011
--- 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
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
More information about the Gendergap