You could go to Citizendium, considering that has a lack of anonymity and strict civility rules.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizendium http://citizendium.org/ On Nov 30, 2014 11:52 AM, "Kathleen McCook" <klmcc...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
