[WikiEN-l] Re: Feminist agenda (was Arbitration progress report #6)

[Anthere]

sannse a écrit:
> Mark wrote:
> 
> 
>>Perhaps it shows my political leanings, but I don't really like that
>>approach.  Certainly we should have all opinions represented, and if
>>certain opinions are only represented by women, then we should have
>>women represented.  But we should represent all opinions, not based on
>>simple categorizations like gender, race, etc.---you can't assume that
>>someone has certain personality or characteristics because they're
>>female, or male, or hispanic, or whatnot (certainly most people I know
>>offline don't follow the stereotypes, and many fit 'opposite' roles
>>better).  As far as wikipedia goes, things like inclusionist vs.
>>deletionist, pro- vs. anti-banning, etc., are all more relevant
>>distinctions by at least an order of magnitude.

I wonder if it might not be interesting to check the % of males versus 
females more leaning on each of these sides : deletionist/inclusionist, 
pro versus anti-ban etc...

>>So if there's a woman on the arbitration committee (or multiple women),
>>it should be because of who they are, not just because we wanted to
>>throw a token woman on there.  Which, fortunately, is how Wikipedia
>>normally works---I often can't tell if someone is male or female until
>>it gets mentioned long after I've interacted with them for a while, and
>>there's some surprises (for whatever reason, I thought that evercat was
>>female, and that anthere was male).

It is curious because I usually think my behavior is really more on the 
feminine side than masculine one, but well. This lack of clarily is 
precisely why I started  http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiwomen.

> Generally I agree.  I don't want to see a token woman either (or a token
> anyone else).  But I think Wikipedia has suffered in the past from an
> invisibility of women, it's only recently that I've noticed more women
> around, and I think the (possible) lack of female input in the arbitration
> committee is a shame.  But that said, it's not something I'm going to bang
> on about.
> 
> 
>>And, FWIW, we allowed *everyone* on a committee who wanted to be on
>>one.  So at the moment the reason there are no women is because no women
>>volunteered.  If someone wants to volunteer, male or female, we could
>>use an extra member to keep the numbers at the right level, so talk to
>>Mr. Wales asap. =]
> 
> 
> At least two women, Angela and I, /were/ available for the arbitration
> committee.  Both of us expressed a preference for mediation but an
> availability for arbitration.  Jimbo went with our preference and that's
> fine, but since Alex pointed out the apparently all male arbitration
> committee I've thought that this is an issue that should be addressed if
> possible.  If UC is firm on leaving the committee this seems a good
> opportunity.  Any woman out there want a job?  No pay, lots of hassle, but
> the potential for an occasional warm fuzzy feeling inside.
> 
> --sannse

warm fuzzy feeling ? My ... sannse, where did you find that ? :-)