Very interesting thoughts. Myself, I avoid Facebook and Twitter like the plague, but I realise I'm very much in the minority there. I don't object to their existence, don't get me wrong, and I know some people find it useful.
Having said that - it's interesting to read what another woman has written about "Wikipedia's notoriously gangsterish back channels" in a tribute to our former colleague Adrienne Wadewitz published by the New York Times. (While the writer doesn't seem to think much of Wikipedia, it's still a great tribute to Adrienne.) http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/25/magazine/2014-the-lives-they-lived.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar&_r=1 Risker/Anne On 29 December 2014 at 17:25, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stie...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 to that. > My tips are: > > 1) No talk pages if I can avoid it > 2) Other channels (sorry people, but not all revolutions can take place in > front of everyone) > 3) Social media > > I get more value asking for help on Twitter and Facebook than I do on any > other medium. > > ANd that's why the WikiWomen's Collaborative was created - social media > brings more females (since we use it more than males!). > > -Sarah > > On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 2:07 PM, disgruntled grognard <slowki...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> yep, >> let's study some more, not all men, let's recruit more pipeline... >> >> i tend to edit in article space. >> talk space and even project talk are dysfunctional (waste of time) >> people seeking to disrupt, can only on wiki. >> >> i tend to organize on facebook, twitter, meetup etc. >> where there is adult supervision. >> >> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Carol Moore dc <carolmoor...@verizon.net >> > wrote: >> >>> On 12/29/2014 12:31 PM, Marie Earley wrote: >>> >>> Is it possible to post some of the stuff that has been mentioned on here >>> on the GGTF talk page >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force >>> >>> It feels like the two have nothing in common at the moment. There's a >>> whole load of "why don't we survey women and find out what they like to >>> edit / give women their own noticeboard / review the scope of the project" >>> - type rhetoric. >>> >>> Rather than wade in and argue (it's pointless, I got accused of 'radical >>> feminism' POV pushing for my trouble), can some of the stuff about grants, >>> meet ups etc. and replies be posted so we can move on, and all of the >>> "let's rip it up and start again" stuff can make its way into the archive? >>> >>> Marie >>> >>> Everything you see is just a variation of what was happening all summer, >>> with the pro-GGTF editors managing to keep their tempers against various >>> attempts by anti-project editors to disrupt the project by trying to narrow >>> and control the scope (as some women explicitly have complained): >>> >>> *general nitpicking of statement by a woman/supporter of project that >>> supports the original vision of being both about increasing number of >>> articles about women/topics of interest to women and increasing number of >>> women, including by dealing with issues that turn women off (both software >>> and behavior issues). (One editor summarized these past comments here: >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Vintage_Feminist/GGTF%27s_re-boot >>> The comments are being challenged.) And of course various accusations of >>> defacto sexism for those who complain about this, as Marie alludes to above >>> >>> *Opposition to the idea of using the page to get other editors to help >>> with new articles about women unless the articles are already 100% in >>> compliance with every policy imaginable. >>> >>> *proposal to divide GGTF into two projects, one for articles about >>> women, the other for getting more women and "behavior"problems; divide and >>> conquor is the strategy here and I'm sure the second would quickly be put >>> up for deletion, widdling the project down to nothing >>> >>> *proposal to invite anything and everything regarding women (including >>> perhaps through womens noticeboard), which could be used to water GGTF down >>> to nothing regarding a gender gap by flooding with less relevant concerns >>> >>> *continuing contention that there is no evidence that there's a problem >>> despite these two existing pages: >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force/research >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force/media >>> It would help if >>> >>> *Past edits at GGTF show that one or more of the alleged women posting >>> now are recruits of editors against the project from the arbitration. >>> >>> We'll see what happens... >>> >>> CM >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gendergap mailing list >>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please >>> visit: >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please >> visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> > > > > -- > > Sarah Stierch > > ----- > > Diverse and engaging consulting for your organization. > > www.sarahstierch.com > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please > visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
