[Gendergap] Women4Wikipdeia
Collective Action
collective_action at hotmail.com
Fri Feb 18 02:56:15 UTC 2011
If 85% of Wikipedians were women I don't think there'd be quite as much porn on there. ;-) I think there is also an age bias among Wikipedia contributors (according to the research) and I think this does bias tone of the site along with gender. However I'm more about getting women editing Wikipedia than pondering the sociological questions (despite my degree in sociology!).
I guess it was the sociologist in me that asked the question about what the resource would look like if the gender stats were reversed but there may well also be differences if the average age of contributors were different.
regards
Rosie Williams
http://collectiveaction.com.au
@collectiveact
> From: gendergap-request at lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Gendergap Digest, Vol 1, Issue 96
> To: gendergap at lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 00:20:21 +0000
>
> Send Gendergap mailing list submissions to
> gendergap at lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> gendergap-request at lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> gendergap-owner at lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Gendergap digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Women4Wikipedia (Oliver Keyes)
> 2. Re: PZ Myers takes on the gendergap (wrt atheism) (Sandra)
> 3. Re: PZ Myers takes on the gendergap (wrt atheism) (Ism Woonpton)
> 4. Re: Implications and solutions... Hardcore images essay -
> HELP! (Carol Moore in DC)
> 5. Re: PZ Myers takes on the gendergap (wrt atheism) (Sandra)
> 6. A proposal (Oliver Keyes)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 22:13:54 +0000
> From: Oliver Keyes <scire.facias at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Women4Wikipedia
> To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
> <gendergap at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTinHPkkRVhivV0qx1-tVBKJWOstOBryYFrE-wqpY at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> It depends. I don't think you can generalise and say that gender is the
> distinction here; rather, it's a distinction of interests and norms. I
> recommend http://www.mindspillage.org/wiki/Women_on_Wikipedia as a good
> read. " the culture is not biased against women, but rather biased toward
> certain traits and against others--and that generally men are more likely to
> be in the group whose characteristics are more accepted"; in other words, we
> could have an identical culture if 85 percent of the editors were female,
> they'd just be a very specific subset of women.
>
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Collective Action <
> collective_action at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It has occurred to me to wonder what Wikipedia would look like if 85% of
> > its editors were female?
> >
> >
> > regards
> > Rosie Williams
> > http://women4wikipedia
> > @collectiveact
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gendergap mailing list
> > Gendergap at lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> >
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/attachments/20110217/bedc4e7c/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 18:24:33 -0500
> From: Sandra <sandratordonez at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] PZ Myers takes on the gendergap (wrt atheism)
> To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
> <gendergap at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <A0AA00BB-8656-4A25-9AC5-F741DE0CBE55 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I couldn't agree with this statement more. I think that even of this list, w have been seeing a little bit of this phenomena. Diversity of opinion is great but maybe some of us (me included) could lurk a bit and give new people more of an incentive to talk.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:57 PM, ChaoticFluffy <chaoticfluffy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I know PZ and his atheism might not be to everyone's taste, but apparently atheist organizations are also struggling with a gender gap. He made a post on his blog yesterday that really resonated with me. The full post is here, but what really resonates with me is this bit:
> >
> > "You want women to find your organization pleasant and interesting and worth contributing to? Then don't form panels full of men trying to figure out what women want, talking over women who try to get a word in edgewise, belittling women's suggestions with jokes, and trying to determine how We Well-Meaning Men can give Those Women what we think they want."
> >
> > Listen to the women instead of talking over them, guys. Seriously.
> >
> > -fluff
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gendergap mailing list
> > Gendergap at lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/attachments/20110217/f882d4de/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 15:57:49 -0800
> From: Ism Woonpton <woonpton at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] PZ Myers takes on the gendergap (wrt atheism)
> To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
> <gendergap at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTimQatSxqL_05igtqNXVyFxf_xo1aHHaTZK18cuN at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Thanks, I really appreciated that. I wouldn't say "even of this list"
> Sandra, I would say "especially of this list," because after all this
> list is supposed to be about how to get more women to participate, so
> it's especially annoying for women to be talked down here. I do think
> it's gotten better; lately I've seen more women participating and
> coming up with interesting ideas and being listened to, and less men
> explaining it all to us. But earlier, when I shared my experiences as
> an editor on Wikipedia, it was pretty hard going. First I was told
> that obviously I must be somehow provoking the conflict I was
> encountering by being uncivil somehow, and when I established that
> wasn't the case, then it went the other way and it must be that I'm
> too easily intimidated. Someone (a man, in all these cases) even said
> that it was like High Noon, the brave man being abandoned by his woman
> while he fights evil alone. If they couldn't make it my fault one
> way, and make it stick, they'd make it my fault some other way; the
> main thing was it had to be my fault that I was finding the editing
> environment unpleasant and aversive.
