Rationalobserver has posted a survey related to the Gender Gap Task Force Arbitration decision on the Civility talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility#Survey
Seems pretty relevant to the recent discussions here. Kaldari On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Russia Aviation <russiaviat...@gmail.com> wrote: > The answer to a hypothetical query by TDA > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=367632.10;wap2 > "Simon Tushingham [Sitush]" > > "I was an active user in Wikipedia for the past many many years. I had > more than 30,000 edits to my name. From 2011, most of the sections in > Wikipedia were under the control of organized cabals. I wrote to Jimmy > Wales many times warning against this. But many of the users who > voiced against this were later banned. In the section I was following, > the leader of the Cabal was from Manchester, known by his alibi "Simon > Tushingham". Despite this guy committing all sorts of one-sided edits, > Wales supported him. Tushingham frequently bragged in Wikipedia that > he regularly talked to Wales in his cell phone and were good friends > in real life. I had enough and quit Wikipedia in 2011. I know many > more who did the same. > Wikipedia is similar to a ponzi scheme. They publicized themselves as > a "free" and "unbiased" online encyclopedia. Once they had enough > following, they kicked out the old users and showed their true > colors." > > In reply to : > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=636276109#GGTF_interactions_arbcom_case_has_now_closed > > "So you won't comment on the case, but how about a hypothetical? Let's > say there is a male editor who, after the conclusion of an arbitration > case, begins following a female editor from the same case all over the > site for months. When that editor is reported for this behavior and > there is a proposal to bar the male editor from interacting with the > female editor, another male editor comes to his defense and suggests > if the male editor is barred from interacting with the female editor > that maybe he will start "following her around" instead. After the > proposal is passed the other male editor announces he is going to be > doing work on Wikipedia regarding a link, which just happens to be the > personal website of the female editor. The female editor objects and > questions his intentions. This male editor then begins taunting her > with personal details researched online and plainly expresses his > intentions to write a bio about her here. Despite several other > objections and the female editor's own protests, this male editor > creates a draft that he explains is fully intended to be made into a > live article all about the female editor. It is apparent that certain > details have been cherry-picked from primary sources and articles > about the female editor and presented in a way that is clearly aimed > at being unflattering towards her. Despite numerous editors suggesting > his actions are woefully inappropriate he insists that he is a > perfectly good editor who is being neutral towards this person he > detests. Would you consider it acceptable for the Arbitration > Committee to ban the female editor for commenting about this male > editor's behavior, while giving the male editor essentially nothing > more than a warning after praising his efforts on this site?--The > Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)" > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Gender Gap" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to gender-gap+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
