Re: [Gendergap] Outreach..was.. Proposal: Forking gendergap
On 3/17/2011 6:43 AM, elisabeth bauer wrote: 2011/3/17 Carol Moore in DCcontac...@carolmoore.net: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_gap/outreach_letters My first draft of any outreach email letter - which I sent an earlier version of to a bunch of women with no positive feedback. What do you mean by this? Did you get any feedback at all? **If I remember correctly, the response was two Good idea, but I'm too busy messages. Like all forms of advertising, it is necessary to repeat the message before people pay attention. So actually there need to be a series of messages for such group lists over a period of a month or so. Whether they are all people you know personally, partially know (as in case of two different lists I sent to) or not know at all. Say, one introductory and explicit one like the draft I put up. Two short, wow, look at this article I worked on on wikipedia (in their area of interest) with general encouragement to edit. (I.e., obviously not as canvassing to get support on a disputed article). Maybe mixed into some discussion on some topic. And then another one that again encourages them in a short friendly way. Plus drop in links to various articles on topics discussed from time to time after that. Maybe even put it in one's tag line I edit wikipedia! Can you guess my handle? or whatever. So waiting for others to comment or come up with different approaches before sending out such outreach emails more widely I don't think outreach letters, however well formulated, will motivate many people to try editing Wikipedia. If you know the women you sent your letter to, why not rather invite them to an edit wikipedia party? Great idea! Is there a link to show how to do that? I can imagine a few of us getting together and, after running through the basics, having TOO much fun with some article, meat puppeting away. (Especially if someone brings booze.) So good to have clear guidelines on how to do that as a party - but not party too hard! :-) greetings, elian ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Wars
on 3/17/11 12:22 PM, Sandra ordonez at sandratordo...@gmail.com wrote: Laura, I hope you dont feel bad. Whether people agree or not, you were sharing your perspective, and thats one of the reasons for this list, so women on Wikipedia can feel more empowered to voice their opinion. And the men - don't feel bad either, we are dealign with issues that permeates human history, and thank you for caring about them. As a Latina who basically grew up in the civil rights aftermath, I see there are some wholes that may be responsible for some of the tension we have experienced on this list. I say this, b/c I've belonged to various groups focused on empowering people of color, and there are certain unspoken rules that I don't think may be common sense for some people in this group. Why are these unspoken rules important? Well, because they provide the gel necessary to work effectively in groups were the emotional component is just as important as the practical one. Unfortunately, sexism and racism are not logical problems, and can be treated only in logical ways. These are my recommendations: * Lets create a manifesto together: Why? Because it will allow us to create together a certain description of the type of culture we want this group to embrace, and provide a more cohesive unity that unfortunately is some times hard to do non-verbally through internet based interaction. * Lets accept that people are going to vent, voice their anger, or frustration at times. This does not mean that this is how they feel 100% of the time. For example, as a Latina I can voice my frustration over discriminations I've experienced but this doesn't mean I want an all out race war. I can voice my anger over the poverty minorities have experienced b/c of descrimination, but this doesn't mean that I want other people to be poor instead. * Lets accept that we need to empower women to feel more comfortable voicing their opinion. If you are someone who already had a loud voice, great, but there is a good percentage of women that would appreciate this type of support. This doesn't mean they are weaker this just means that culturally we have been told that our opinion doesn't matter, and we need a little nudge. * Lets accept that women know women better than men. All viewpoints are valid, but lets understand that experiencing the world as a woman is much different than experiencing the world as a man. * Lets accept that the men on this list are trying to become better feminist, and are open to guidance. Just like I have had to explain to non-ethnic friends that certain behaviors are not appropriate, we may have to do it with a few of the guys. However, it seems that they are open to becoming better feminist. Lastly, lets accept that we will clash heads at time - but so what!! We are on the SAME TEAM! lol LETS ROCK OUT!! We can do it! sandy Nicely said! Thank you, Sandy. Marc ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Outreach..was.. Proposal: Forking gendergap
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 3:43 AM, elisabeth bauer efleb...@googlemail.comwrote: I don't think outreach letters, however well formulated, will motivate many people to try editing Wikipedia. If you know the women you sent your letter to, why not rather invite them to an edit wikipedia party? Clear and direct invitations to join Wikipedia really matter, I think, which is why Carol's letter excites me. Who knows how many women who could be motivated to edit don't because they think we don't want or need their help? -- Steven Walling Fellow at Wikimedia Foundation wikimediafoundation.org ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] What to do about sexism when we see it on WP?
