I'm not sure if I would agree with the word 'error', Wikipedia happens in a 
context, which is where all these discussions began, with the cautionary tale 
article about Quora 
http://www.zdnet.com/quoras-misogyny-problem-a-cautionary-tale-7000030762/

Away from Wikipedia I'm a member of the No More Page 3 campaign trying to get 
rid of the topless glamour model photo which is published in Murdoch's UK Sun 
newspaper. The petition reads: 
"We are asking David Dinsmore to drop the bare boobs from The Sun newspaper. We 
are asking very nicely. Please, David. No More Page 3. etc." 
The petition is approaching 200,000 signatures and there are NMP3 t-shirts, 
media attention but our Facebook page gets hit by trolls. Blocking is a last 
resort by admins but it becomes inevitable. The MRA has set up a Laughing at No 
More Page 3 Facebook 
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Laughing-at-No-more-page-3/262437737259691 page 
and take pictures / posts from NMP3's page and re-post them with personally 
insulting comments. When you click on the names of those posting comments their 
other "liked" groups invariably include various humanist societies and Dawkins 
Foundation.

I entered "Wikipedia" and "male rights activists" and got this 
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorship/ 
which has a comments section at the bottom with current Wikipedia members 
mentioning other Wikipedia editors by name and talk of a great conspiracy at 
work against them, if Sarah was suspended for her off-site comments then how is 
this permissible? 

The same website has an article suggesting the compulsory sterilizing of women 
before they reach child-bearing age so they are unable to take the escape hatch 
'soft-option' of exiting the workplace to raise them 
http://www.avoiceformen.com/women/workplace-inequality-when-one-side-has-an-escape-hatch/

They group are becoming increasingly well organized and have just finished 
their first conference in Detroit 
http://www.avoiceformen.com/international-conference-on-mens-issues-detroit-june-26-28-2014/
 

Wikipedia and society as a whole need to recognise the shift in sand and what a 
growing threat groups like these are.

Marie

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 12:28:49 -0700
From: kgor...@gmail.com
To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Gendergap] Moderation and the future of Gendergap-L

Hi all -
Currently, Gendergap-l only has two active moderators - in the past, we've 
usually had at least three. After talking with Liz, we'd both like to bring on 
at least one additional active moderator. Please drop us a note if you'd be 
interested in taking on such a role.  It's worth knowing ahead of time that at 
times moderating the list can involve significant emotional labor; that said, 
moderating the list also allows you the chance to more actively help make 
positive change in the environment of the list.

In the past, many productive discussions have occurred on this list, but over 
time the number of such discussions has fallen greatly, and a lot of valuable 
contributors now either contribute far less frequently than they used to, or 
have just outright unsubscribed.  We think that a lot of this is related to how 
the list has been (or rather, mostly how it has barely been) moderated in the 
past. Historically, there's been a lot of reluctance among mods, both past and 
present, to take aggressive mod actions - this is a Wikimedia list, and the 
background that comes with that generally stigmatizes the idea of significant 
moderation.

We feel like the reluctance on the part of Gendergap mods to strongly actively 
moderate in a way that tries to ensure that the list is a safe space for 
contributors has been a significant error - a balance has to be maintained 
between liberty and hospitality (to borrow some terminology from Sumana's 
keynote at WikiConference USA [1],) and we don't feel like we've gotten that 
balance right in the past.  To be clear, since I'm the longest standing 
gendergap mod (besides for Sue, who generally doesn't take part in moderation 
discussions,) a lot of what I mean in the former sentence is that I have 
personally made significant errors that have contributed substantially to the 
general feeling that this list is not a safe space for contributors.

Moving forward, we'd like to change how we moderate the list in order to try to 
make it a list where contributors consistently feel safe in contributing.  Over 
the next few days, the mods will be having an internal discussion about how we 
think we can best go about doing this, and we'd also like to start a discussion 
on the broader list about how we can best go about ensuring that this is a safe 
and productive list while staying in line with the general values of the 
Wikimedia movement.

This email is intentionally sparse on details - mostly because we haven't 
talked amongst ourselves enough to have a solid grasp of what the details will 
look like, and also because we don't feel we can fully form a new moderation 
policy without feedback from list members. There are a couple things we're 
already more or less sure of.  The moderation won't be draconian; we understand 
that everyone makes mistakes and think that most mistakes represent learning 
opportunities - we aren't looking for reasons to kick people off the list.  At 
the same time, members whose behavior consistently (or in some circumstances, 
presence) on the list makes other members feel unsafe or we feel are inhibitory 
to open, safe, productive discussion occurring will not remain on the list. As 
list mods, we haven't followed the list as closely as we should have in the 
past; we will be in the future.  

And, as a major change, we will also be adopting an explicit set of community 
guidelines, which we haven't had in the past. Within the pretty immediate 
future, we'll be posting a starting set of guidelines on an appropriate wiki 
that will incorporate our thoughts, the thoughts of list members, and best 
practices adopted from other groups (likely including significant content from 
Geek Feminism's example statement of purpose for communities including men - 
[2].)  Once we have draft guidelines up, we'll be inviting all list members to 
contribute to them, although the mod team (including any new mods we recruit) 
will have the final say over their contents.  They'll also only be guidelines - 
we won't take action over everything that violates their letter, and equally, 
we may take action on some things that aren't included in the guidelines as 
they come up - we just intend them to serve as a basic template for moving 
forward.

Best,Kevin Gorman
For the moderators
[1] http://wikiconferenceusa.org/wiki/Sumana_Harihareswara_keynote
[2] 
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Statement_of_purpose/Communities_including_men


_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to