[Gendergap] Re: #MEMORY (WAS: Re: List update)
The overwhelming majority of Wikimedians work only on one or two projects. I don't think Meta is a good place to memorialize them; in many cases, Meta is a project they have never gone to, where they are mostly unknown, and it is disconnected in almost all cases from the project where the deceased editor worked and called home. Their home project(s) or projects where they have made significant contributions are the best place to recognize them. There are a few Wikimedians who have worked at what may be considered the "global" level - which includes many people on this list - who might be recognized, in addition, on Meta or through a blog post or similar. Certainly, most of the contributions of our deceased colleagues are, in fact, preserved forever in the edit histories of the content areas in which they have worked. Those who do not participate in content creation/management or on any of the projects...I really don't know where they would best be memorialized. I do know that the memorial messages on SlimVirgin/SarahSV's English Wikipedia user talk page <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SlimVirgin> have been a great comfort to her family, and I'd encourage anyone who would like to leave a message of condolence to do so there. Risker/Anne On Wed, 12 May 2021 at 05:21, Željko Blaće wrote: > Hey Folx - > I am new to the list and relatively new to organizing in this spectrum and > context. My work is mainly in bringing queer, but also feminist, green and > other progressive practices (mostly to troubled Croatian Wikipedia, > but also in the region and trans-locally to peers elsewhere). > > Leigh thanks for the honest update and I am sorry to hear of email losses, > as well as happy to hear of recovery of control due to tech update :-) > Dysfunctional Croatian language mailing list still needs to recover > control. > > I am very sorry to hear of losses of so many Wikimedians and though I did > not know them, their work as volunteers should maybe at least > systematically saved and presented for the collective memory of the > movement. > > I feel that corporate social media silos do not support that well (as > there is little value to extract there), so self hosting and preserving > information, knowledge, expressions and impressions should be organized in > some way. > > I wonder if there is already an established way on META or elsewhere to > keep track of people who contributed to the movement and specifically to > causes like the people you mentioned here. If not maybe it makes sense to > start something. > > Best Z. Blace > > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 10:45 AM Marielle Volz > wrote: > >> Welcome back! >> Just to piggyback on this post, I'd also like to let people know that >> we've recently lost two editors who were a significant part of working on >> content gaps. >> Flyer22, who made significant contributions to articles on women's >> health, died in January: >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2021-01-31/Obituary >> >> And just recently, SlimVirgin (Sarah), who among her many significant >> contributions overall, also founded the Gender Gap Task Force in 2013 and >> wrote an essay on how to write about women on Wikipedia: >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deceased_Wikipedians/2021#SlimVirgin >> >> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 9:34 PM Leigh Honeywell wrote: >> >>> Hey folks! it's been a while. >>> >>> The Gendergap mailing list just got migrated to Mailman 3, which means I >>> now have my admin access back (I'd lost access to the previous system and >>> hadn't had a chance to restore it for... several years.) >>> >>> The list had been set to new posters being moderated, which resulted in >>> a number of messages being caught and I wasn't able to release them. >>> Unfortunately those messages didn't survive the migration, but I've >>> adjusted the moderation settings and going forward new messages should go >>> through. >>> >>> I've adjusted the list description to be a bit more concise: it is now >>> "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase gender diversity >>> in Wikimedia projects." >>> >>> This part is sad, but as a heads up and for transparency's sake: >>> I also went ahead and removed Kevin as an Owner/Moderator of the list as >>> I don't know who now controls his former email accounts. For those who had >>> missed his passing, there is a lovely tribute to his life and work on the >>> Signpost: >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-08-04/Obituary >>> >>> Hope that everyone has bee
Re: [Gendergap] more women's voices
Noting that the discussion has now closed with the video being removed. Risker/Anne On 29 October 2017 at 14:50, Ryan Kaldari <rkald...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > It would be nice to have some women weighing on this debate: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion#RfC_regarding_video > > > ___ > 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] Oclc Wikipedia + Libraries project - Webjunction program
I had the opportunity to meet Monika at Wikimania, and poked just a little bit at this project. It looks really interesting! Thanks Monika for telling us about it. Risker/Anne On 9 August 2017 at 10:56, Monika Sengul-Jones <jones.mon...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello all - > > I'm Monika, longtime reader of this list! I've been following this > conversation on increasing the diversity of Wikipedias contributors with > some interest, as well as the conversation on professional connections on > Wikipedia spaces. It seems relevant and valuable to share with this group > details about the project in working on -- and to invite your help. > > I'm a WIR for Oclc's 18-month Wikipedia + Libraries project. > http://www.webjunction.org/explore-topics/wikipedia-libraries.html > > This fall the project is running an online training program for up to 500 > US public library staff to learn about engaging Wikipedia in their > libraries for their communities. The curriculum will cover a wide variety > of subjects specific to English Wikipedia (it's history, pillars, community > norms, issues of reliability, authority control, organization and user > roles, editing and editorial flow, COI, etc.). Through observations, > exercises, case studies and small assignments, the participants will slowly > learn best practices, then gain strategies to apply what they know about > Wikipedia to improve info literacy in their communities. By the end the > goal is to have the participants be confident that they can engage > Wikipedia, understand what they are doing and how it works, and make a plan > for next step in editing and designing programming. > > The course will take place on Webjunction, a learning place for libraries > that's been serving 80,000+ library staff globally since 2003. By > participating in the nine week course, US public library staff will earn a > certificate and some can apply for continuing education credits for their > participation. As a WebJunction course, the focus will be on how Wikipedia > editing and programming is relevant to library work. Public library staff > participating will see how Wikipedia make sense to them as information > professionals and possibly, give them reasons to make Wikipedia editing and > outreach a part of their staff duties. The curriculum will make suggestions > about activities to try at their libraries and include guest speakers who > have edited and done outreach as public library staff. > > Given the interest in this thread on helping newcomers, and how that > works, I wanted to share the specifics of this project and I invite folks > in this list to participate in the program as a volunteer guide for one (or > more) of the course modules. > > When I reading Fluffernutter's story, and Pine's, I was smiling - thank > you for sharing, I completely agree, the times I've felt most encouraged in > trying something new have been when I am genuinely curious and feel > comfortable in asking questions -- for me this has also been in a course > environment; a safe learning space is critical to gaining the confidence > to participate in something new. I think it holds for a big project like > Wikipedia, which has many esoteric technical features and so many guides > and policies. > > For this reason I am interested in recruiting a few thoughtful, helpful > editors to join this program to mentor / guide public library staff. Most > of the participants in the nine week course (Sept 13 - Nov 15; six live > online sessions) will be new to editing and the technical/community aspects > of editing. ~77% of public library respondents in the preview webinar > survey said they use Wikipedia weekly but have never edited Wikipedia. 98% > said Wikipedia is relevant to their jobs. They would benefit from meeting > and getting help and support from real human Wikipedians familiar with the > social norms and features of the technical interface. In return, you can > learn more about public libraries, what they do, their services and > missions. Public libraries and Wikipedia share many values -- including > commitments to civility and providing free open access to information. > > The course will take place on WebJunction's learning platform. To ensure > privacy, the interactive forums are all there. Guiding and mentoring would > require about hour or three for a 2-week module (and you could help out in > more than one module). Modules are (roughly): 1) about Wikipedia, 2) > editing 101, 3) Wikipedia and information literacy programs, 4) Wikipedia > and community outreach. > > I am glad for the opportunity to share this with the gender gap list, and > I hope that if you are curious you will reach out. I'm actually writing > this en-route to Montreal (first time at Wikimania!
Re: [Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal
You're mistaken, Neotarf. There is no non-disparagement agreement, and arbitrators have never been required to sign one or even offered the opportunity to sign one, nor have functionaries or anyone else. There is a* confidentiality* agreement that refers to private and confidential information, which volunteers who have access to such information are required to sign.[1] These are two very different things. I am not suggesting that discussion be suppressed - I am insisting that you "show us the money" - give us some evidence that what you are saying is true. If you can't do thatthen you're just gossiping, and that's not what this list is about. You are trying to persuade this list that articles in respected journals about policies of companies that have nothing to do with Wikipedia or Wikimedia are somehow or other related to some rumour you have heard that women are being forced to sign non-whatever agreements in order to edit Wikipedia - a rumour which you have bluntly refused to back up. At this stage, your allegation that anyone is required to post their real name, identify their COI, and sign non-disparagement agreements in order to edit wikipedia is...well, factless, until you can show us some facts. Risker/Anne [1] List of people who have current and valid confidentiality agreements: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Access_to_nonpublic_information_policy/Noticeboard On 7 August 2017 at 14:11, Neotarf <neot...@gmail.com> wrote: > So we have two former arbitrators on this list, one of whom has offered to > assist in evaluating this thing privately, and who has himself signed such > a non-disparagement agreement, and another who wants to suppress all > discussion of it. We don't know if she has signed such an agreement. > > Publications like the New York Times and Washington Post do print and > evaluate information without naming sources, and it is true they are > sometimes called "fake news" on Twitter, but does not make the information > "factless", or prevent Wikipedia from consider them to be RS. > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> So, in other words, you have no evidence at all, except for some gossip, >> that *anyone* is being required to sign NDAs in order to edit Wikipedia. >> You have some information that suggests other organizations, completely >> separate from Wikipedia, >> >> It's bad enough that women do, indeed, face greater sexual harassment >> both societally and on Wikimedia projects, something that is quantified in >> various ways even if there is some question about the accuracy of that >> quantification. Sesnsationalistic statements such as yours, without any >> evidence at all, have a very significant negative impact on the ability to >> fight such harassment, especially when they seem so absurd. Simply put, >> it's factless allegation, or what certain sectors of the American public >> have come to term "fake news". Please retract your statement. >> >> Risker/Anne >> >> On 7 August 2017 at 08:21, Neotarf <neot...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I have no way of investigating something I was not supposed to find out >>> about in the first place. Given Wikipedia's culture of retaliation against >>> anyone who speaks out, I am unlikely to find out more, but it did seem >>> credible. These agreements are becoming more common, for instance here a >>> female employee wanted to get out of her non-disparagement agreement but >>> Angel List said no. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0 >>> 7/21/technology/silicon-valley-sexual-harassment-non-dispara >>> gement-agreements.html Also the internal Google gender manifesto that >>> was just leaked "Until about a week ago, you would have heard very little >>> from me publicly about this, because (as a fairly senior Googler) my job >>> would have been to deal with it internally, and confidentiality rules would >>> have prevented me from saying much in public.But as it happens, (although >>> this wasn’t the way I was planning on announcing it) I actually recently >>> left Google..." https://medium.com/@yonatanzun >>> ger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788 >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:16 AM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 6 August 2017 at 23:08, Neotarf <neot...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> .. >>>>> >>>>> Women who do not want to interact on these terms, with individuals who >>>>> are quite probably minors, are being silenced. I have heard that >>>
Re: [Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal
So, in other words, you have no evidence at all, except for some gossip, that *anyone* is being required to sign NDAs in order to edit Wikipedia. You have some information that suggests other organizations, completely separate from Wikipedia, It's bad enough that women do, indeed, face greater sexual harassment both societally and on Wikimedia projects, something that is quantified in various ways even if there is some question about the accuracy of that quantification. Sesnsationalistic statements such as yours, without any evidence at all, have a very significant negative impact on the ability to fight such harassment, especially when they seem so absurd. Simply put, it's factless allegation, or what certain sectors of the American public have come to term "fake news". Please retract your statement. Risker/Anne On 7 August 2017 at 08:21, Neotarf <neot...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have no way of investigating something I was not supposed to find out > about in the first place. Given Wikipedia's culture of retaliation against > anyone who speaks out, I am unlikely to find out more, but it did seem > credible. These agreements are becoming more common, for instance here a > female employee wanted to get out of her non-disparagement agreement but > Angel List said no. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/technology/silicon- > valley-sexual-harassment-non-disparagement-agreements.html Also the > internal Google gender manifesto that was just leaked "Until about a week > ago, you would have heard very little from me publicly about this, because > (as a fairly senior Googler) my job would have been to deal with it > internally, and confidentiality rules would have prevented me from saying > much in public.But as it happens, (although this wasn’t the way I was > planning on announcing it) I actually recently left Google..." > https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto- > 1e3773ed1788 > > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:16 AM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 6 August 2017 at 23:08, Neotarf <neot...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> .. >>> >>> Women who do not want to interact on these terms, with individuals who >>> are quite probably minors, are being silenced. I have heard that >>> professional women are being recruited for Wikipedia, women whose employers >>> would ordinarily be expected to protect them from a 'hostile work place', >>> but they are being required to post their real identities on their talk >>> pages, along with the names of their employers. and a COI form statement. >>> They are also required to sign a non-disclosure agreement that prevents >>> them from revealing any harassment they experience in Wikipedia, or from >>> even revealing they have been required to sign an NDA. These women will >>> join Wikipedia, and listen to the pitch and eat the bagels, and Wikipedia >>> gets to count them as female editors, but very few of them go on to make >>> that second edit, because it's their professional reputation on the line. >>> >>> If Wikipedia wants women editors they are going to have to come to terms >>> with this. >>> >>> >>> >> This is a very inflammatory thing to say, Neotarf, and I need to insist >> that you show some proof of this. Links to discussions or requirements, >> please. This is far too sensationalistic to allow it to sit here without >> serious evidence. >> >> Risker/Anne >> >> ___ >> 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
