[Gendergap] What to do about sexism when we see it on WP?

[George Herbert]

Just for information -

Whoever starts actioning this needs to be careful.  The community
lashbacks over trying to limit abusive behavior in other areas (the
civility arguments, etc) have been severe at times.

A lot of men will take "That was sexist and is creating a hostile
environment, please stop" to be a challenge and insult rather than
believe it.  If an offense was marginal, they may get others to
support that obstructionism.

This is not a "Don't try to do this", it's a "Be careful and aware".


-george

On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Nice find Fred. I hadn't read those before. It sounds like revision
> deletion might be an option in more extreme cases.
>
> There was discussion recently about setting up a "Gender issues
> noticeboard" on English Wikipedia
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Feminism#Gender_issues_noticeboard.3F),
> but no consensus was reached.
>
> Also, although it is not an official forum for such matters, some
> editors bring problematic cases to
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Feminism
> At least it's better than getting laughed at by going to
> Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts.
>
> Kaldari
>
>
> On 3/17/11 6:04 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>



-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com