I don't think an Admin should get any more weight as any other editor working
on writing an article when they are contributing to it in an editor role (like
POV-pushing over an info box, to demonstrate the high esteem in which they
place pretty breasts). If they keep overriding other editors when the consensus
is going against them, then why not complain to another Admin about their
behaviour and have them sanctioned for it? The Admins are not above the rules,
and it should be pointed out to them more often by regular editors when they
decide to act like assclowns.
I have the impression that a lot of the bias problems, whether sexism, elitism,
racism, etc., whatever the expression of the bias, a lot of the time the root
problem is all about inflated egos. "Little tin god" syndrome. Some people
contributing to Wikipedia set themselves up to be an "expert" on a topic, say
Widgets. It doesn't matter that they are really not a world expert on Widgets;
they will shout down anyone else who challenges their POV or their perception
of themselves as World's Foremost Authority on All Things Widget-Related
Because They Control the Wikipedia Article on It and Therefore Influence All
Global Knowledge On Widgets.... Sadly, as long as they can succeed at shouting
down other contributors by abusing the system (using WP red tape and
bureaucracy to their advantage), they are in fact kind of the owner of the WP
article in Widgets, and in practical terms, they do have an overly weighty
influence over world knowledge of "widgets". I'd
like to see the WP red tape streamlined, for sure...
When it comes to writing an article on anything that might be perceived as less
important to the male-dominated WP editing community than say Human Penis Size
(one of Wikipedia's most-read articles), I take a few steps to try to make it
less justifiable for any jerks to try to have it deleted. My main tactic is
quantifying the subject as much as possible. A lot of guys think in terms of
"How long? How many? How often? How far?" So, give lots of numbers: she earns
$XXXXXX a year, the movie was seen by XX million people, the book was on the NY
Times bestseller list for XX weeks, the song was Number 1 on Billboard for XX
weeks, she increased sales by XX% last year, she has businesses in XX
countries, she sold XXXXX units this year, etc., and cited the numbers properly
with reliable sources. I know it's a double standard in demanding more
extensive "justification" for a women's topic (or a minority topic, or a global
south topic, etc.), but some people
are idiots, that's just the way it is. Another good tactic is to include an
official institution of any kind as a source of info on the subject -- is it
possible to connect the article in any way to a museum exhibit? Or a university
course, publication, etc.? Has the woman ever spoken at a large conference, or
has the topic been the subject of a conference or lecture somewhere? Has the
woman been cited as a possible expert source by another writer, in a book,
newspaper article, interview, documentary, TV program, etc. (which would make
them notable)?
Hth...
Audrey
OttawaAC
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