Re: [Gendergap] Infobox - help needed
I'm sorry, but I don't really see this as a gendergap issue - I see it as a pretty pure content dispute. And as an administrator, I would be closing this discussion in favour of removing the parameter. Indeed, the political parties for which this parameter might possibly be useful (Labour and Co-operative) do not use it at all. Your own description does not suggest this political party has a non-partisan affiliation (which does appear to be a contradiction in terms - if a group is non-partisan, it should not logically have any affiliation with any political party), it suggests that it will affiliate with any group or individual which shares its values. I'm sorry to disagree with you, but I have to wonder if perhaps you are operating under a definition of "non-partisan" that is at variance with most other definitions of non-partisan - including the definition and description in the Wikipedia article to which the term is currently linked in the "affiliation" parameter. Risker/Anne On 19 July 2017 at 19:34, Marie Earley <eir...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Can someone look at this for me? > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Women%27s_Equality_Party# > Proposal_to_remove_.27nonpartisan.27_from_the_info_box > > The Women's Equality Party is non-partisan. It is willing to work with ANY > and ALL OTHER PARTIES. It is a key fact about them as a party. I think > removing it would breach WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE "to summarize (and not supplant) > key facts that appear in the article". I've also offered multiple sources > to demonstrate its non-partisanship. > > All the comments seem to be debating whether the party IS non-partisan, if > a party CAN BE non-partisan etc. and consensus building on that point. > > The Women's Equality Party is not affiliated to any OTHER party, a key > fact which is made repeatedly clear in the article. > > I think it needs an administrator to make a ruling on the Wikipedia POLICY > POINTS that I have made (no-one has taken me up on any of them in the > discussion), rather than a consensus based on the ding-dong over the > concept of non-partisanship generally. > > For me this is an attempt at censorship. > >"We cannot suggest that WEP are a bunch of head-bangers if they are > willing to work with anyone, regardless of which side of the political > divide they come from." > > >"Let's take 'non-partisan' out of the infobox, it makes the party sound > too reasonable." > > Marie > > ___ > 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
Re: [Gendergap] Wiktionary *desperately* needs more gender-aware editors
Hello Jessy - I see that your second effort[1], where you eliminated all references to physical appearance of either gender was accepted. I think that was appropriate. I think what was a bigger issue in your first effort was that you just switched male to female and vice versa, but left in the part about physical appearance in both cases. Your second effort was exemplary - it reflected completely gender-neutral attributes (cleverness, athletic ability) and is an excellent way to have addressed the gender bias in the information. Just switching the gender without changing the attribute didn't really make the references less biased or more gender-neutral. That you identified positive gender-neutral attributes with a woman in these examples was a major coup on your part, and is possibly one of the best examples of addressing a systemic bias I've seen in a while. It occurs to me that you figured out all by yourself how to improve the Wiktionary entry while also removing the systemic bias, by sticking to it and thinking more broadly about the issue. I'm not sure that you'll get recognition for this work, mostly because most editors get very little recognition. One thing that I personally have found to be rewarding is to receive a "thanks" message from another editor, which I have received for edits on Meta, English Wikipedia, and Commons. It appears to me that the "Thank" extension isn't active on English Wiktionary. If someone is more technically minded than me, perhaps this can be verified and a phabricator task initiated in order to get it active. Then I would encourage you to use it; many editors on Wiktionary will recognize (and probably appreciate) being thanked since it is active on other projects they probably edit, and will start reciprocating. Risker/Anne [1] https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=so=revision=42599094=42598962 On 26 April 2017 at 13:27, Jessy D. King <jessy.d.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > I'm new to this list, this is my first post. > > If Wikipedia is a boy's club, Wiktionary is an uber boy's club. It *so* > desperately needs people interested in addressing systemic bias. > > Every time I try to make completely legitimate fixes to address systemic > bias of the male privilege variety (for example, > https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=so= > revision=42598962=42598906 ) > it is reverted very quickly (in the just-referenced case, within 10 > minutes). Then a fight must ensue in which I'm accused of being things like > "dishonest", "disrespectful" and 'railing'. The person in this case has > demonstrated his double standards in his edit summary and in his comments > to me on his talk page, and that is absolutely (unfortunately) the norm > amongst long-term Wiktionary editors. > > It is incredibly demoralising. My contributions to Wiktionary include > adding etymologies, adding quotations, all with absolutely no gender issues > involved, yet none of that work is ever recognised in any way, and I'm > treated like a resented interloper. The majority of long-term Wiktionary > editors seem to bitterly resent the very suggestion of addressing systemic > bias. It is a really, really nasty little uber boy's club in there. Which I > realise may not encourage anyone to join, I'm just being honest. > > > > ___ > 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] Fwd: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing the Hardware donation program
This may be of interest to some members of this list. Risker/Anne -- Forwarded message -- From: Asaf Bartov <abar...@wikimedia.org> Date: 17 March 2017 at 01:06 Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Announcing the Hardware donation program To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org> Dear Wikimedians, The Wikimedia Foundation is pleased to announce a small new program called the Hardware Donation Program. In a word, it is a program designed to donate depreciated (but fully working) hardware from the WMF office to community members who would put it to good use. The program, including instructions on how to apply, is described on Meta, here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hardware_donation_program Please read the information carefully. I especially encourage you to pay attention to the program's design considerations, which determine most of the decisions we'll be making. We currently have approximately 20 laptops ready to be donated. Applications are welcome. The upcoming Wikimedia Conference in Berlin (in about two weeks) would be an excellent opportunity to deliver some of those laptops in person to approved applications, so if you think you might be interested, I'd encourage you to apply as soon as possible. Please also help spread the word about this program, by forwarding this e-mail to other Wikimedia lists you're on, and posting the link to the program page on village pumps and *community* (not public) social media channels or other communication forms you use. Special thanks to User:Anntinomy from Wikimedia Ukraine, who had the idea of asking about possible donation of older machines from WMF, and inspired this program. Mini-FAQ: Q: Why are you doing this? A: WMF's Office IT determines a lifetime for work machines, and regularly replaces older machines. This creates a stock of older, working machines, that are available for donation. We can donate them locally to San Francisco charities, but figure that if we can find low-cost ways to deliver them to our own community members, that's so much better. Q: Am I eligible? A: Read the fine program documentation. Q: If I'm eligible, am I guaranteed a donated laptop? A: no. Q: Once these 20 laptops are donated, will there be others? A: yes, eventually. Q: How can you ensure people would use the machines for Wikimedia purposes? A: We can't. We'll be making a good-effort assessment of the likelihood of Wikimedia use, and make a decision to donate (or not) the equipment. Once donated, the equipment no longer belongs to WMF. We encourage, but can't enforce, reporting on impact achieved using the equipment. Q: I need a few laptops for my event in two weeks! Can I get them through this program? A: No. Read the fine program documentation. Q: I'm really happy about this! A: So are we! :) Q: I'm really angry about this! A: So it goes. Q: I have more questions! A: Hit 'Reply'. :) Cheers, Asaf ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Craigslist founder donates $500K to curb Wikipedia trolls - Email filters?
On 12 February 2017 at 17:22, Jonathan Cardy <werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Risker, > > Clearly not everyone would opt into it if there was an option to do so. Do > you object to the idea of developing an option to opt in to email filtering? > > Regards > > Jonathan/WereSpielChequers > > > Yes, I do, to be honest. The other proposals included in this discussion would be far, far more effective in limiting unwanted or inappropriate emails, without requiring the need to recruit and screen a large number of volunteers to "screen out" inappropriate emails. Honestly, the idea that we'd want people to turn their volunteer time over to screening emails rather than doing everything else that needs to be done is kind of worrisome; current volunteers already have a plethora of activities to participate in, many of which can also assist in harassment reduction, and I'm not sure I'd like to know the psychological profile of people who would volunteer specifically to screen emails. Hiring staff to do this would be outrageous, both from the optics perspective, and more importantly from the cost perspective; the $500,000 grant would probably not even cover a year's worth of salaries. There are some truly excellent ideas on how to manage email harassment already in this thread, most particularly those that center on the individual users selecting with whom they wish to correspond off-wiki. I think these have a lot of potential to provide support to our volunteers. Do keep in mind, though, that a disproportionate number of users who have been on the receiving end of email harassment are those who are expected to be available via email, and for whom much email would include confidential or private information relating to their volunteer tasks: oversighters, checkusers, Arbcom members, and in some cases administrators. It would be inappropriate for them to use moderated email. Risker/Anne ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Craigslist founder donates $500K to curb Wikipedia trolls - Email filters?
I am extremely, extremely uncomfortable with email moderation. I cannot emphasize this enough. Frankly, I'd rather the NSA be reading my mail than my fellow Wikimedians - they have no actual interest in anything that I'm writing. If moderation became standard, I'd shut off "email this user". It would be a cure far worse than the disease. It would also be unacceptable for the role accounts that are standard on many projects - on English, we have special role accounts that link directly to the Oversight mailing list, Arbcom, and a few other places. Not only are they moderated by the list owners themselves already, but the contents are usually far more confidential than would be appropriate for a moderator without the same level of access as the list itself. I do like the idea of being able to block emails from certain accounts or to only accept them from certain accounts. Risker/Anne On 12 February 2017 at 08:04, Jonathan Cardy <werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Ryan and Chris, I've endorsed the Bethnaught proposal which covers > all of this idea except the email filter bits. I think the privacy issues > of a moderated email stream can be resolved by OTRS style checking of the > moderators. As for the staffing issues I'm optimistic that there are plenty > of people willing to help this sort of issue if we can identify a role for > them. If it does prove difficult to staff we could always make it a service > we limit to people who have had problems and asked for help as opposed to > an option in their email preferences. > > On 9 February 2017 at 22:36, Ryan Kaldari <rkald...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 3:44 PM, WereSpielChequers < >> werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> ... >>> >>> The first would be to allow editors to set their email to only receive >>> from confirmed or even extended confirmed accounts. This would be invisible >>> to new editors, they'd just not see the *email this user *option for >>> people they weren't entitled to email. >>> >> >> This is a great idea. I wish I had this now. >> >> >>> The second would be an opt in Email moderation service. Similarly to >>> only receiving email from confirmed or extended confirmed accounts, this >>> would enable editors to opt all or parts of their email via the "email this >>> user" function into a moderated stream. Much as with moderated posts to >>> lists like this, a list admin would see the email and either approve it or >>> take other action. You'd presumably need to having something on the send >>> email screen to say that "this editor has opted into email moderation and >>> your email will be delayed slightly before being screened and forwarded" >>> You'd also need a group of volunteers to do the moderation, spot abusive >>> emails and block abusers. >>> >> >> Also a good idea, but I doubt it would be scalable. We have a hard enough >> time finding volunteers to moderate this mailing list, much less, hundreds >> of people's incoming email streams. Plus there would be serious privacy >> issues to worry about. >> >> >>> The third would be an AI driven filter that people could opt into and >>> which would screen emails going through this system and put high risk ones >>> into a moderation queue. >>> >> >> This might be a more workable implementation of the previous idea. >> >> Another idea I've heard would be to let people use email aliases similar >> to Craigslist. That way you could respond to wiki-related emails without >> giving away your actual email address. >> >> >> ___ >> 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
Re: [Gendergap] U.S. government website for International Women of Courage Award is down
Please bear in mind that many US government websites are routinely rebuilt at the time of a transition of the presidency and/or cabinet level change. This is not new or unusual, although the last time there was a transition was 8 years ago and the websites weren't nearly as built-up. They are, however, required, to archive all pages, so they should be somewhere - not necessarily easy to find, but somewhere within the US government sites. Risker/Anne (Who lives in Canada, which does not have the same applicable legislation as exists in the US to require the federal government to retain information) On 1 February 2017 at 12:31, J Hayes <slowki...@gmail.com> wrote: > here is the archive .is page > https://archive.is/1XJm > internet archive not working > > On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Neotarf <neot...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The U.S. government website for the International Women of Courage Award >> is down. There are probably quite a few articles that link to this page, as >> it helps establish notability for many women in the Global South. >> >> The award was started by Condoleezza Rice in 2007 when she served as U.S. >> Secretary of State under Republican president George W. Bush. >> >> https://www.state.gov/s/gwi/programs/iwoc/ >> >> >> ___ >> 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
Re: [Gendergap] Good news from EN Wikipedia
On 11 January 2017 at 12:51, Carol Moore dc <carolmoor...@verizon.net>
wrote:
> An interesting related question is: How many admins are approved whose sex
> is totally unknown?? Similarly desysopped
>
>
Well, here is the lis
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Former_administrators/reason/for_cause>t
of users who were desysopped "for cause". That is, they weren't desysopped
because of a clearly compromised account, because of inactivity, because
they died, or resigned, or they changed accounts, or they "vanished".
