We're abandoning the GGTF on Wikipedia? Fair enough. It was just that I had an editor accused me of radical feminism POV pushing on GGTF via my talk page (I dared to say that it was "interesting" that the example topics that he thought women would be interested in editing, other than feminism, might be "fashion, cookery, domestic affairs and childrearing" rather than "science, business, filmmaking or politics"). There was then this follow-on swipe on GGTF.
> "...one of the reasonable first steps toward seeing what women in wikipedia thinks needs to be done most would be to actively ask women who have self-identified as women what content of particular interest to women might be underrepresented or undercovered here. Those women would presumably be in a better position to clearly state their concerns than would be individuals who can only speculate on them or draw potentially flawed assumptions based on limited previous personal experience." So, my potentially flawed assumptions and limited previous personal experience are surplus to requirements at the GGTF. The plan now seems to go out and find answers that fit a pre-existing narrative about what is causing the Gender Gap. So... "I believe the Gender Gap is caused by women who want to write about knitting thinking that Wikipedia does not welcome articles about knitting." I will create a skewed survey to fit this narrative and get the "right kind of women" to fill it in and prove my pre-conceived notions correct. I really don't see the point of it. If you ask 1,000 female editors, "What kind of articles do you like to edit?", then you'll get 1,000 answers with a wide variety of topics. What would that prove? Suppose you find 90% of them edit traditionally feminine topics, what conclusion would you draw from it? Would it prove that they clearly prefer to edit those topics, or those are the topics that they feel less likely to encounter intimidation, or a combination of the two? I just think the GGTF board is currently being used to promote a truly pointless exercise. Marie Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 07:56:24 -0800 From: sarah.stie...@gmail.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] GGTF talk page That's what I have been doing. That's what Adrianne and I practice(d) and it's worked well so far. Now it's a global movement devoid of the drama that happens here. I am proud of that. Sarah On Dec 30, 2014 5:30 AM, "Tim Davenport" <shoehu...@gmail.com> wrote: Ms. Stierch's comments are exactly on target. Do the GGTF-type organizing off wiki, not on-wiki. That's not the place for it. Start your own message board akin to Wikipediocracy. Organize (and vent) there. Use Facebook, etc. Concentrate on developing new feminist editors, helping them through the steep learning curve, with an emphasis on content, content, content. Nobody is going to have a problem with that. Tim DavenportCarrite on WP /// Randy from Boise on WPOCorvallis, OR ==== Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 14:25:33 -0800From: Sarah Stierch <sarah.stie...@gmail.com> My tips are:1) No talk pages if I can avoid it2) Other channels (sorry people, but not all revolutions can take place infront of everyone)3) Social mediaI get more value asking for help on Twitter and Facebook than I do on anyother medium.ANd that's why the WikiWomen's Collaborative was created - social mediabrings more females (since we use it more than males!).-Sarah _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