I saw an incident recently on WP that's fairly common, but it's not clear to me what we should do about it, if anything. A woman editor did something that a few male editors didn't like, and she was taken to task for it. In the course of the discussion, the Wikipedia biography of a woman was mentioned and linked to, and her photograph showed her as attractive. One of the men taking part in the discussion said something positive about the image -- then he added that policy prevented him from going into detail about his feelings about it. (I won't quote him so as not to identify him, but it was words to that effect.) It's a remark typical of young men, and he almost certainly intended no harm. But the effect on me as a reader was that it undermined the woman taking part in the discussion. She also felt that way, and said so. The response was that her objection was laughable. What should we do when we witness this kind of thing? I've never said anything in these situations, because I see them so often, and there's a risk of turning it into a dramafest. I also know that some people, men and women both, would say it's too minor a thing to comment on. So -- should we be saying something, and if so what and how, or is it best to ignore? Sarah ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] What to do about sexism when we see it on WP?
The behavior you describe is all too common on Wikipedia (and even worse on Commons). I could quote some much more blatant examples than the one you cite, but I'll spare everyone the groans. I think the problem is that most guys do not understand that creating an unwanted sexualized environment is a form of sexism and an abuse of male privilege (and that it has a real effect on women's participation in the project). Indeed, I imagine some do not even comprehend the concept of unwanted sexualized environment. Perhaps it would be helpful to point them to: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Sexualized_environment This reminds me of my unsuccessful attempt to get WP:HOTTIE deleted :( For the long term, we should think about trying to get wording added to either the Civility policy or the Harassment policy about offensive verbal comments and sexual innuendo. Kaldari On 3/17/11 2:15 PM, Sarah wrote: I saw an incident recently on WP that's fairly common, but it's not clear to me what we should do about it, if anything. A woman editor did something that a few male editors didn't like, and she was taken to task for it. In the course of the discussion, the Wikipedia biography of a woman was mentioned and linked to, and her photograph showed her as attractive. One of the men taking part in the discussion said something positive about the image -- then he added that policy prevented him from going into detail about his feelings about it. (I won't quote him so as not to identify him, but it was words to that effect.) It's a remark typical of young men, and he almost certainly intended no harm. But the effect on me as a reader was that it undermined the woman taking part in the discussion. She also felt that way, and said so. The response was that her objection was laughable. What should we do when we witness this kind of thing? I've never said anything in these situations, because I see them so often, and there's a risk of turning it into a dramafest. I also know that some people, men and women both, would say it's too minor a thing to comment on. So -- should we be saying something, and if so what and how, or is it best to ignore? Sarah ___ 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
Re: [Gendergap] Wars
This is great!!! Go Chica!! I would also add something about how info shared on this list is used and boundaries but would like to think of wording more Just thinking out loud. We want to: *create an editing environment in which women in all the different language Wikipedias feel safe and valued as equal participants; *encourage more women to become editors through outreach; *explore the ways in which women editors might have a different perspective or different needs, and find ways to ensure that these are expressed and valued; *encourage more women to stand for positions of responsibility (e.g., adminship, bureaucratship, mediation committee, arbitration committee, board of trustees); *encourage the Foundation to support or engage in research into the editing experiences of women on Wikipedia, including research to determine what percentage of editors are women, rather than relying on women self-identifying in their preferences; *improve article-space coverage of women, women's issues and perspectives, and women's history. Sarah ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Proposal: Forking gendergap: Main list for women
First, I would like to say that, as a male editor of Wikipedia, seeing the discourse of this week, I was upset and I was inspired to look inward, questioning my position here on gendergap. I will refrain from taking a dominant position (if I ever did), and I have something legitimate to say about a comment made on a recent digest. I have recently been posting every day, but I assure you I will be much to busy to post on many days. I am trying to make a gender-based survey with my peers, but I won't reveal anything more until I am further into it, I just started it today. Collective Action said something very thought provoking today: I imagine if Girl Develop IT set up a group to debate the issues rather than just getting on with finding women to help women then they'd likely still be debating the issue (as is this list) rather than actually addressing the gendergap in IT. If women feel uncomfortable with a women-only list I don't see this being as much of a problem as women having a problem with male dominated lists since almost every programming list on this planet (other than ones set up by and for women-only) are male dominated. There are no shortage of lists for women to join who feel uncomfortable with women-only environments. Providing environments for women who feel uncomfortable in male-dominated environments is what is needed since the other is already provided by default on the internet. There does not need to be a debate about the rights and wrongs of this -just the option of both being available so that everyone has the choice to join a supportive environment with the gender balance of their choosing. Before this, I was mostly opposed to forking. But if this were separated into a female, male, and co-ed group, and perhaps each person could be a member if one or two appropriate ones, then we would not have such a problem. And people part of both lists could correspond with ideas. Then,this would not be so separate, and maybe not so much opposition and trolling. Does anyone agree? I think that Collective Action's idea is good, thoug I don't think that they had the exact same idea that I did. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] What to do about sexism when we see it on WP?