There are only 33 names on that list and, as far as I can tell, only one of
them identified as being a woman. To be honest, I looked at that list and
found it a bit disturbing that I've actually met at least 10 of those
desysopped admins (they were all male). Kinda made me wonder about the
company I keep. ;-)
As to how many are approved without a clear knowledge of their gender
identity? Probably most of them. There are, without doubt, a lot of
administrators assumed to be male who are actually female; the actual
number is hard to determine, but I'd estimate at least 50, particularly
amongst admins who don't frequent "drama" areas or participate in
real-world activities.
For the record, I was widely assumed to be a male editor up to and even
including my RFA. I made the decision to "come out" as a woman just so the
nomination pronouns would be accurate and nobody would think I'd pulled the
wool over anyone's eyes. And even still...the first vote to oppose my
candidacy referred to me with "he" and "him" all the way through - as was
pointed out by several other RFA participants ("did you even read the
nomination???") This is a bit of a longwinded way of saying that, at least
up until 2008, it was generally assumed that all RFA candidates were male
unless they had disclosed otherwise.
Risker/Anne
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] They want to delete First Ladies now?
Well, in fairness, Nell Arthur was never the U.S. First Lady because she
died before her husband became president.
On the other hand, anyone can remove a PROD, and based on what's in the
article, it was a good call to do so. A few years ago, I did a bit of
review on the likelihood that something PRODded would actually get deleted,
and about half the time the PROD tags were removed. As I recall, I looked
at about 3-4 days of PRODs so it may not be entirely representative. On the
other hand, on a fair number of occasions the PROD tag was removed without
the core issue being addressed, about 60%. Sometimes the reason was
absurd, but more often it was a justified concern (e.g., absence of
reliable sources for key facts or notability) that was just not addressed.
Only a very small percentage (under 5% as I recall) had the PROD tag
removed and then someone took the article to AfD.
Risker/Anne
On 6 January 2017 at 09:52, Johanna-Hypatia Cybeleia <
johanna.hypa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It was a bit of a shock to see on Nell Arthur
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nell_Arthur>'s page an imminent threat of
> deletion. I wouldn't have thought an article on a First Lady could be so
> vulnerable. Somebody is claiming that she has no notability just for being
> married to the vice president who became president after her death. It took
> me about 5 minutes to find RS for the fact that she was indeed notable and
> she had everything to do with getting her husband's political career going.
> He could not have accomplished what he did without her.
>
> smh
>
> So I edited that fact in; in fact, I created a new section headed
> "Political career." Now I can remove the deletion threat (just in time
> before the ax falls!), but I became alarmed: Which other articles on women
> are under this threat? OK, I'm biased: I come from the town named after her
> dad. I couldn't just let her slip away.
>
> Below is the text of the notice, one I haven't seen before, and it has an
> alarming red-bordered appearance right up on top of the article, not the
> talk page.
>
> For equality,
> J.Hy
>
> It is *proposed that this article be deleted
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion>* because of
> the following concern:
>
> Notability is not inherited, and subject only seems to really be known for
> her marriage to Chester A. Arthur
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_A._Arthur>. No indication of
> meeting WP:Notability (people)
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)> at all.
>
> If you can address this concern by improving
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy>, copyediting
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style>, sourcing
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction_to_referencing_with_Wiki_Markup/1>
> , renaming <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Moving_a_page>, or
> merging <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Merging> the page, *please
> edit
> this page
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nell_Arthur=edit>* and
> do so. *You may remove this message if you improve the article or
> otherwise object to deletion for any reason*. Although not required, you
> are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your
> edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, *do not
> replace it
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Nominating>*.
>
> The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for seven
> days, i.e., after 06:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC).
> If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider
> improving the article so that it is acceptable according to the deletion
> policy <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy>.
> --
> *Nominator:* Please consider notifying the author/project: {{subst
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Substitution>:proposed deletion
> notify <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Proposed_deletion_notify>|Nell
> Arthur|concern=Notability is not inherited, and subject only seems to
> really be known for her marriage to [[Chester A. Arthur]]. No indication of
> meeting [[WP:Notability (people)]] at all.}}
>
>
> --
> __
> I have been woman
> for a long time
> beware my smile
>
> --Audre Lorde
>
> ___
> 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
Re: [Gendergap] Study: men who receive harassment training “significantly less likely” to recognize harassment
Responding to WSC: In many settings, including healthcare, higher education, and certain industries, ALL staff are provided with anti-harassment training; it's often treated as an extension of basic health and safety training, and is frequently mandatory. It has nothing to do with the gender identity of staff or their personal history of interactions with others. It is usually presented as a philosophical approach, and there is rarely an effective program that reinforces optimal behaviour and discourages suboptimal behaviour that follows behind the training. So no, I don't think it's a case of "those who need it most" going there. Neotarf, I'd actually question whether there's any validity to the *perception* that training works; in fact, there are a lot of studies that indicate training (particularly ritualized training that is provided without a specific context) is not closely associated with behavioural change. It's only a step above "create a policy". What works is regular reinforcement when behaviour lapses, and empowerment of people to reinforce the desired behaviour. Risker/Anne On 3 May 2016 at 15:04, WereSpielChequers <werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote: > Significantly less likely than men who don't attend such training.. > > So does that mean the targeting is correct and the people sent on such > training are disproportionately those who most need it? > > If you want a test of how effective that training is you could try an AB > test. Study a large group of attendees, half before and half after such > training. Or a large group of men a few months before and after such > training to see if those who attend make more progress than those who > don't. Comparing those who don't attend with those who do would only make > sense if the attendees were randomly chosen. > > WereSpielChequers > > > On 3 May 2016, at 15:53, Neotarf <neot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > "A study in the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science > <http://jab.sagepub.com/content/37/2/125.abstract> found men who > participated in a university staff sexual harassment programme were > “significantly less likely” to see coercive behaviour as sexual harassment." > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/work/sexual-harassment-training-makes-men-less-likely-to-report-inapp/?utm_source=dlvr.it_mediu > > ___ > 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
Re: [Gendergap] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)
Ryanno. I'm sorry, but there are very good reasons why I would not be supporting any such initiative from you. I think you are well aware of what they are. Frankly, some of the stuff I see being referred to as a personal attack should get the person calling it a personal attack blocked. Risker On 24 February 2016 at 22:20, Ryan Kaldari <rkald...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > What I don't understand is if administrators like Risker and Mike Peel are > so concerned about civility on Wikipedia that they object to Keliana's > swearing, why aren't they the people that are making hard blocks against > vested contributors who are unambiguously violating civility with personal > attacks? Instead, Keliana is the one doing that. She's the one actually > putting herself on the line to try to change the civility climate on > Wikipedia. Banning swear words from the Signpost isn't going to do that. > Consistently blocking users who attack other editors as "worthless" or > "low-lifes" or "idiots" (or a million other non-swearing insults) will. > > Risker: I will be happy to support a ban on swearing if you will support a > ban on personal attacks and be willing to act on it. What do you say? > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Regarding "swearing is not in itself uncivil" -- >> >> I agree strongly with that sentiment. However, in group communication it >> can be valuable to have clear lines that must not be crossed, in order to >> keep everybody on the same page. As an analogy, it seems to me that a clear >> expectation of avoiding ALL CAPS in various Internet forums has been >> positive. It's not that anybody thinks all caps is in itself uncivil or >> disrespectful; but very often, they are used in ways that accompany >> disrespectful communication. Establishing, and adhering to, a clear >> expectation of avoiding that format tends to keep people cognizant of the >> idea that their mode of expression matters. >> >> I am not suggesting that the Signpost should rigidly adhere to a "no >> swearing" rule. But I do think it would be good (as you have already >> acknowledged) for varying expectations around swearing to be incorporated >> more carefully into future decisions. >> >> Also, Daniel raises a good point. I had forgotten that Emily had joined >> ArbCom. I agree, that probably colors many people's reactions, whether or >> not it's consciously acknowledged. Another analogy...a good friend of mine >> is a judge, and also a big fan of rock music. I have always been impressed >> with her courage in resisting the unwritten expectation that she would >> steer clear of dive bars and house parties. But as I got to know her, I >> realized that she put a great deal of thought into how she conducted >> herself in such venues. You might find her at a table of people >> pontificating about a local news story, but you wouldn't find her weighing >> in. You might see her with a drink in her hand, but you wouldn't see her >> drunk. And you might hear her expressing strong opinions (unrelated to what >> she would hear in court), but you wouldn't hear her swearing. It's not that >> she felt that strong opinions, getting drunk, or swearing were awful things >> -- but given her position, they were things that could compromise her >> relationship with the people she served. My takeaway -- I think there are >> many good reasons for people (and perhaps publications) in a position of >> trust observing rules of decorum that *exceed* expectations of civility >> that they might apply to others, in order to earn and retain the respect of >> their peers. >> >> Rob, I very much appreciate your perspective on this as an experiment >> that yields worthwhile lessons. I am glad that a diverse set of opinions >> have emerged, and that you are engaging with them. I believe that in the >> long run, the heightened emotions around this one will seem >> unnecessary...but of course, the emotional responses are real, and I don't >> want to discount what drives them. At any rate, I appreciate the candor >> everybody is bringing to this conversation, and continue to read with >> interest. >> Pete >> [[User:Peteforsyth]] >> >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Robert Fernandez <wikigamal...@gmail.com >> > wrote: >> >>> A number of us who are concerned about civility on Wikipedia do not see >>> swearing in and of itself as uncivil. Many people may include >>> professionalism and decorum under the umbrella of civility, but others do >>> not, an
Re: [Gendergap] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)
I think you miss my point, Slowking. It wouldn't have been published at all if not for the author. If a man had written it, I doubt it would have made its way out of Gamaliel's inbox. And if a man with a reputation for negative interactions with women had written it, and somehow or other those aliens from Wikimedia-L had abducted Gamaliel and published the piece, there would have been a 500,000 byte discussion on AN or ANI about whether or not to indef the guy. In other words, the only reason there's a controversy is that the Signpost published a piece that it would have rejected if it had been written by roughly 95% of the active editorship. I'm relatively certain if I'd written exactly the same piece, they would have published it - but if you did, Slowking, it would not have seen the light of day. Risker/Anne On 24 February 2016 at 13:59, J Hayes <slowki...@gmail.com> wrote: > "the reaction would have been infinitely more severe if not for the name > of the author" > > oh no, the reaction is because she is a women. commentators at signpost > care not of position, but they could be appalled that a woman is in a > position of responsibility. why waste a chance to sealion when someone is > celebrating the belated diversity article writing efforts. > > it's all about the editing ethics on signpost, lol > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On 24 February 2016 at 13:45, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Additionally, not only have I never heard "badass" used in a derogatory >>> way, I've never even once heard anyone suggest that it might be used as an >>> insult. In my experience it has only ever been a compliment. In the context >>> of Keilana's op-ed, it should be obvious to any reader that she used it >>> positively. >>> >>> If exactly the same article had been written by someone who has a long >> and colourful history of behaviour considered to be very uncivil, nobody >> would be thinking it was an okay article. It's only okay because Keilana >> wrote it, it wouldn't be okay if someone with a history of alleged misogyny >> wrote it *using exactly the same words*. I doubt very much that the >> Signpost would have published it had it been written by any number of other >> people - in fact, I'm doubtful it would have been published if written by >> any male editor, though Rob could tell us otherwise - but even if they did >> publish it, the reaction would have been infinitely more severe if not for >> the name of the author. >> >> Risker/Anne >> >> >> ___ >> 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
Re: [Gendergap] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)
On 24 February 2016 at 13:45, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Additionally, not only have I never heard "badass" used in a derogatory > way, I've never even once heard anyone suggest that it might be used as an > insult. In my experience it has only ever been a compliment. In the context > of Keilana's op-ed, it should be obvious to any reader that she used it > positively. > > If exactly the same article had been written by someone who has a long and colourful history of behaviour considered to be very uncivil, nobody would be thinking it was an okay article. It's only okay because Keilana wrote it, it wouldn't be okay if someone with a history of alleged misogyny wrote it *using exactly the same words*. I doubt very much that the Signpost would have published it had it been written by any number of other people - in fact, I'm doubtful it would have been published if written by any male editor, though Rob could tell us otherwise - but even if they did publish it, the reaction would have been infinitely more severe if not for the name of the author. Risker/Anne ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)
