The only solution would be lack of anonymity. That won't fly, but it would cause the creepiness to go away.
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:42 AM, JJ Marr <jjm...@gmail.com> wrote: > What do you propose a "take back the night" would be like? > On Nov 30, 2014 8:12 AM, "Kathleen McCook" <klmcc...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Yes, one can see easily how they move from topic to topic. Connected and >> ensuring their POV dominates. >> >> The issue of feminism should not be defined by men whose motivation seems >> to be to create an environment where women are "free" to be what they (the >> men discussed here ) imagine to us to be. >> >> I believe that Marie's statements about keeping these issues off one's >> main course are the result of continuous attacks. >> >> Wikipedia needs a TAKE BACK THE NIGHT movement. In my days on campus >> women attacked were told they shouldn't be out at night.So marches began >> to TAKE BACK THE NIGHT. >> >> On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 2:16 AM, JJ Marr <jjm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> To quote you in the context of your dispute over a video, you say "I >>> dispute that it "makes little sense" and why does it even need to add >>> informational value? Why can't it just be to add aesthetics to the article >>> as pictures and videos often are?” I ask why don't you take that dispute up >>> with the editor in question? >>> >>> Also, you need to be more clear in what you are saying. I have no >>> context to this message, and I think it is a complaint about a content >>> dispute. >>> >>> Please explain why this is relevant to the gender gap, since you are >>> sending it out to everyone on the gender gap mailing list, and secondly, >>> why a minor content dispute on enwiki is relevant to the Wikimedia gender >>> gap community as a whole. >>> On Nov 30, 2014 1:47 AM, "Marie Earley" <eir...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Not sure if this will produce a new thread or attach to the existing >>>> one (I've checked my spam folder, there's nothing there) but anyway.... >>>> >>>> Tim: I just wondered whether you regard this: >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force#Moving_forward >>>> >>>> ...as a lack of civility or a gender gap issue? >>>> >>>> In particular this comment: >>>> "...As has been indicated on the talk page of the proposed decision, >>>> *repeatedly,* there is some question as to exactly *which* women this >>>> group seems to be reaching out toward, specifically, whether it is more or >>>> less of a more or less radical feminist perspective...." >>>> >>>> I thought it summed up in a nutshell what the GGTF was really up >>>> against. It's a kind of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism >>>> * Are you now or have you ever been a feminist who believes that sex >>>> work is the opposite of feminism? >>>> Anyone who answers yes that question is judged to be a "radical", a >>>> subversive who wants to push POV and therefore they are fair game. >>>> >>>> On WP's list of feminists there were a very odd mish-mash of categories >>>> of feminist >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=544136790 >>>> and lots of names missing e.g. Gail Dines. I did a major rewrite to >>>> organize it chronologically and it meant that "anti-pornography feminists", >>>> "anti-prostitution feminists" and "socialist feminists" could go onto the >>>> list >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=545667727 >>>> >>>> The list has recently been changed to this: >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feminists and I'm working with a >>>> couple of editors to see how we can improve it further. >>>> >>>> I've largely avoided trouble by sticking to admin based work such as >>>> this, and similar work: >>>> Cleaning up bibliographies, e.g. Joseph Schumpeter, from this: >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=633566034#Major_works >>>> to this: >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=634343909#Major_works >>>> >>>> Creating an article for the International Association for Feminist >>>> Economics >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_for_Feminist_Economics >>>> and improving the article for the Human Development and Capability >>>> Association >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_and_Capability_Association >>>> then creating biographies for past presidents of IAFFE and fellows of >>>> the HDCA. >>>> Adding DOBs to notable scholars and then adding them to Wiki's calendar >>>> (births). >>>> >>>> These organisations / individuals argues against sex work on the >>>> grounds of the perception of women that is generated (i.e. as a thing / >>>> object). The problem with the MRA, pro-porn, pro-sex work POV is they have >>>> no problem with anti-porn etc. POV provided it is in a box labelled "mad" >>>> or "religious" with a sub-text that the only people that could possibly >>>> support that POV are from the moral right and are probably racist and >>>> homophobic as well. The other problem that the MRA have is that, human >>>> development and capability, which includes feminist economics / inequality >>>> / care work etc. collectively constitutes a 'single broad topic' >>>> (WP:SPATG), so they are unable to stop editors, who wish to edit in this >>>> area, from doing so. The natural place for this work is within the Gender >>>> Studies project. Which is why they write nonsense like this: >>>> http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorship/ >>>> (if there were really the kind of censorship that they are talking about on >>>> WP then there would be no Pornography Project). >>>> >>>> Any attempt to show 3 distinct POVs >>>> (a) Pro-sex work >>>> (b) Right-wing anti-sex work (on moral / judgemental grounds), and >>>> (c) Left-wing anti-sex work (on negative perception grounds) - the POV >>>> that dare not speak its name >>>> ... is met with a steel fist hammered onto the table. >>>> >>>> I made a video for use in the article "sex wars", an article which is >>>> all about the separation between (b) and (c) >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminist_sex_wars&oldid=546995190 >>>> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Feminist_sex_wars.ogv> >>>> It was deleted instantly on the grounds that the "Video makes little >>>> sense and does not add to informational value of article." I dispute that >>>> it "makes little sense" and why does it even need to add informational >>>> value? Why can't it just be to add aesthetics to the article as pictures >>>> and videos often are? >>>> >>>> As soon as I step off the path of admin related tasks that the MRA-mob >>>> can't get me for, and stray into article content I am jumped on, >>>> obstensibly for technical reasons but they are almost exclusively by >>>> editors whose other edits are connected to porn and sex-positive feminism, >>>> who have pretty much hijacked the Feminism project and they are trying to >>>> do as much damage as possible to the Gender Studies project as they can as >>>> well. >>>> >>>> It may be time for an article on "fourth-wave feminism" which is >>>> separate to the "history of feminism", but the article would have to say >>>> that the term is used by both (a) and (c), >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism#Fourth_Wave . You're >>>> not supposed to mention (c), you're only supposed to mention (a) and (b) - >>>> and then arch your eyebrows at the moral and out-of-touch group that is >>>> (b). Anyone trying to create it would run into the MRA trying to lump (b) >>>> and (c) together. The talk page would be full of stuff like, "well the >>>> article should say that, 'group (b) have been called fourth-wave, but it is >>>> just a very, few number of places and the term is far more attributed to >>>> group (a) than any other group of feminists'. >>>> >>>> This message is longer than I originally intended it to be but I do >>>> think that there are a lot of well meaning editors on WP who are either >>>> unaware or a bit *naïve* when it comes the antics of the people that >>>> we are talking about. It is also *naïve* to think that they are not >>>> co-ordinating their handiwork off-wiki. >>>> >>>> Marie >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
