[Foundation-l] [Wikichix-l] Moderating an open list

[Puppy]

Andre Engels wrote:
> 2006/12/5, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com>:
>   
>> From others, one of who "hopes we'll look back on this and not believe
>> how bad it was"
>> --
>> No need for women-only channels? The problem may be worse than you
>> realised...
>>
>> Below are some of the responses to the announcement of wikichix's
>> founding.
>>     
>
>
> These comments show that there's people who don't think a women-only channel
> is necessary. Somehow I don't see how that is a proof that it *is*
> necessary....
>
>
>   
Had they all been actually discussing how to address gender bias in what 
they felt were more constructive ways, I would be more inclined to agree 
with you. As the examples given did not do so, but instead *invalidated* 
the problem itself, and you are enforcing the perception of the women 
who feel this list is necessary in order to /discuss/ bias rather than 
/prove to a man's satisfaction that they feel discriminated against/, I 
cannot possibly support your assertion. That said, I am still firmly on 
the fence about this issue. I am not, however, dismissing it out-of-hand 
because men don't see that it might help, or that there is a problem to 
be addressed.

* Dismissal:
#''Such a list seems to encourage a sense of difference where there 
isn't one.''
#''This statement implicitly assumes that there _is_ sexism, 
discrimination and bias present in the Wikipedia community. That's 
begging the question. I've never seen it, and considering it's a rare 
thing when  I actually know what the gender of another editor is I have 
trouble figuring out how it would even be practical.''
#''I don't like this idea at all. It's the first case of sexism I've 
seen on Wikipedia. Discriminating against men is not a solution to 
discrimination against women (which as far as I can tell, doesn't exist 
anyway).''
# This one adds that men's opinions on how women are treated is "proof" 
that the women are wrong: ''Since women have the ability to contribute 
here the same as men, I really don't see why this is needed. Surely the 
scepticism being shown to this idea from many men is proof positive of 
the fact that no-one is being opressed. How ironic to have women in this 
day and age proposing their own seperate mailing list from men, since so 
many feminists fought so hard for gender equality. This looks to me like 
a step backward.''

*Clueless, even after examples have been posted:
# 'I wasn't even aware such bias existed apart from the occasional help 
or refdesk request addressed as "Dear Sirs". Can you give any examples 
of sexism or bias on WP or the mailing list?''

Clueless and dismissive, along with a judgment (if you are injured, it 
is because you are too sensitive, not because anyone is hurtful):
# ''Seperate but equal doesn't wash any more, get with the new 
millennium. If people have things to say, they can say them here. And I 
can't for the life of me imagine how anyone who feels "intimidated" on a 
Wikimedia mailing list survives day-to-day life of interaction with real 
live human beings. Some people are too sensitive, methinks.''

*I don't even know how to describe this one.
# ''I don't understand the problem...
''If female editors has problems to participate in discussion I think 
that this is a general problem which sould be solved in another way.
''I could agree with you if female editors are slower than male 
contributors to write and they need a dedicated list for this reason!''

-kc-