On 22 February 2016 at 13:06, Neotarf <neot...@gmail.com> wrote: > @Risker, if your high school student are that benign, perhaps I will move > to Canada. > > :-) Even though it's a big urban centre that takes the word "multicultural" to a whole new level, Toronto is actually a pretty accommodating and pleasant place.You'd probably like it here. Risker/Anne ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)
Give me a break, Neotarf. I am critiquing the article and the decisions by its author and its publisher. It doesn't surprise me that having someone of Keilana's stature drop more f-bombs in a couple of paragraphs than I heard on a bus full of high school students this morning will change the climate to suggest that it is now perfectly acceptable to curse out people everywhere under every circumstance. For some strange reason, it appears the people on this list are celebrating that fact. And it has nothing to do with gender, really, and everything to do with making Wikipedia a pleasant place to work. Keilana's actions have encouraged people to make it less so. Risker/Anne On 22 February 2016 at 12:46, Neotarf <neot...@gmail.com> wrote: > @Risker, the double standard is that several individuals dropped f-bombs > on the page, but only the woman got tsked. Talk pages of various users, > not to mention the arbitration committee's pages, routinely contain > f-bombs, which I have never seen anyone remark on. JimboTalk has > occasionally seen some respectful and considerate pushback, but nothing > like the strident comments on the Signpost piece. True, there was a former > arbitrator who had an essay about the word deleted, but that was before my > time. In the current climate, an individual can drop the c-bomb on a > women's task force page with impunity, while someone who marks such a > thread with a NSFW tag can be permabanned for doing so. Wikipedia has > become f-Wikipedia; Keilana has claimed her place at the table. > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 11:33 PM, J Hayes <slowki...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> risker: >> i'm kinda with you about defining deviancy down >> >> it's just that things are so bad can't go lower >> article subjects are already dismayed by the opaque unfriendly culture >> they periodically ask for article deletion >> librarians are advised about the "cultural buzzsaw" >> having a safe environment on line is a lost cause >> but we can have a grim determination with much cursing >> >> cheers >> >> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I think I've made myself clear, Pete. I don't think that anything I say >>> will make a difference, any more than anything I have ever said has changed >>> the sub-optimal behaviour of any editor who thinks it's acceptable >>> professional behaviour to cuss all over the place. I'm just really >>> disappointed that people who used to be in the "let's make this a more >>> pleasant and positive place to do our work" have gone over to the other >>> side. >>> >>> Risker >>> >>> On 21 February 2016 at 19:38, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Risker, I want to be clear: >>>> >>>> It's not that I don't see a problem. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to >>>> your view; but I think your point has been made very strongly already, and >>>> the important audience is the Signpost editorial staff. I am confident they >>>> have heard the message, and I don't see how further discussion moves us in >>>> a better direction. The past can't be changed. I suppose the Signpost could >>>> retract the op-ed, but I rather doubt you're seeking something so >>>> extreme...or am I wrong? >>>> >>>> -Pete >>>> [[User:Peteforsyth]] >>>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I feel very sad that you fellows don't see the problem in using this >>>>> kind of language to describe women. "Badass" isn't a compliment. After the >>>>> first two descriptions, I was fully expecting to see "brilliant >>>>> motherf***er" to describe the third one. I'm surprised it wasn't used, in >>>>> fact. >>>>> >>>>> The subjects of our articles deserve to be treated much better than >>>>> this. >>>>> >>>>> Further, I'm incredibly disappointed that this got published in The >>>>> Signpost. On Emily's own page...well, okay. But instead of drawing >>>>> attention to the women who are the subjects of the articles, almost all of >>>>> the discussion is about the language used to describe themand pointing >>>>> out that several of them already had articles about them that were >>>>> improved, rather than that they'd not been written about at all. >>>>> >>>>> All in all, it i
Re: [Gendergap] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)
I think I've made myself clear, Pete. I don't think that anything I say will make a difference, any more than anything I have ever said has changed the sub-optimal behaviour of any editor who thinks it's acceptable professional behaviour to cuss all over the place. I'm just really disappointed that people who used to be in the "let's make this a more pleasant and positive place to do our work" have gone over to the other side. Risker On 21 February 2016 at 19:38, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote: > Risker, I want to be clear: > > It's not that I don't see a problem. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to > your view; but I think your point has been made very strongly already, and > the important audience is the Signpost editorial staff. I am confident they > have heard the message, and I don't see how further discussion moves us in > a better direction. The past can't be changed. I suppose the Signpost could > retract the op-ed, but I rather doubt you're seeking something so > extreme...or am I wrong? > > -Pete > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I feel very sad that you fellows don't see the problem in using this kind >> of language to describe women. "Badass" isn't a compliment. After the first >> two descriptions, I was fully expecting to see "brilliant motherf***er" to >> describe the third one. I'm surprised it wasn't used, in fact. >> >> The subjects of our articles deserve to be treated much better than >> this. >> >> Further, I'm incredibly disappointed that this got published in The >> Signpost. On Emily's own page...well, okay. But instead of drawing >> attention to the women who are the subjects of the articles, almost all of >> the discussion is about the language used to describe themand pointing >> out that several of them already had articles about them that were >> improved, rather than that they'd not been written about at all. >> >> All in all, it impressed me as an island of lovely flowers in a garden >> with a winter's worth of St. Bernard droppings. >> >> Risker >> >> On 21 February 2016 at 17:13, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> +1 Ryan. >>> >>> This was one article, and no Wikipedians, readers, or article subjects >>> were injured as a result of its publication. I don't really have a strong >>> opinion one way or the other about whether using language in this way is >>> OK. But the main lesson to me is how much the English Wikipedia community >>> has come to value the Signpost as an institution. It's hard to imagine such >>> any Signpost column inspiring so much passion, say, five years ago. Above >>> all, I think this constitutes a strong endorsement of the general value of >>> the Signpost. >>> >>> -Pete >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari <rkald...@wikimedia.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community >>>> takes all of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of >>>> profanity in a positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia >>>> calls a female editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye. >>>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by Keilana, >>>>> would it have been published as is? >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite the >>>>> one some think it would be. >>>>> >>>>> Risker/Anne >>>>> >>>>> On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf <neot...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting double >>>>>> standard about profanity in the comment section. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed >>>>>> >>>>>> ___ >>>>>> Gendergap mailing list >>>>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>>>>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, >>>>>> please visit: >>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/
Re: [Gendergap] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)
I dunno, Ryan. The last time someone called me a badass, it was very definitely meant as an insult cloaked as a compliment. I would not subject any article subject to such an adjective. RIsker/Anne On 21 February 2016 at 19:12, Ryan Kaldari <rkald...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Unless my vision has completely eroded, I do not see the word "cunt" >> anywhere in that article, Ryan. Nobody on this list has ever said that >> calling someone a cunt is a good thing. >> > > I was referring to the common defense of that term on English Wikipedia > (which I imagine you are familiar with). It's hard to notice the outcry > against Keilana's Op-ed and the acceptance of other editors' use of the > C-word (sorry, Fae)[1] without feeling like there is some kind of > double-standard. > > What I do not understand is why anyone on this list would think that >> calling someone a "badass" is a good thing. >> > > According to Wiktionary it means "Having extreme appearance, attitude, or > behavior that is considered admirable." Synonyms are listed as "cool" and > "awesome".[2] It's obviously slang, but still sounds like a compliment to > me. > > 1. > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_female > 2. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/badass#Adjective > > ___ > 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
Re: [Gendergap] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)
Unless my vision has completely eroded, I do not see the word "cunt" anywhere in that article, Ryan. Nobody on this list has ever said that calling someone a cunt is a good thing. What I do not understand is why anyone on this list would think that calling someone a "badass" is a good thing. Risker On 21 February 2016 at 18:19, Ryan Kaldari <rkald...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > >"Badass" isn't a compliment. > > And "cunt" is a friendly term of camaraderie in British English. > Apparently I just don't have a good command of the English language. > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I feel very sad that you fellows don't see the problem in using this kind >> of language to describe women. "Badass" isn't a compliment. After the first >> two descriptions, I was fully expecting to see "brilliant motherf***er" to >> describe the third one. I'm surprised it wasn't used, in fact. >> >> The subjects of our articles deserve to be treated much better than >> this. >> >> Further, I'm incredibly disappointed that this got published in The >> Signpost. On Emily's own page...well, okay. But instead of drawing >> attention to the women who are the subjects of the articles, almost all of >> the discussion is about the language used to describe themand pointing >> out that several of them already had articles about them that were >> improved, rather than that they'd not been written about at all. >> >> All in all, it impressed me as an island of lovely flowers in a garden >> with a winter's worth of St. Bernard droppings. >> >> Risker >> >> On 21 February 2016 at 17:13, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> +1 Ryan. >>> >>> This was one article, and no Wikipedians, readers, or article subjects >>> were injured as a result of its publication. I don't really have a strong >>> opinion one way or the other about whether using language in this way is >>> OK. But the main lesson to me is how much the English Wikipedia community >>> has come to value the Signpost as an institution. It's hard to imagine such >>> any Signpost column inspiring so much passion, say, five years ago. Above >>> all, I think this constitutes a strong endorsement of the general value of >>> the Signpost. >>> >>> -Pete >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari <rkald...@wikimedia.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community >>>> takes all of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of >>>> profanity in a positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia >>>> calls a female editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye. >>>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by Keilana, >>>>> would it have been published as is? >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite the >>>>> one some think it would be. >>>>> >>>>> Risker/Anne >>>>> >>>>> On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf <neot...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting double >>>>>> standard about profanity in the comment section. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed >>>>>> >>>>>> ___ >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>
Re: [Gendergap] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)
Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by Keilana, would it have been published as is? Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite the one some think it would be. Risker/Anne On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf <neot...@gmail.com> wrote: > Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting double > standard about profanity in the comment section. > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed > > ___ > 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] Fwd: [Wikimedia-l] Another goodbye
Sharing with this list. Risker -- Forwarded message -- From: Siko Bouterse <sboute...@wikimedia.org> Date: 11 February 2016 at 20:24 Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Another goodbye To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org> Dear friends and colleagues, I’ve had the amazing privilege of serving this movement in a staff capacity for the past 4 ½ years, but I’ve now decided to move on from my role at the Wikimedia Foundation. Transparency, integrity, community and free knowledge remain deeply important to me, and I believe I will be better placed to represent those values in a volunteer capacity at this time. I am and will always remain a Wikimedian, so you'll still see me around the projects (User:Seeeko), hopefully with renewed energy and joy in volunteering. This movement has become my home in so many unexpected ways, and I’m truly honored to have learned from so many of you. It was an amazing experience to have partnered with smart, bold, and dedicated community folks to experiment with projects like Teahouse, IdeaLab, Inspire, Individual Engagement Grants, and Reimagining Grants. I’ve seen you create some really incredible content, ideas, tools, programs, processes, committees and organizations, all in the service of free knowledge. I expect my last day to be Thursday, February 25th. I have full confidence in Maggie Dennis's abilities to lead the Community Engagement Department, and I trust that my team will remain available to support the community’s needs for grants and other resources throughout this time of transition. Much love, Siko -- Siko Bouterse Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. *Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. * *Donate <https://donate.wikimedia.org> or click the "edit" button today, and help us make it a reality!* ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Latest WMF brouhahas relevant to gender gap??
