On 08/01/15 20:04, Austin Hair wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Frankly, there's not a single thing I've read, or a single objection I've seen raised, that wasn't about how unnecessary it is to focus on women. I don't think we've ever heard that about the global south, or non-European languages, or a lot of other areas where there are acknowledged biases.
Maybe you're only talking about this specific fork of the thread, but I was happy to see that the previous discussion managed to stay on-topic and largely avoid the specific social issue. I saw a lot of people with specific criticism of the decision, completely separate from the cause. (I appreciate that Leigh was still clinging to that idea while the thread was being dragged into the abyss, only to be insulted in the process.)
Having addressed that, I want to say to everybody that Wikimedia-l is a lot of things, not all good, but the previous conversation was at least on-topic. Does anyone seriously think that this one is? Please, please don't make me start content filtering based on words like "feminazi" or "misogynist."
Austin
As far as I can tell, this is the first time either of those words have shown up in the discussion. It's true that the bulk of this thread is only about the particular topic chosen for the 3-month focus, whereas the previous thread was about the nature of having 3-month focuses in the first place and particularly the chosen implementation, but so long as people remain civil, why can both not be valid topics of discussion?
It doesn't even matter what the topic is, really. It ought to be worth discussing if only to clarify what it means to different folks, but even and in doing so, how better to generate possible ideas for projects?
-I