>
> My sister, the dean of sciences at a university, read some of that and
> said, "If anyone really wanted to know why women don't edit Wikipedia,
> all they'd have to do is read this conversation."
>
> Woonpton
>
> On 2/17/11, Sandra <sandratordonez at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I couldn't agree with this statement more. I think that even of this list,
> > w have been seeing a little bit of this phenomena. Diversity of opinion is
> > great but maybe some of us (me included) could lurk a bit and give new
> > people more of an incentive to talk.
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:57 PM, ChaoticFluffy <chaoticfluffy at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I know PZ and his atheism might not be to everyone's taste, but apparently
> >> atheist organizations are also struggling with a gender gap. He made a
> >> post on his blog yesterday that really resonated with me. The full post is
> >> here, but what really resonates with me is this bit:
> >>
> >> "You want women to find your organization pleasant and interesting and
> >> worth contributing to? Then don't form panels full of men trying to figure
> >> out what women want, talking over women who try to get a word in edgewise,
> >> belittling women's suggestions with jokes, and trying to determine how We
> >> Well-Meaning Men can give Those Women what we think they want."
> >>
> >> Listen to the women instead of talking over them, guys. Seriously.
> >>
> >> -fluff
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Gendergap mailing list
> >> Gendergap at lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 19:05:41 -0500
> From: Carol Moore in DC <contactme at carolmoore.net>
> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Implications and solutions... Hardcore images
> essay - HELP!
> To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
> <gendergap at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <4D5DB7D5.80504 at carolmoore.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> While I had a problem with general discussion of the topic, once I got
> to Bukkake article, a term I never had heard of before, I could easily
> see the problem and that there are needed solutions both to make it
> inviting to women and to discourage any kind of sexism related to
> extensive editng of these articles. (After looking at a dozen of these
> articles in last couple days I noticed I've had run ins on other types
> of articles with a few of the editors that were uncomfortable.)
>
> First, note that Bukkake is an example of the infamous "circle jerk" (a
> notable male only activity with lots of WP:RS) but not only is there *no
> article about it,* but the term forwarded to an article about people
> masturbating each other - not even accurate.
>
> And of course Gay Bukkake which I just searched and has WP:RS isn't
> mentioned. So instead of two similar graphics of a woman being the
> object, they obviously need one with a man being the object. The
> "snowballing" article, something else new to me similarly showed two
> women doing it, even though overwhelmingly it is gay men and
> heterosexual couples doing it. All that just shows quite a bit of sexist
> and even homophobic POV.
>
> Anyway, more females and gay males (another under-represented here?)
> willing to deal with these POVs would help. Plus two suggestions below.
>
> Also, admin wise, maybe Sexual Content needs its own ANI do it doesn't
> freak out all the people who don't want to hear about it.
>
>
> On 2/17/2011 1:15 PM, Brandon Harris wrote:
> > It's absolutely possible to deal with this by simply following the
> > principle of "least surprise".
> >
> > In this specific case, the problem could easily have been avoided by:
> >
> > a) Moving "Bukkake" to "Bukkake (Sexual Act)"
> > b) Making the "Bukkake" page a disambiguation page with a pointer to
> > "Udon" and one to the sexual activity.