While I believe that the issues raised in the changes in the Board of Trustees are important and worthy of attention for many reasons, it does not appear to me that there are issues specific to (or particularly relevant to) the gender gap, except in a very, very peripheral way. Risker/Anne On 26 January 2016 at 11:20, Carol Moore dc <carolmoor...@verizon.net> wrote: > Wondering if there is any particular relevance to the gender gap issue in > the removal of one board member and protests against the new one? Or just a > general "editor trust" issue, which makes many editors dis-trust any "close > the gap" programs/initiatives by WMF?? (Or at least gives them an *excuse* > to distrust them!) > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Heilman > https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:James_Heilman_Removal > http://www.examiner.com/article/the-doctor-is-out-says-wmf-board > > AND > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnnon_Geshuri > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Vote_of_no_confidence_on_Arnnon_Geshuri > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/editors-demand-ouster-of-wikimedia-board-member-involved-in-no-poach-deal/ > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > ___ > 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
Re: [Gendergap] [LGBT] Arbcom election
:-) I am beginning to wonder if being a straight, cis, monogamous married woman puts me into a microscopic minority on Wikimedia projects. :-) Risker On 24 November 2015 at 13:16, Keilana <keilanaw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Fae, > > Opabinia regalis and I both identified ourselves as bisexual women on our > question pages. Hope that's useful. > > -Emily > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thanks for highlighting it. Unfortunately there are a lot of pages to >> wade through with user questions, so things like being a woman or >> identifying as LGBT are handy things to mention in passing in the >> candidate statement. It certainly would influence my vote... >> >> I agree, as this is a critical part of the election this year it would >> be interesting to see an aggregation of gender and LGBT stats, or a >> "diversity index", for candidates and the eventual Arbcom elected, and >> to see this compared to past years. Perhaps if someone is writing up a >> Signpost article they could include this small bit of research? ;-) >> >> Fae >> >> On 24 November 2015 at 04:42, LFaraone <wikipe...@luke.wf> wrote: >> > On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 at 04:21 Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> This year sees a much more interesting selection of candidates, though >> >> a lack of any *openly* LGBT candidates as far as I could tell from the >> >> statements. >> > >> > >> > Several candidates (myself included) mentioned our queerness in our >> > responses to the demographics questions asked by some editors. I don't >> know >> > if there's been any on-wiki aggregation of that data, however. >> > >> > -- Luke // LFaraone >> -- >> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae >> >> ___ >> 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
Re: [Gendergap] Call for Participation: 2016 Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon
Is that you I see volunteering to organize one, Marie? :-) I suspect that is the reason, to be honest - nobody specifically taking the bull by the horns. It requires interest in the subject, and a willingness and ability to organize the events. Economics is not a particularly popular subject (comparatively speaking) in the Wikipedia world - the entire topic area could use a lot of work, not just the aspects relating to women or feminism - and like anything else, the smaller the number of people participating in a topic area, the less likely there will be individuals who take on the challenge of organizing collaborative events. As to Women in Politics, I think this is probably (at least for women in Western countries) one of the better covered areas, simply because most of our major language Wikipedias treat all politicians at what they consider to be notable levels of government in pretty much the same way, using essentially standardized formats. Risker/Anne On 6 November 2015 at 06:16, Marie Earley <eir...@hotmail.com> wrote: > As much as I like to see an event like this happening, and the Women in > Science event, I'm left wondering why there are no similar events for Women > in Politics or Economics + Feminism. > > Marie > > -- > Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 10:47:08 -0500 > From: i...@art.plusfeminism.org > To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > Subject: [Gendergap] Call for Participation: 2016 Art+Feminism Wikipedia > Edit-a-thon > > > Dear Gender gap mailing list members, > > We are in the process of organizing the third annual international > Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon. The New York event will be held at the > Dorothy and Lewis B. Cullman Education and Research Building at MoMA on > Saturday, March 5, 2016. We are looking for support in the form of > participants and suggestions. > > Last year, over 1500 participants at the Museum of Modern Art in New York > and more than 75 node events around the world participated in > Art+Feminism’s second annual Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, resulting in the > creation of nearly 400 new pages and significant improvements to 500 > articles on Wikipedia. *Together, we can double those numbers in 2016! * > > If you’re interested in hosting an edit-a-thon in your city over the > weekend of March 4-6, 2016, please be in touch. There are funds available > to help node events pay for childcare and refreshments. You can reach us > at: i...@art.plusfeminism.org. > > If you want to help out in other ways, we are also gathering research > materials for the March event: > > >- Suggested Topics >- Articles needing creation >- Articles needing expansion and/or cleanup >- Suggestions for online research materials on women and the arts >- Any existing documentation you might be willing to share on >Wikipedia editing or conflict resolution online >- You can find more information about the project and upcoming events >on our meet-up page: >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism >- Or on our website: http://art.plusfeminism.org > > > I encourage you to forward this message on at your discretion. > > Thank you, and we look forward to hearing from you! > > All best, > > Siân Evans + Jacqueline Mabey + Michael Mandiberg > > -- > > Website <http://art.plusfeminism.org/> | Wikipedia > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism> | Facebook > <https://www.facebook.com/artandfeminism> | Mailing List > <http://tumblr.us9.list-manage1.com/subscribe?u=ee76401e2efcdd499ae588b57=c589d77a01> > | #artandfeminism > ᐧ > > ___ 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
Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile to Women"
It is very tempting to say that. Unfortunately, as functionaries are even more likely to be trolled than just about anyone else on Wikipedia, and almost all of them have been impersonated on multiple places (some of them even on porn sites - seriously), it takes more to persuade them. I speak only for myself when I say that I have had to have three different LinkedIn accounts using my name taken down, two Facebook accounts, a Twitter account, and I've received numerous emails asking me to "confirm" my registration on various sites that I've never been to and never want to be on. I've actually had it mildly compared to some of the other functionaries. One arbitrator found himself subscribed to hundreds of porn mailing lists, for example. So yeah, we have been on the other side of that abyss. Impersonation is awful, and I do not for a moment think that what happened to Lightbreather was okay. Not for a moment. But it's gonna take more than "this picture is the same one on Person X's personal website" to do it for me - because any experienced Wikimedian knows that "stolen" images from personal websites are constantly showing up where they don't belong...like Commons and Wikipedia. Joe Jobs can sometimes have more than one target. Risker/Anne On 22 October 2015 at 12:37, Sarah (SV) <slimvir...@gmail.com> wrote: > WSC, the evidence as to who posted the porn images was, I would say, > conclusive. We nevertheless ended up with a situation in which a man who > had been engaged in harassment (much of which was onwiki and had been going > on for about a year) was let off the hook, and the harassed woman was > banned. > > There was a similar situation in the GGTF case > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions_at_GGTF>, > so the Lightbreather case was not an unfortunate one-off. For example, the > man who was blocked for harassment during the Lightbreather case > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather> > should have been blocked for it during the GGTF case, but wasn't. He only > ended up being blocked during the Lightbreather case because he admitted > that he had done it. Otherwise he might still be editing. > > Something systemic is happening here. As a result of those cases and many > other examples Wikipedia now has a terrible reputation for being sexist. > (See this selection of stories > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force/Media_and_research>.) > Rather than arguing about which details various journalists got wrong, we > should focus on what they got right and how we can fix it. > > Sarah > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:45 AM, WereSpielChequers < > werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thanks Francesca, >> >> It seems a shame that an Arbcom case in which one person was blocked for >> offwiki harassment and another would have been if the evidence had been >> conclusive has been reported as if they'd decided instead to spare the >> harasser for privacy reasons. >> >> As Thryduulf put it "there is no doubt that had we been able to >> conclusively connect the perpetrator to a Wikipedia account that action >> would have been taken (almost certainly a site ban). >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Proposed_decision#Off-wiki_harassment_against_Lightbreather>" >> >> >> You could point her to >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Proposed_decision#Off-wiki_harassment_against_Lightbreather >> >> A story warning mysogynists that Arbcom will and has acted against those >> it catches would have made it easier to attract women to wikipedia and >> deter misogynists. >> >> WSC >> >> On 22 October 2015 at 12:04, Francesca Tripodi <fbt...@virginia.edu> >> wrote: >> >>> I was directly interviewed for this article but my contributions were >>> scrapped. I have Emma's email and I would be happy to reach out to her >>> if you'd like to list a set of uniform "corrections"? No guarantee >>> she'd be able to change them but it's a start if you'd like? >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone - please excuse brevity or errors. >>> >>> > On Oct 21, 2015, at 4:23 PM, Kevin Gorman <kgor...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > Some journos take corrections easily, and some don't. I've had people >>> > directly misquote me at major outlets where I had the call on record >>> > (with their consent, since CA is a 2 party consent state for recording >>> >
Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"
On 22 October 2015 at 16:27, Sarah (SV) <slimvir...@gmail.com> wrote: > Daniel, I happen to think that any Arb who is asked to excuse themselves > from a case should do so, within reason. > I tend to agree with you on this, Sarah. > > But in particular I think women who see certain Arbs as sexist should be > able to require recusal. Otherwise the case is hobbled before it begins. > Ditto for anyone with concerns about racism or homophobia. > I'm a little less certain about this one: if there are five parties to a case, and everyone decides to brand three different arbitrators as sexist/racist/homophobic etc, you're down to nobody. > > I would like to see a jury system replace the committee, with small groups > chosen to resolve particular issues. The committee has not worked for a > long time. It isn't the fault of any individual or group. It's a > combination of the way Arbs are nominated and elected, and the way they end > up cloistered away from the community. It creates a "thin blue line" > mentality. I would like to see a grassroots approach, at least as an > experiment. > > That was what RFCs and mediation committees did, although I grant that their "decisions" were not binding. They fell apart - RFCs because genuinely uninvolved Wikipedians stopped participating. The Mediation committee fell apart because there were so few people who were any good at dispute resolution actually mediating them, and also because mediation required the "participation agreement" of long lists of supposed parties. (I was once listed as a "party" for a mediation on an article where I made one edit to remove poop vandalism.) There's no evidence at all that jury systems are any more fair or accurate or impartial or unbiased than any other dispute resolution systems. (A quick look at the number of convicted prisoners who have subsequently been exonerated proves my point.) Add to that the simple fact that "volunteer" pools of jurors are, simply by dint of numbers, going to be made up of the same types of people who are already arbitrators/functionaries/admins (or potentially people who were rejected for those responsibilities because they were unsuitable), and that compelling participation of people who have deliberately NOT wanted to participate in such activities is more likely to result in those individuals leaving the project entirely rather than making great decisions (other than the obvious "this is stupid, ban them all so I can get back to my categorization"). In fact, I suspect that a jury system made up of conscripted jurors would actually result in much harsher sanctions all around. There are some who argue that would not be a bad thing. Risker/Anne ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"