I saw an incident recently on WP that's fairly common, but it's not clear to me what we should do about it, if anything. A woman editor did something that a few male editors didn't like, and she was taken to task for it. In the course of the discussion, the Wikipedia biography of a woman was mentioned and linked to, and her photograph showed her as attractive. One of the men taking part in the discussion said something positive about the image -- then he added that policy prevented him from going into detail about his feelings about it. (I won't quote him so as not to identify him, but it was words to that effect.) It's a remark typical of young men, and he almost certainly intended no harm. But the effect on me as a reader was that it undermined the woman taking part in the discussion. She also felt that way, and said so. The response was that her objection was laughable. What should we do when we witness this kind of thing? I've never said anything in these situations, because I see them so often, and there's a risk of turning it into a dramafest. I also know that some people, men and women both, would say it's too minor a thing to comment on. So -- should we be saying something, and if so what and how, or is it best to ignore? Sarah Please look at Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#Criteria_for_redaction particularly: 2. Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value and/or violates our Biographies of living people policy. This includes slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value, but not mere factual statements, and not ordinary incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations. When attack pages or pages with grossly improper titles are deleted, the page names may also be removed from the delete and page move logs. 3. Purely disruptive material that is of little or no relevance or merit to the project. This includes allegations, grossly inappropriate threats or attacks, browser-crashing or malicious HTML, shock pages, phishing pages, known virus proliferating pages, and links to web pages that disparage or threaten some person or entity and serve no other valid purpose, but not mere spam links. but keep in mind: A certain low degree of inappropriate or disruptive posting is normal within a large community. In general, only material that meets the criteria below should be deleted. Users should consider whether simply reverting or ignoring would be sufficient in the circumstances. If deletion is needed, only redact what is necessary (i.e. leave non-harmful fields visible), and give a clear reason for the removal. The community's decision was that RevisionDelete should not be used without prior clear consensus for ordinary incivility, attacks, or for claims of editorial misconduct. The wider community may need to fully review these at the time and in future, even if offensive. If whatever it is poses a risk of turning it into a dramafest it is not within the normal range of inappropriate or disruptive posting, as in this case there may be a need to not single out the offender, therefore it may be useful to use Wikipedia mail to bring the matter to the attention of OTRS, which is the people with the oversight tool. Even if suppression is not appropriate deletion can still be done and a quiet and private warning given. So, if it is serious, in your opinion, (tell them why if you think it is) email User:Oversight https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Oversight Fred ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Proposal: Forking gendergap: Main list for women
on 3/17/11 8:11 PM, The Richardsons at dons...@optonline.net wrote: Snip Before this, I was mostly opposed to forking. But if this were separated into a female, male, and co-ed group, and perhaps each person could be a member if one or two appropriate ones, then we would not have such a problem. And people part of both lists could correspond with ideas. Then,this would not be so separate, and maybe not so much opposition and trolling. Does anyone agree? I think that Collective Action's idea is good, thoug I don't think that they had the exact same idea that I did. The initial purpose of a gender-gap List (as I understood it) was to identify and explore the reasons why more females are not participating in the Wikipedia Project, and to try and find some solutions for this. It has become quite obvious that, at the heart of the gender-gap problem, is really a relationship-gap one. That is, one gender finding it difficult to relate to - and be comfortable working with - another gender. Since a project such as Wikipedia (indeed, most all projects) is best served by input from both genders, it is this relationship problem that deserves the strongest focus. If there would be agreement that such a relationship problem does indeed exist, and its solution be the focus and purpose of a Mailing List (or any such forum) what would the single-gender forums have to discuss except to commiserate and share their stories? A gender-relationship-gap can only be tackled and resolved if both genders are participating. The only thing left is if individual members have their own personal problems relating to the other gender. And this can only be resolved on an individual basis. Marc Riddell ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] What to do about sexism when we see it on WP?
