The women i know in my part of the professional world can defend themselves verbally and otherwise quite as well as the men, and have at least equal sense in knowing what they are likely to get themselves in for. I suspect this hold true for politics and business and reporting and other professions generally. The need for accepting edits on sensitive subjects generally may justify our policy for editors. it does not justify it for administrators.
On 8/27/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"George Herbert" wrote
I have been tilting at the windmill of pseudonymity here for a while.
Given that X is a conspicuous or several-fingers-in-the-pie admin, it is more useful to the project if X is happy to give a real name. Press work, presentations, gladhanding, looking for sponsorship - you name it, for outreach, a real name is what you want.
On the other hand, voluntary projects which make good use of women as well as men (in other words, which aren't stupid) are fundamentally more likely to succeed. I take this as a given. So if a female editor wants to edit pseudonymously, I haven't the slightest problem. It is a small price to pay.
Charles
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l