he period of time that even a simple case takes? (Keep in mind there are no simple cases, those have been dealt with at ANI and AN for years.) > > *Cases must be resolved within a much shorter time frame, or closed as > unresolved. > What's a suitable timeframe for 15 people to read and analyse 500 pages of evidence then come up with a proposal to resolve the issue? (The evidence itself is not usually 500 pages, it is all the links that are added which need also to be reviewed in context - not just the diff but the discussion - that makes up the overwhelming percentage of evidence.) > > *The Foundation should be asked to pay for an expert in dispute resolution > to offer regular classes on Skype for any Wikipedian who wants to sign up. > This should go at the Idea Lab. In fact, I think it has before. It would fit into one of the hypothetical "strategies" that the WMF is bandying about right now, although in fairness they've been bandying it about for as long as I've been editing. I'm not entirely certain of the value of this - but not opposed to it. > > The above wouldn't solve everything, but I think it would help. > It would > > > Sarah > > > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On 22 October 2015 at 16:27, Sarah (SV) <slimvir...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Daniel, I happen to think that any Arb who is asked to excuse themselves >>> from a case should do so, within reason. >>> >> >> I tend to agree with you on this, Sarah. >> >> >>> >>> But in particular I think women who see certain Arbs as sexist should be >>> able to require recusal. Otherwise the case is hobbled before it begins. >>> Ditto for anyone with concerns about racism or homophobia. >>> >> >> I'm a little less certain about this one: if there are five parties to a >> case, and everyone decides to brand three different arbitrators as >> sexist/racist/homophobic etc, you're down to nobody. >> >> >>> >>> I would like to see a jury system replace the committee, with small >>> groups chosen to resolve particular issues. The committee has not worked >>> for a long time. It isn't the fault of any individual or group. It's a >>> combination of the way Arbs are nominated and elected, and the way they end >>> up cloistered away from the community. It creates a "thin blue line" >>> mentality. I would like to see a grassroots approach, at least as an >>> experiment. >>> >>> >> That was what RFCs and mediation committees did, although I grant that >> their "decisions" were not binding. They fell apart - RFCs because >> genuinely uninvolved Wikipedians stopped participating. The Mediation >> committee fell apart because there were so few people who were any good at >> dispute resolution actually mediating them, and also because mediation >> required the "participation agreement" of long lists of supposed parties. >> (I was once listed as a "party" for a mediation on an article where I made >> one edit to remove poop vandalism.) >> >> There's no evidence at all that jury systems are any more fair or >> accurate or impartial or unbiased than any other dispute resolution >> systems. (A quick look at the number of convicted prisoners who have >> subsequently been exonerated proves my point.) Add to that the simple fact >> that "volunteer" pools of jurors are, simply by dint of numbers, going to >> be made up of the same types of people who are already >> arbitrators/functionaries/admins (or potentially people who were rejected >> for those responsibilities because they were unsuitable), and that >> compelling participation of people who have deliberately NOT wanted to >> participate in such activities is more likely to result in those >> individuals leaving the project entirely rather than making great decisions >> (other than the obvious "this is stupid, ban them all so I can get back to >> my categorization"). In fact, I suspect that a jury system made up of >> conscripted jurors would actually result in much harsher sanctions all >> around. There are some who argue that would not be a bad thing. >> >> Risker/Anne >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> 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
Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"
On 22 October 2015 at 18:09, WereSpielChequers <werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Another option is to invest in training arbs and functionaries. Both on > technical training - if Sarah and Kevin are right re the Lightbreather case > then it may just be that they didn't know how to get or read the evidence; > Also they could be given the sort of training that UK magistrates go on. > Question to Risker, what sort of training do they currently undertake? > > In theory, the community selects as arbitrators individuals whom it believs have already demonstrated sound judgment in handling disputes or other problematic situations. In past years, it has had a plethora of choices; however, as the pool of people who are pretty good at this sort of stuff has diminished - either the editors who are good at it are not interested in doing it full-time, or they simply don't exist in the numbers they used to - we've seen an increasing number of arbitrators being selected who may be fine Wikipedians but they're just not really suited, or they've been carefully building their careers to this point. Being able to make decisions is important. One of the best arbitrators Wikipedia ever had was Wizardman - and he was also one of the least appreciated, despite the fact that he was almost always on time, his proposed decisions were bang on, and there was almost never any chit-chat in the background about the cases he wrote. The reality is that there's no training provided to new arbitrators. In years past, we had developed an orientation program (I do not know if it is still in existence) that went through very basic stuff. But you have to keep in mind that historically, as far back as I can remember, most "new" arbitrator candidates campaign on the idea of "changing" arbcom in various ways. The problem is that almost none of them want to change it in the same way, and it gets deadlocked just the way that things get deadlocked onwiki. There is one topic that one or two arbitrators have been chasing for a long, long time, but have been unwilling to bend in their own personal vision so it has never been effectively resolved. I worked very hard during my last term to try to get out of the mailing list system and move to a case-based CRM system but it was adamantly opposed by one colleague and most of the rest simply didn't care enough about the issue to come out one way or the other - so arbcom is still stuck in that same circle. In other words, Arbcom does in a lot of ways reflect the community it "serves" - amateurs at what they're discussing, with difficulty achieving consensus on any kind of change, and with the same sort of problems of dominating editors turning off those who have no strong opinions on matters. Risker/Anne ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"
Ah yes, let's have a jury system. Except that nobody can be compelled to serve (what would we do? desysop someone? block them from adding content?), and the [type of] people most likely to volunteer are...well, arbcom. Or the arbcom candidates whom the community had already rejected. Please no more speaking of juries. I've been on juries, and I've been on Arbcom. I can guarantee you that juries are absolutely no better, and are even less likely to look at evidence than arbcom is. I don't think Arbcom is wonderful; I think this year's arbcom has lost its way in a manner that I can't recall seeing since 2007-08. But I have zero faith that, on a website where better than 70% of active contributors never take part in the "meta" part of the site, that "jury duty" would do anything positive. I do, however, believe it would have a negative impact on retaining active contributors who have no taste for the drama. Risker On 22 October 2015 at 16:10, Daniel and Elizabeth Case < danc...@frontiernet.net> wrote: > > >We have to do something. Suggestion: women coming before the committee > could require that certain >committee members not participate. > > How about *anyone*? (As I think your next comment seems to realize) > > >We could extend that to any harassment case. Or we could set up a jury > system, instead of one fixed >committee, with limited challenges permitted. > Peremptory? Or not? > > Daniel Case > > > ___ > 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
Re: [Gendergap] What is proscription vs. Foundation hiring mediators etc.... Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"
Carol, I think you're missing something important here. Aside from the fact that this would cost about $2 million a year, the structure you are proposing would only be providing support for English Wikipedia. (That is a lot more than the budget for the entire global Community Advocacy department. Just to keep things in perspective.) Now there are a couple of questions to consider here. The first is: What problem, exactly, are we trying to solve? Next would be: is this a problem that is endemic on all projects? (I think we all know the answer is "no".) So then we move to: Where all is it a problem? Large projects? Small projects? Old projects? New projects? Wikipedias only? And the corollary: Where is it *not* a problem? what are the characteristics of those projects where Problem X is not considered a significant problem? And finally: Will this actually fix the problem? I'm not convinced this is the best way to spend about 3% of the total budget of the entire Wikimedia Foundation, especially when less expensive solutions, and ones that do not involve the WMF essentially taking over its biggest, most active community, have not really been tried. Sarah has made some interesting proposals in another thread that have the chance to develop some momentum if nurtured carefully. This...well, that's an awful lot of money. Risker/Anne On 22 October 2015 at 19:08, Carol Moore dc <carolmoor...@verizon.net> wrote: > It seems like every time I ask this question I get vague answers regarding > "legal issues" "liability" "can't determine content" "community backlash" > etc. Yet under https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use it looks > like there is more than enough room for the Foundation to propose and make > it VERY clear it supports things like: > > a) Make Wikimedia mediation training a requirement for applying as admin. > And term limit admins (say, one year off for every two years on). Make an > informal quota of 25% plus women and continuously encourage women to apply. > > b) Change structure so 10-20 (as needed) mediators are hired and trained > to be professional. They'll also be given admin powers and will take on > harder cases volunteer admins and other dispute resolution processes can't > handle. (Structured processes for dealing with alleged abuses will be > implemented.) The Foundation will set a firm goal of at least 50% women > hirees. > > c) Change structure so 4-6 arbitrators are hired but only used for most > intractable or original issues. (Structured processes for dealing with > alleged abuses will be implemented.) The Foundation will set a firm goal of > at least 50% women hirees. > > d) Change structure so editors who step out of line too often will have to > phone verify who they are and register with a verified account. Enforcing > this will be another job for "arbitrators". > > e) Foundation advertises new policies far and wide so that editors fed up > with the nonsense will come back in such numbers that losing the 50-100 > chronic editor and admin abusers of the system will be no great loss. > (Wales has invited such people to quit, and said more users would come back > if they did, but still doesn't want to make necessary Foundation policy > changes to make this happen.) > > Without these changes decent editors will continue to stay away or be > driven away in droves. > > In the last week I've read at least 10 articles - biographies and factual > articles on countries and policies - that were severely outdated, with > 2012-13 seemingly the last time most were updated. I'd hate to see what > happened if I checked references for various assertions. It's pretty sad... > > > ___ > 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
Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"
I'm going to bring this thread back to its original topic. I did some talking and some digging tonight, and it seems to be time to pull up a few relevant links. It's pretty obvious that Community Advocacy is working on harassment issues, including gender-based harassment; I understand a blog post is imminent, as is a serious effort at gathering data from the community. In the interim: Reminder of commitment and work that is underway with Community Advocacy - I have been assured that it has continued despite Philippe's having left the WMF: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Community_discussion_on_harassment_reporting#Endorsements Some of the research they have gathered and reviewed - and maybe some of this will be useful for communities directly as well: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Online_harassment_resource_guide And more research and citations: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Advocacy/Citations_on_Harassment_and_Behavioral_Issues There's this belief that either the WMF or Arbcom can control the behaviour of people on every one of Wikipedia's 20 million pages. It isn't gonna happen no matter what. Risker/Anne ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] WP:Harassment finally links to solution for threats!
You linked to a discussion on the ideas lab which you stated included 26 people speaking out against sexual harassment. Most of those people are not indeffed or sanctioned in any way. Many of them are administrators or hold other permissions. Risker On 29 September 2015 at 08:25, Neotarf <neot...@gmail.com> wrote: > Could you post a link to one or two of the discussions, and how they went > down? I really need to read something like that right now. > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Neotarf <neot...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> That said, everyone I know of who has ever publicly objected to sexual >>> harassment has subsequently been indeffed. Maybe that's what the essay >>> should say. >>> >> >> Really? I can name a half dozen off the top of my head that became >> admins, functionaries, arbitrators, etc. At least some are still active. I >> don't think "if you report harassment you'll be blocked indefinitely" would >> be an accurate thing to tell people. >> >> > > ___ > 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
Re: [Gendergap] WP:Harassment finally links to solution for threats!
I am surprised to discover that you believe I have been indeffed. Perhaps you need to redefine what you are talking about. There are dozens of people on this list, and plenty of others on that page you just linked, who have objected publicly to sexual harassment but have never been blocked or sanctioned, let alone indeffed. Please stop spreading such nasty memes. It is hurtful. Risker On 28 September 2015 at 20:20, Neotarf <neot...@gmail.com> wrote: > @Risker: "I have a simple question to ask: How many people in this thread > have publicly or privately requested to the Wikimedia Foundation ED that > additional resources be assigned to trust and safety issues such as death > threats?" > > Answer: 26. > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Community_discussion_on_harassment_reporting > > That said, everyone I know of who has ever publicly objected to sexual > harassment has subsequently been indeffed. Maybe that's what the essay > should say. > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Carol Moore dc <carolmoor...@verizon.net > > wrote: > >> On 9/27/2015 1:49 AM, rupert THURNER wrote: >> >>> anne, thank you so much, for the first time i think i understand the >>> problem. "rot in hell" is a very good example of anger. anger is >>> something common on wikipedia, anger management is something >>> surprisingly ignored. >>> >> >> Just in case people don't understand what kind of threats we're >> discussing here I just pulled up the 2011 messages, about half of those I >> got, and found: >> *Several introductory ones saying they knew where I lived because info so >> easily found on the internet >> *Around 100 calling me a bitch and saying they'd murder me >> *Only one a few days later saying "you will die" >> *Another hundred calling me a stupid whore and making nasty accusations >> *265 only called me a spineless leftist hypocrite >> *84 calling me a whore and accusing me of having sex with the admin who >> started somehow interrupting his emails (which he continued sending through >> the wikipedia system until he stopped) >> >> I have another 500 odd in another file from a year or so later but don't >> feel like uploading and searching... >> >> On wikipedia, 8/11/11 there was a relatively tame one predicting I'd be >> dead "12 months from now". It was removed but I kept the JPG. Don't have >> JPGs for other ones that were removed that day. My pages were protected vs. >> non-verified users after that. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACarolmooredc=history=2011=8= >> >> Like I've said, having put up with nonsense - and death threats - from >> guys already since 1990 online, I wasn't scared just really annoyed. >> Especially knowing some people WOULD be scared by this sort of thing... >> >> So a clear statement not to get upset and know there are clear and >> escalating steps you can take would help... >> >> >> >> >> And then there was the gif of me being beaten to death with my name on it >> that lasted on wikicommons a couple days before it was taken down. Still >> have a copy... >> >> >> ___ >> 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
Re: [Gendergap] WP:Harassment finally links to solution for threats!