Just for information - Whoever starts actioning this needs to be careful. The community lashbacks over trying to limit abusive behavior in other areas (the civility arguments, etc) have been severe at times. A lot of men will take That was sexist and is creating a hostile environment, please stop to be a challenge and insult rather than believe it. If an offense was marginal, they may get others to support that obstructionism. This is not a Don't try to do this, it's a Be careful and aware. -george On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: Nice find Fred. I hadn't read those before. It sounds like revision deletion might be an option in more extreme cases. There was discussion recently about setting up a Gender issues noticeboard on English Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Feminism#Gender_issues_noticeboard.3F), but no consensus was reached. Also, although it is not an official forum for such matters, some editors bring problematic cases to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Feminism At least it's better than getting laughed at by going to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Kaldari On 3/17/11 6:04 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: I saw an incident recently on WP that's fairly common, but it's not clear to me what we should do about it, if anything. A woman editor did something that a few male editors didn't like, and she was taken to task for it. In the course of the discussion, the Wikipedia biography of a woman was mentioned and linked to, and her photograph showed her as attractive. One of the men taking part in the discussion said something positive about the image -- then he added that policy prevented him from going into detail about his feelings about it. (I won't quote him so as not to identify him, but it was words to that effect.) It's a remark typical of young men, and he almost certainly intended no harm. But the effect on me as a reader was that it undermined the woman taking part in the discussion. She also felt that way, and said so. The response was that her objection was laughable. What should we do when we witness this kind of thing? I've never said anything in these situations, because I see them so often, and there's a risk of turning it into a dramafest. I also know that some people, men and women both, would say it's too minor a thing to comment on. So -- should we be saying something, and if so what and how, or is it best to ignore? Sarah Please look at Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#Criteria_for_redaction particularly: 2. Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value and/or violates our Biographies of living people policy. This includes slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value, but not mere factual statements, and not ordinary incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations. When attack pages or pages with grossly improper titles are deleted, the page names may also be removed from the delete and page move logs. 3. Purely disruptive material that is of little or no relevance or merit to the project. This includes allegations, grossly inappropriate threats or attacks, browser-crashing or malicious HTML, shock pages, phishing pages, known virus proliferating pages, and links to web pages that disparage or threaten some person or entity and serve no other valid purpose, but not mere spam links. but keep in mind: A certain low degree of inappropriate or disruptive posting is normal within a large community. In general, only material that meets the criteria below should be deleted. Users should consider whether simply reverting or ignoring would be sufficient in the circumstances. If deletion is needed, only redact what is necessary (i.e. leave non-harmful fields visible), and give a clear reason for the removal. The community's decision was that RevisionDelete should not be used without prior clear consensus for ordinary incivility, attacks, or for claims of editorial misconduct. The wider community may need to fully review these at the time and in future, even if offensive. If whatever it is poses a risk of turning it into a dramafest it is not within the normal range of inappropriate or disruptive posting, as in this case there may be a need to not single out the offender, therefore it may be useful to use Wikipedia mail to bring the matter to the attention of OTRS, which is the people with the oversight tool. Even if suppression is not appropriate deletion can still be done and a quiet and private warning given. So, if it is serious, in your opinion, (tell them why if you think it is) email User:Oversight https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Oversight Fred ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
Re: [Gendergap] What to do about sexism when we see it on WP?
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: Nice find Fred. I hadn't read those before. It sounds like revision deletion might be an option in more extreme cases. Less extreme cases should be taken here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts I agree with George that care is needed. Progress will be made when the more obvious etiquette issues are tackled first. Reporting lots of marginal offenses will result in a backlash. -- John Vandenberg ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
