I saw an incident recently on WP that's fairly
common, but it's not
clear to me what we should do about it, if anything.
A woman editor did something that a few male editors didn't like, and
she was taken to task for it. In the course of the discussion, the
Wikipedia biography of a woman was mentioned and linked to, and her
photograph showed her as attractive. One of the men taking part in the
discussion said something positive about the image -- then he added
that policy prevented him from going into detail about his feelings
about it. (I won't quote him so as not to identify him, but it was
words to that effect.)
It's a remark typical of young men, and he almost certainly intended
no harm. But the effect on me as a reader was that it undermined the
woman taking part in the discussion. She also felt that way, and said
so. The response was that her objection was laughable.
What should we do when we witness this kind of thing? I've never said
anything in these situations, because I see them so often, and there's
a risk of turning it into a dramafest. I also know that some people,
men and women both, would say it's too minor a thing to comment on.
So -- should we be saying something, and if so what and how, or is it
best to ignore?
Sarah
Please look at Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#Criteria_for_redaction
particularly:
2. Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no
encyclopedic or project value and/or violates our Biographies of living
people policy. This includes slurs, smears, and grossly offensive
material of little or no encyclopedic value, but not mere factual
statements, and not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct
accusations. When attack pages or pages with grossly improper titles are
deleted, the page names may also be removed from the delete and page move
logs.
3. Purely disruptive material that is of little or no relevance or merit
to the project. This includes allegations, grossly inappropriate threats
or attacks, browser-crashing or malicious HTML, shock pages, phishing
pages, known virus proliferating pages, and links to web pages that
disparage or threaten some person or entity and serve no other valid
purpose, but not mere spam links.
but keep in mind:
"A certain low degree of inappropriate or disruptive posting is normal
within a large community. In general, only material that meets the
criteria below should be deleted. Users should consider whether simply
reverting or ignoring would be sufficient in the circumstances. If
deletion is needed, only redact what is necessary (i.e. leave non-harmful
fields visible), and give a clear reason for the removal.
The community's decision was that RevisionDelete should not be used
without prior clear consensus for "ordinary" incivility, attacks, or for
claims of editorial misconduct. The wider community may need to fully
review these at the time and in future, even if offensive."
If whatever it is poses a risk of turning it into a dramafest it is not
within the normal range of inappropriate or disruptive posting, as in
this case there may be a need to not single out the offender, therefore
it may be useful to use Wikipedia mail to bring the matter to the
attention of OTRS, which is the people with the oversight tool. Even if
suppression is not appropriate deletion can still be done and a quiet and
private warning given. So, if it is serious, in your opinion, (tell them
why if you think it is) email User:Oversight
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Oversight
Fred