Neotarf is correct, it is the guideline to address suicide threats and
similar threats of serious harm to self or others (e.g., "I'm going to go
shoot up my school") - in other words, that guideline is intended to
capture situations where there is a reason to contact police or similar
authorities because of an imminent threat to safety. The person adding the
link probably did not really read through the point of the page. Speaking
personally, I'd be pretty offended if I complained that someone was
harassing me and was linked to a page about reporting suicide threats. Note
that one of the shortcuts is [[WP:SUICIDE]].
I have removed that as a "Main article" because it's not really about
harassment.
Risker/Anne
On 26 September 2015 at 11:52, Neotarf <neot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> @Carol Moore, I believe that link is about suicide threats. Did you mean
> to link to something else?
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Carol Moore dc <carolmoor...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Because of an offline discussion about the 1000 odd death threats I got
>> directly through the Wikimedia Foundation email system and my failure to
>> remember personally contacting them (as opposed to admins) about it, I
>> decided to see if the Harassment article mentioned that option.
>>
>> I did a little research and found it was not til July 22, 2015 that the
>> harassment article section on "threats" provided a link to the WP:Essay
>> that specifically advises this!
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Harassment=672630056=672391122
>>
>> Now why can't the threats section include that info? Certain some
>> well-connected editors have learned how to work that angle with the
>> foundation for even minor issues...
>>
>> There's a huge section on what to do about threats of legal action, but
>> zilch on death threats. Pretty absurd... Safe space, NOT!!*
>>
>> Thanks...
>>
>>
>> CM
>>
>> *Of course, there's a difference between legitimate safe space from
>> actual direct insults or threats of harm and the absurd degree of
>> hypersensitivity now a days where there are trigger warnings on any opinion
>> that someone might disagree with and protests against opinions that just
>> aren't politically correct enough... but don't get me started...
>>
>> A lot of articles about it lately have exposed the absurdities and
>> hypocrisy of some individuals and groups. And I can understand the fear of
>> some male wikipedians they will be exposed to the most extreme varieties.
>> It also gives the most oppressive guys an excuse to label minor and
>> legitimate demands for safe space as "extremist." ("You extremist, you want
>> to mention contacting the Foundation on the Harassment page!!!")
>>
>> Glad I'm not in college! Or any "progressive" political groups any more.
>> Especially now that I am finally free of having to be a "good girl" on
>> Wikipedia and can engage in anti-establishment mockery and sarcasm in my
>> writings/artistic endeavors without worrying about wikistalkers slamming me
>> all over Wikipedia ;-)
>>
>> ___
>> 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
Re: [Gendergap] WP:Harassment finally links to solution for threats!
I have a simple question to ask: How many people in this thread have publicly or privately requested to the Wikimedia Foundation ED that additional resources be assigned to trust and safety issues such as death threats? There was an annual plan posted for about three days of community comment back in May/June. Did anyone in this thread say "wait a minute, we think you have your priorities wrong here"? I'm a little stunned that several people including those with years of activism under their belts would think that complaining on a mailing list that is at most hosted by the WMF (and certainly not controlled by it or monitored by it) would result in changes. The English Wikipedia community can't tell WMF staffers what to do: we're not their employers, we don't set their objectives or their job descriptions, and so on. The lack of additional resources comes right from the top here. If you want it, you need to be telling the Board, you need to be telling the ED, and you need to be telling the Senior Director of Community Engagement, Luis Villa. This list isn't gonna do it. Posting on Wikipediocracy is the equivalent of throwing coins in a well. Focus your attention on the people who have control of the money and persuade them this is something more important than...I don't know, whether notifications are flagged using one tag or two... Risker/Anne On 26 September 2015 at 16:29, J Hayes <slowki...@gmail.com> wrote: > rupert, > i and carol have a somewhat different experience with the police. it is > unclear if i would trust them to keep identity confidential. WMF should act > regardless of legal status. this merry go round of not providing clear > lines of responsibility and action (other than round file) is part of the > systemic problem. > > On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 4:07 PM, rupert THURNER <rupert.thur...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> risker you are joking? a death threat is a case for the police not for >> the wikimedia foundation. wikimedia foundation is not a para-military or >> para-police organization replacing standard legal systems, the wikimedia >> community is also not a community outside other legal systems, with special >> rules applying. the police has the means to deal with it professionally. >> >> carol, if you get a death threat, why are you afraid of the police? you >> pay taxes and at the end of the day you are paying their salary, and are >> usually very welcoming? >> >> rupert >> >> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 9:05 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> The WMF may or may not help editors who are receiving death threats via >>> their email systems - I'd venture to guess that in the majority of cases >>> they're handled by admins or CUs or arbitrators by the expedient of >>> blocking the accounts with email turned off. If you're saying you really >>> don't want police involved, then I don't know what you'd expect the WMF to >>> do over and above blocking the same accounts and the same IPs that can (and >>> often are) blocked by volunteers. >>> >>> I do not suggest that harassment via email (up to and including serious >>> death threats) is a minor matter, but that the "emerge...@wikimedia.org" >>> is for threats of harm to self or others that are published onwiki where >>> there is concern that police or other authorities should be informed >>> because there is an imminent risk of harm. Keep in mind that that email >>> address is staffed by a grand total of six people (the Community Advocacy >>> team) to cover the entire world. >>> >>> Risker/Anne >>> >>> >>> On 26 September 2015 at 13:59, Carol Moore dc <carolmoor...@verizon.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I was referring to threats to kill someone that clearly come from a >>>> known Wikipedia handle or editor, or, as in my case, a person who is known >>>> because it's the same kind of message they have been known to send to >>>> various others many times before. >>>> >>>> In my case threats were sent through Wikimedia Foundation email and >>>> evidently that's what this person - and perhaps others - enjoys doing. At >>>> the very least advice to contact the Foundation also should cover such >>>> abuses. (Obviously if it's an anonymous person through another email >>>> system, it's a different issue. Though I believe the Foundation was happy >>>> to help Sitush when he was getting those kind of messages.) >>>> >>>> As an activist I'm reluctant to deal with authorities unless it is VERY >>>> real and imminent. Those who
Re: [Gendergap] WP:Harassment finally links to solution for threats!
The WMF may or may not help editors who are receiving death threats via their email systems - I'd venture to guess that in the majority of cases they're handled by admins or CUs or arbitrators by the expedient of blocking the accounts with email turned off. If you're saying you really don't want police involved, then I don't know what you'd expect the WMF to do over and above blocking the same accounts and the same IPs that can (and often are) blocked by volunteers. I do not suggest that harassment via email (up to and including serious death threats) is a minor matter, but that the "emerge...@wikimedia.org" is for threats of harm to self or others that are published onwiki where there is concern that police or other authorities should be informed because there is an imminent risk of harm. Keep in mind that that email address is staffed by a grand total of six people (the Community Advocacy team) to cover the entire world. Risker/Anne On 26 September 2015 at 13:59, Carol Moore dc <carolmoor...@verizon.net> wrote: > I was referring to threats to kill someone that clearly come from a known > Wikipedia handle or editor, or, as in my case, a person who is known > because it's the same kind of message they have been known to send to > various others many times before. > > In my case threats were sent through Wikimedia Foundation email and > evidently that's what this person - and perhaps others - enjoys doing. At > the very least advice to contact the Foundation also should cover such > abuses. (Obviously if it's an anonymous person through another email > system, it's a different issue. Though I believe the Foundation was happy > to help Sitush when he was getting those kind of messages.) > > As an activist I'm reluctant to deal with authorities unless it is VERY > real and imminent. Those who want to report it would assume their only > recourse is to go straight to the police who then will be the ones going to > the Foundation to sort it out. > > That is the specific issue I was addressing and the person who does that > evidently is back to doing it, so perhaps others are doing it too and women > are just quitting Wikipedia without telling anyone why. > > > I wrote: > > On 9/26/2015 12:27 PM, Risker wrote: > >> Neotarf is correct, it is the guideline to address suicide threats and >> similar threats of serious harm to self or others (e.g., "I'm going to >> go shoot up my school") - in other words, that guideline is intended to >> capture situations where there is a reason to contact police or similar >> authorities because of an imminent threat to safety. The person adding >> the link probably did not really read through the point of the page. >> Speaking personally, I'd be pretty offended if I complained that someone >> was harassing me and was linked to a page about reporting suicide >> threats. Note that one of the shortcuts is [[WP:SUICIDE]]. >> >> I have removed that as a "Main article" because it's not really about >> harassment. >> >> Risker/Anne >> >> On 26 September 2015 at 11:52, Neotarf <neot...@gmail.com >> <mailto:neot...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> @Carol Moore, I believe that link is about suicide threats. Did you >> mean to link to something else? >> >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Carol Moore dc >> <carolmoor...@verizon.net <mailto:carolmoor...@verizon.net>> wrote: >> >> Because of an offline discussion about the 1000 odd death >> threats I got directly through the Wikimedia Foundation email >> system and my failure to remember personally contacting them (as >> opposed to admins) about it, I decided to see if the Harassment >> article mentioned that option. >> >> I did a little research and found it was not til July 22, 2015 >> that the harassment article section on "threats" provided a link >> to the WP:Essay that specifically advises this! >> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Harassment=672630056=672391122 >> >> Now why can't the threats section include that info? Certain >> some well-connected editors have learned how to work that angle >> with the foundation for even minor issues... >> >> There's a huge section on what to do about threats of legal >> action, but zilch on death threats. Pretty absurd... Safe >> space, NOT!!* >> >> Thanks... >> >> >> CM >> >> *Of course, there's a difference between legitimate safe space >> from actual
Re: [Gendergap] WP:Harassment finally links to solution for threats!
