In my opinion, it's very much within the remit of this list to share anything that creates an environment that is not welcoming to new contributors. It doesn't need to be proven every time, as far as I'm concerned, that women are disproportionately affected, for a topic to be germane to this list.
In this case, I consider it highly relevant information, considering that someone in a position of trust in our community (chair of the UK board) was found by English Wikipedia's highest authority: * (unanimously) to have violated important policies meant to protect the health of the community (failing to disclose information about his past accounts that he was required to disclose) * (by a slim majority) to have made "unacceptable personal attacks" * (unanimously) to have made "ad hominem attacks to discredit others" * to have "attempted to deceive the community" on more than one count * was banned (indefinitely, with opportunity for appeal starting in 1 year) from editing the encyclopedia I am aware that this person has made a number of high quality contributions to our site, and is well respected for much of his work, and do not discount that in any way. But the fact that he would continue in a position of trust, as chair of the Board of the UK Wikimedia chapter, in light of these findings, is distressing to me. It seems to me that he, and the board that is supporting him (I'm unclear whether it's the UK or WMF board) is choosing to place his personal status above the interests of the movement, and choosing to accept the consequences of a story like this, which in my view will surely tend to discourage people from participating in the Wikimedia movement. I don't carry any ill will toward this person, or wish to deny his efforts to continue to contribute to our projects. But it does distress me that he would continue to carry a Wikimedia business card, and represent our movement in a high-profile position of trust, in light of these findings. And I'm glad to have information about something like this posted on a list dedicated to the removal of barriers to participation. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Laura Hale <la...@fanhistory.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I have to be honest here, I'm not really certain what this thread has to >> do with the gender gap. It just feels more like gossip than anything, >> particularly as a significant portion of the reporting either (a) has >> nothing to do with the purported subject of the articles and/or (b) is >> inaccurate. >> >> Risker/Anne >> > > This. No one has provided any solid evidence of a connection between the > limited presence of a few pornographic pictures on Wikipedia and the > gendergap. At best, the gender gap story here would be: This sort of story > discourages women from becoming involved. > > -- > twitter: purplepopple > blog: ozziesport.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
