Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 16, Issue 12
Irony?? As the meme says, You keep using that word and I don't think you know what it means. - http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/17230566.jpg I think the word hostile is more suitable. There's a difference between constructive criticism of an idea, and calling it 'idiotic' and 'stupid.' While I think you make a good point, it's completely eclipsed by the words you chose. So, on to my constructive criticism. Haven't had the time to read the digest lately, so my apologies if I'm out of the loop. But the name Wiki Loves Women makes me cringe. It reminds me of all the times I've ever heard a guy who's been called out on his sexism say But I love women! I have a mother! And a sister! It says to me: trying too hard. Pandering. It makes me want to roll my eyes and go yeah right. Maybe this is just a nitpick, and perhaps I am the only person who sees it that way. Just my opinion. On the other hand, as an amateur photographer who is always looking to get more experience photographing people, this seems like an awesome idea in terms of trade. I often photograph friends' events for free - they get photos, and I get experience. Targeting women photographers could be a way to draw more women to wiki as contributors and perhaps help to cultivate a different environment in commons. -- Erin O'Rourke http://erin-orourke.com ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] article differentials/unnecessary drama
I'll echo Kevin's words, as I couldn't have said it better myself: To me, article differentials like this are one of the most interesting manifestations of the gender gap, and are worth talking about on this list. Content that deals primarily with women is systematically underdeveloped throughout the projects, and that is a big deal. The gendergap would still be disturbing even if this weren't the case - but to me at least, the systemic underdevelopment of content is probably the single most worrisome issue involved. And while I may not jumping to join in on conversations regarding photos of questionable value to Wikipedia I think it prompts important discussions about how to shape the policy and culture of Wikipedia while preserving the intention of the site. In addition, if you're calling for less drama I'd suggest you heed your own words, Beria. Pete's response did not imply you're not qualified to talk but rather called for some more constructive feedback and ideas. Obviously you're doing a lot for the gender gap and that's great. On the other hand, the attitude is completely uncalled for. -- Erin O'Rourke http://erin-orourke.com ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] No Sources - argh!
Thanks Kaldari and Andreas, I appreciate the feedback! -- Erin O'Rourke http://erin-orourke.com ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
