Hi. Some people can't speak up about what happened for legal reasons.
I do think there is a double standard. But I have before my involvement in wiki. Living in the US it's a way of life.
Some women who were impacted by those posts were harassed by people involved way prior to making their own minor and harmless in the end game errors which got them "in trouble." Women just did not take action or make it public. No one should have to post on a public website that they have been sexually harassed to get help. And "bad people on the internet are common" is the general response.
There are also male staff members who did things considered illegal in the US courts who still have their jobs (some don't work there anymore but it shocked many of us women they were allowed to stay so long given their behaviors). Amazing how that works.
But, some of us can't and are afraid to talk about it. Some of us just want closure but the trolls and internet won't give it to us. (And it's not just me...)
And no I am not elaborating on or offlist. So don't ask. I gave up fighting after I lost my job. So I commend those who still care.
I love the Twitter feed, by the way.
Sarah On Sep 10, 2014 8:41 AM, "Nathan" nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 8:46 AM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/9/2014 7:51 PM, LB wrote:
I'm going to keep at it, for now. Honestly, I'm tired of it being a mostly internally discussed problem... Perhaps I'll change my mind at some point, but that's my thinking on it at this time.
Lightbreather
You are braver than I! On the other hand this is what [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] wrote when I complained the woman editor was being harassed off line:
Criticising the quality of an editor's work, whether here orelsewhere, is not harassment. This is not a private project, but a public one, with a significant impact on public life. Any such public project should be prepared to be criticised. If someone writes nonsense in a science article read and relied on by a million people a year, that is a matter of public interest, just like stories like [http://twkozlowski.net/the-pot-and-the-kettle-the-wikimedia-way/ http://twkozlowski.net/the-pot-and-the-kettle-the-wikimedia-way/ this], [http://twkozlowski.net/paid-editing-thrives-in-the-heart-of-wikipedia/ http://twkozlowski.net/paid-editing-thrives-in-the-heart-of-wikipedia/ this], [http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/ http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/ this], [http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/is-the-pr-industry-buying-influence-over-wiki... http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/is-the-pr-industry-buying-influence-over-wikipedia this] or [http://www.dailydot.com/politics/croatian-wikipedia-fascist-takeover-controv... http://www.dailydot.com/politics/croatian-wikipedia-fascist-takeover-controversy-right-wing/ this]. If you would like to curtail editors' freedom to speak out about Wikipedia's failings in public, this in itself will be a media story, and rightly so. Such ideas belong to places like Azerbaijan and North Korea. *Thus one would think quoting nasty sexist things, especially when an editor's name not mentioned should be ok. This really was a test case, wasn't it? (Or not in a community that still applies double standards to male vs. female actions.)
Here's the link to the ANI in question:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide...
Where were the sexist comments? The user complaining of harassment and the user accused of harassment were both women, and I see no comments about gender in either the AN/I or the extensive editor review. The harassment complained of was the persistence of an editor in following another editor around and pointing out errors in many of her articles, and the argumentative and derisive attitude of the first towards the latter. Andreas' point is that criticism, by itself, is not harassment. Many agreed with the criticism but advised the critic that she needed an attitude adjustment. At that point she disengaged.
So it's a problem when we conflate circumstances which do not implicate gender or sexism with those that do. Calling this an example of sexism muddies the waters, particularly when there are many examples that are perfectly clear cut. It *is* an example of the hassle and angry debate involved in contributing to Wikipedia, though, and I can certainly see how that would drive all sorts of people away from the project.
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap