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

[Fred Bauder]

Keep in mind that no action is one of the alternatives. It is private
though and will provide some sense of what is out there. As noted by
others, difficulties with enforcing civility is a long standing problem
and is a significant part of Wikipedia's internal politics. However I
doubt the viability of an openly sexist faction, however aggrieved and
outraged they may be. The potential opening for backlash is resistance to
imposition of strict political correctness, regarding which I've pretty
much had my say. Of course, offenders will confuse the issue, both in
their own minds and in their talk, as all civility issues are confused;
and sometimes successfully, to the point that such conflation has been
the road to power for some, and not all male either.

Fred

> 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
>