I'm getting my GG notifications through now. JJ Marr: Re: context, I was having trouble getting the GG e-mails so I couldn't hit reply and keep my messages in the same thread (although I did use the same title). It should have been the next message in this thread: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-November/004957.html I didn't take my dispute up with the editor as I had previously had run-ins with him. His profile says that he edits pornography and radical feminism topics and he is critical of what he sees as "POV pushing and conflicts of interest around a number of articles on individual feminists and feminist organizations" His deletion of the video, speaks for itself. The same is true of the discussion I linked to previously, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force#Moving_forward It is not about my being "selective", and I'm not even trying to get rid of the pornography project or any of its articles, but if that is what interests these two editors then their involvement in GGTF is spurious. They try to sugar-coat their comments with "why don't you explain it to me?" and faux concern, "I don't like what GGTF is becoming." Perhaps members of GGTF should go over to the Pornography Project, become members and behave equally disruptively. In answer to your other questions: * Please explain why this is relevant to the gender gap, since you are sending it out to everyone on the gender gap mailing list? - Please explain why you think it isn't relevant, since the opening link in my last post (and given again above) is to GGTF's talk page? * [Explain] why a minor content dispute on enwiki is relevant to the Wikimedia gender gap community as a whole? - Because it it provides a telling snap-shop Marie Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 15:54:49 +0000 From: jayen...@gmail.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Carol Moore dc <carolmoor...@verizon.net> wrote: my joke about the "systemic bias card" (which is evidence against me in Arbitration!); Yeah, this is one of the more bizarre diffs. I am glad a couple of arbitrators opposed on the basis of that. I would be even happier if it were struck. This reminds me – someone said at GGTF a few weeks ago that the fact that – according to a recent study – women on average worked in slightly more contentious articles than males proved that women didn't mind contentiousness. What they forgot to take into account there is that articles women contribute to often become contentious because their edits are being contested by males. In that sense, I believe Marie's anecdotes are quite to the point. _______________________________________________ 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