> --- On *Thu, 17/2/11, Ryan Kaldari /<rkaldari at wikimedia.org>/*wrote:
> Yep, try
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:People_using_vacuum_cleaners
>
> So do we all agree that the Principle of Least Astonishment needs to be
> encoded into some kind of policy or guideline? In other words, images
> with a sexual context should only appear in articles/categories that
> also have a sexual context. Otherwise, Wikipedia naturally tends towards
> an editorial policy dictated by 20-year-old single white males who see
> no problem with keeping pictures of naked women in every corner of
> Wikipedia and Commons.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/attachments/20110217/bd1b28d5/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 19:09:55 -0500
> From: Sandra <sandratordonez at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] PZ Myers takes on the gendergap (wrt atheism)
> To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
> <gendergap at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <C00A9865-BD7A-47EB-AB24-ECDF34B11291 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> You are absoluetly correct. I was trying to be diplomatic - but yes I too was getting annoyed at the tone being used to address experiences women were sharing and the fact that more men than women seem to be participating....but I agree it seems to be getting better, and the convos more fruitful.
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 6:57 PM, Ism Woonpton <woonpton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks, I really appreciated that. I wouldn't say "even of this list"
> > Sandra, I would say "especially of this list," because after all this
> > list is supposed to be about how to get more women to participate, so
> > it's especially annoying for women to be talked down here. I do think
> > it's gotten better; lately I've seen more women participating and
> > coming up with interesting ideas and being listened to, and less men
> > explaining it all to us. But earlier, when I shared my experiences as
> > an editor on Wikipedia, it was pretty hard going. First I was told
> > that obviously I must be somehow provoking the conflict I was
> > encountering by being uncivil somehow, and when I established that
> > wasn't the case, then it went the other way and it must be that I'm
> > too easily intimidated. Someone (a man, in all these cases) even said
> > that it was like High Noon, the brave man being abandoned by his woman
> > while he fights evil alone. If they couldn't make it my fault one
> > way, and make it stick, they'd make it my fault some other way; the
> > main thing was it had to be my fault that I was finding the editing
> > environment unpleasant and aversive.
> >
> > My sister, the dean of sciences at a university, read some of that and
> > said, "If anyone really wanted to know why women don't edit Wikipedia,
> > all they'd have to do is read this conversation."
> >
> > Woonpton
> >
> > On 2/17/11, Sandra <sandratordonez at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I couldn't agree with this statement more. I think that even of this list,
> >> w have been seeing a little bit of this phenomena. Diversity of opinion is
> >> great but maybe some of us (me included) could lurk a bit and give new
> >> people more of an incentive to talk.
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >> On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:57 PM, ChaoticFluffy <chaoticfluffy at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I know PZ and his atheism might not be to everyone's taste, but apparently
> >>> atheist organizations are also struggling with a gender gap. He made a
> >>> post on his blog yesterday that really resonated with me. The full post is
> >>> here, but what really resonates with me is this bit:
> >>>
> >>> "You want women to find your organization pleasant and interesting and
> >>> worth contributing to? Then don't form panels full of men trying to figure
> >>> out what women want, talking over women who try to get a word in edgewise,
> >>> belittling women's suggestions with jokes, and trying to determine how We
> >>> Well-Meaning Men can give Those Women what we think they want."
> >>>
> >>> Listen to the women instead of talking over them, guys. Seriously.
> >>>
> >>> -fluff
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Gendergap mailing list
> >>> Gendergap at lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gendergap mailing list
> > Gendergap at lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 00:20:18 +0000
> From: Oliver Keyes <scire.facias at gmail.com>
> Subject: [Gendergap] A proposal
> To: Gendergap at lists.wikimedia.org
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTi=yOyn_SSqd4AOzvkR935kcnZ8Zo_wdZSZ0dp=m at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> The mailing list format is all well and good, but it's led to problems;
> people are talking "too much", there are concerns about editing attitude,
> and it's a relatively obscure and odd-to-wrangle interface for those not
> familiar with it. In addition, the structure of mailing lists by default
> means that things that suggestions which aren't immediately popular tend to
> drop off the face of the earth. With the usability and Strategic Plan
> projects, a dedicated wiki was created where people could turn up and
> discuss ideas and projects in a far more open and easily navigable format.
> Would it be an idea to create gendergap.wikimedia.org, or
> outreach.wikimedia.org, or *something*, where we could apply that open and
> familiar format to this problem as well?
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/attachments/20110218/30bbfb89/attachment.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
> End of Gendergap Digest, Vol 1, Issue 96
> ****************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/attachments/20110218/bf80af33/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Gendergap
mailing list