Rupert, I suppose I'm jaded by some of the things that people have characterized as a death threat over the years. Nasty as it may be to say "rot in hell", that's not a death threat. It was an interesting challenge to explain to someone once that "die you gravy-sucking pig" was actually a Steve Martin comedy routine, and not a real death threat. Jerky things to say, yes. I've blocked accounts with email disabled on several occasions when they've sent abuse via the "email this user" interface. Having been one of the people who did call police in the past before the WMF instituted "emergency@", I can tell you that the police will RARELY take anyone seriously if they say "there's someone who wrote on Wikipedia that he's gonna jump off a bridge". They want to hear it from someone who has an easy to verify email address, is using their real name, and can provide them with enough information to get a warrant if it's needed (e.g., IP addresses, links to the threat itself - which will normally have been suppressed, etc). And it is rare for police to take email threats seriously - Gamergate should be enough of an example there. Risker/Anne On 26 September 2015 at 16:07, rupert THURNER <rupert.thur...@gmail.com> wrote: > risker you are joking? a death threat is a case for the police not for the > wikimedia foundation. wikimedia foundation is not a para-military or > para-police organization replacing standard legal systems, the wikimedia > community is also not a community outside other legal systems, with special > rules applying. the police has the means to deal with it professionally. > > carol, if you get a death threat, why are you afraid of the police? you > pay taxes and at the end of the day you are paying their salary, and are > usually very welcoming? > > rupert > > On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 9:05 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The WMF may or may not help editors who are receiving death threats via >> their email systems - I'd venture to guess that in the majority of cases >> they're handled by admins or CUs or arbitrators by the expedient of >> blocking the accounts with email turned off. If you're saying you really >> don't want police involved, then I don't know what you'd expect the WMF to >> do over and above blocking the same accounts and the same IPs that can (and >> often are) blocked by volunteers. >> >> I do not suggest that harassment via email (up to and including serious >> death threats) is a minor matter, but that the "emerge...@wikimedia.org" >> is for threats of harm to self or others that are published onwiki where >> there is concern that police or other authorities should be informed >> because there is an imminent risk of harm. Keep in mind that that email >> address is staffed by a grand total of six people (the Community Advocacy >> team) to cover the entire world. >> >> Risker/Anne >> >> >> On 26 September 2015 at 13:59, Carol Moore dc <carolmoor...@verizon.net> >> wrote: >> >>> I was referring to threats to kill someone that clearly come from a >>> known Wikipedia handle or editor, or, as in my case, a person who is known >>> because it's the same kind of message they have been known to send to >>> various others many times before. >>> >>> In my case threats were sent through Wikimedia Foundation email and >>> evidently that's what this person - and perhaps others - enjoys doing. At >>> the very least advice to contact the Foundation also should cover such >>> abuses. (Obviously if it's an anonymous person through another email >>> system, it's a different issue. Though I believe the Foundation was happy >>> to help Sitush when he was getting those kind of messages.) >>> >>> As an activist I'm reluctant to deal with authorities unless it is VERY >>> real and imminent. Those who want to report it would assume their only >>> recourse is to go straight to the police who then will be the ones going to >>> the Foundation to sort it out. >>> >>> That is the specific issue I was addressing and the person who does that >>> evidently is back to doing it, so perhaps others are doing it too and women >>> are just quitting Wikipedia without telling anyone why. >>> >>> >>> I wrote: >>> >>> On 9/26/2015 12:27 PM, Risker wrote: >>> >>>> Neotarf is correct, it is the guideline to address suicide threats and >>>> similar threats of serious harm to self or others (e.g., "I'm going to >>>> go shoot up my school") - in other words, that guideline is
Re: [Gendergap] The Virginia killings: he says bitch as he aims the weapon at her
I spent most of yesterday NOT looking at the news, making my husband turn off the TV when the news came on, and not logging in to any online experience where I was likely to run into video related to this. It is what I do, as a matter of course, to make it through the day without triggering the memories of terror I experienced as a result of being involved in a very violent episode in the past. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia, Wikimedia or the WMF. The fact that this man killed both a male and a female former colleague strongly indicate that his problem was not gender-driven, that it was driven by the fact that these former colleagues had complained about him in the past. That people with this sort of sociopathy use gender-specific descriptive nouns is pretty much irrelevant, and I'm hard-pressed to understand why you think it important to start a conversation about the utterings of someone this mentally imbalanced to show that there is a gender gap *anywhere*, let alone here. This guy was a powder keg, and he was striking out at anyone whom he believed had caused him harm. I do not believe that his actions were motivated by sexism. Risker/Anne On 27 August 2015 at 03:01, Neotarf neot...@gmail.com wrote: Is there any doubt what this kind of language is for? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIdrUHKkG6Y It's not for a collaborative environment, that's for sure. ___ 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
Re: [Gendergap] Fwd: Announcing the shutdown of the Ada Initiative
Wow. I can sympathize with the difficulty of the decision that the board of the Ada Initiative has had to make, but their reasoning is logical and understandable. They have certainly created an important legacy. I wish both Valerie and Mary very well in the future, and thank them for their dedication and devotion to making the world a better place for women in the technology industry - whether as casual users, content contributors, developers, or in any other role. Risker/Anne On 4 August 2015 at 10:29, Carol Moore dc carolmoor...@verizon.net wrote: They did great work. Assumedly more info on how long the website will be up and how to download materials will be forthcoming. Forwarded Message Subject:Announcing the shutdown of the Ada Initiative Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 08:48:23 -0400 (EDT) From: The Ada Initiative cont...@adainitiative.org It is with mixed feelings that we announce that the Ada Initiative will be shutting down in approximately mid-October. We are proud of what we accomplished with the support of many thousands of volunteers, sponsors, and donors, and we expect all of our programs to continue on in some form without the Ada Initiative. Thank you for your incredible work and support! What we accomplished 80 women cheering and wearing many different colors, CC BY-SA Jenna Saint Martin Photo AdaCamp Portland attendees in 2014 CC BY-SA Jenna Saint Martin Photo When the Ada Initiative was founded in 2011, the environment for women in open technology and culture was extremely hostile. Conference anti-harassment policies were rare outside of certain areas in fandom, and viewed as extremist attempts to muzzle free speech. Pornography in slides was a regular feature at many conferences in these areas, as were physical and sexual assault. Most open tech/culture communities didn't have an understanding of basic feminist concepts like consent, tone policing, and intersectional oppression. Anti-harassment policy and code of conduct work With the support of hundreds of volunteers, the Ada Initiative led the drive http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001fQBZqzZ9TuaymVUNfPnErPmauIlJ6s49XaqM2610Cw5Psf3dUutaAofjKTa1m2OImgAeaCeOEzi8MJ0caiTs1YyTPySYbvIg87-2DGm8ZaYwkAseeY58Oz_Z-086d1K1nHATxSpSMQaPNwQdv2w_niY4m3NhrRKd2aqbjty5IhdrxzQ9EEROp5zwnUtD6Z-sh8wHrjysMPgplcImXjiOV0RoMOhLvOr-c=-AEzxKpPhaljwWPx1VthiG3ZAaUYv9OaVOf4F4qqzRCDmC0tKACw8A==ch=FNgtQUpbrJo4vWC_-WCPEIOmb3inD1iRrAimMsBzuJ4LUY7Dp8Gnbw== to make strong, specific, and enforced anti-harassment policies a standard and expected part of any moderately well-run conference. Today, /thousands/ of conferences http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001fQBZqzZ9TuaymVUNfPnErPmauIlJ6s49XaqM2610Cw5Psf3dUutaAt9NHzPMFOU6k8q_Z4U0s_cXnskui25oTufQKCQet8jtYsXP26qzkBq0MK7WmN-w5EzrP83chNqVtjn7LiTTMv5rpEfRNG-Y52D9mj55tUuUrk-XOc7GnUEjU6C4kp-us7igqPfO4j4yx_RsE8KXBRK3ofTY8F0Sx6jP4tLYbiwrVyw9zJJ0ujJPWlzhJacL6Q==c=-AEzxKpPhaljwWPx1VthiG3ZAaUYv9OaVOf4F4qqzRCDmC0tKACw8A==ch=FNgtQUpbrJo4vWC_-WCPEIOmb3inD1iRrAimMsBzuJ4LUY7Dp8Gnbw== have these policies, including many in the area of free and open source software, fandom, Wikimedia projects, computer technology, library technology, science writing, entomology, and many other areas we never expected to influence. This work is now completely community-driven; people everywhere are developing and improving codes of conducts for online communities. AdaCamp unconferences We ran our first AdaCamp unconference http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001fQBZqzZ9TuaymVUNfPnErPmauIlJ6s49XaqM2610Cw5Psf3dUutaAh9bQVKgWJMlcGVhCF47vwk-fI6gNRzpUU1lqDzQfL9so3V-AJOhMt4scgRF41Td9t_XKCJdmsLkvwO2yPqtwywBZQoZ-bIz2y7uO0zXSb9M6qXwxwL7icKD2q0Tjc87POPMb3JU4Vozc=-AEzxKpPhaljwWPx1VthiG3ZAaUYv9OaVOf4F4qqzRCDmC0tKACw8A==ch=FNgtQUpbrJo4vWC_-WCPEIOmb3inD1iRrAimMsBzuJ4LUY7Dp8Gnbw== in 2012 in Melbourne, and ran six more AdaCamps in the following years, in Washington D.C., San Francisco, Portland, Berlin, Bangalore, and Montreal. Over 500 women had an experience many of them described as life-changing. AdaCamp awakened their feminist identity, helped them improve their careers, and connected them with a community of support. Many women realized for the first time that what they were going through was not unique to themselves, that their negative experiences were the result of systemic sexism, and that they could make changes in their lives with the help of women they met through AdaCamp. We created the AdaCamp Toolkit http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001fQBZqzZ9TuaymVUNfPnErPmauIlJ6s49XaqM2610Cw5Psf3dUutaAh9bQVKgWJMlJkKB9kLaBw4LPTdjaXvKB9QyISrszb_0EBMuGeVdPkgRxhiuRLROu0hAKuRrCF0-s_tdQEvZKkb1s1ZrIC93hao_MMGPu_MMihFIQZQ0EZs=c=-AEzxKpPhaljwWPx1VthiG3ZAaUYv9OaVOf4F4qqzRCDmC0tKACw8A==ch=FNgtQUpbrJo4vWC_-WCPEIOmb3inD1iRrAimMsBzuJ4LUY7Dp8Gnbw== so that other people could run events more like AdaCamp. Among many other things, it includes step-by-step guides on how to provide food
Re: [Gendergap] I'd like to hear about the Ally Skills Workshop
Thanks, Luis. It was a bit hard to tell from the promotion of the event if there would be 10 or 100 participants, so I wasn't sure if it was just that I hadn't run into anyone or if...well, you know...like Fight Club... In any case, one of the participants, who wishes to remain unnamed, sent me an email and gave permission to share his thoughts, as follows: There were about two dozen attendees in cafe style seating, probably a male majority but at least a third female. There were several WMF staff, enough at least to show that they are interested in the topic. Attendees were skewed towards the English speaking world as compared to wikimania generally and included some admins. There were some strict confidentiality rules about the event including a ban on photographs and I'm being careful not to say who was there. But it was thought provoking and to my knowledge provoked several subsequent discussions among participants. The meat of the workshop was a series of example scenarios that were first discussed in the table groups and the summated results were then fed back to the room. Some got a fairly limited range of responses from the different tables, others less so. For a workshop from an outside organisation the scenarios showed they had done their homework, though some could do with a little further tailoring for Wikipedia. I wouldn't say that I came out of it with a new skill set, but some of the scenarios garnered female reactions that hasn't occurred to me, and I suspect we all came out of it having learned better ways to handle some of the scenarios. It would be possible to repeat the event and roll it out in the movement either in major metropolitan areas or at future conferences, but it requires a culture specific workshop leader and in person attendance. There was a post event survey of participants so there may be some publicity as to what the participants thought of it. Another correspondent was kind enough to link me to the basic materials for the workshop, which of course the Ada Initiative has given in other settings. Risker/Anne On 24 July 2015 at 18:12, Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org wrote: I suspect it was just time pressures rather than a conspiracy of silence, Risker :) I certainly thought it was worthwhile and useful, and would have been happy to chat about it if you'd asked. Obviously we need to think about scaling and impact if we want to do more of it, but I think that's certainly doable (especially if it is part of a larger strategy for cultural change). Luis On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: What it says on the tin. Even though I was present at Wikimania, I heard very, very little about the Ally Skills workshop, even when I asked participants about it. (In fact I don't think I got a straight answer to a single question about it.) Given the interest about this workshop on this list, and the fact that several of us would have liked to attend but had other commitments (whether or not at Wikimania), I think many of us would like to hear at least some bare-bones feedback about the session. How many attendees? Male/female ratio? Key themes? Are any of the participants comfortable in saying whether they felt they came away from the session with new tools or skills that they feel will be useful? I'm going to be honest, the silence about this well-supported experiment has me very curious. Risker/Anne ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- Luis Villa Sr. Director of Community Engagement Wikimedia Foundation *Working towards a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.* ___ 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] I'd like to hear about the Ally Skills Workshop
What it says on the tin. Even though I was present at Wikimania, I heard very, very little about the Ally Skills workshop, even when I asked participants about it. (In fact I don't think I got a straight answer to a single question about it.) Given the interest about this workshop on this list, and the fact that several of us would have liked to attend but had other commitments (whether or not at Wikimania), I think many of us would like to hear at least some bare-bones feedback about the session. How many attendees? Male/female ratio? Key themes? Are any of the participants comfortable in saying whether they felt they came away from the session with new tools or skills that they feel will be useful? I'm going to be honest, the silence about this well-supported experiment has me very curious. Risker/Anne ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Listing all projects on gender gap page
On 23 July 2015 at 11:08, Carol Moore dc carolmoor...@verizon.net wrote: snip I might even be pursuaded to show up since it's in DC. The whole Wikipedia experience is just one more sexist/ageist thing that made me antisocial in my old age, I'm afraid. booo h ;-) I just want to comment here that attending Wikimedia-related social events has been a remarkably positive experience for me, and for many other women I have met. First, there's visible evidence that there really *are* other women out there - we may be smaller in number, but there is a level of camaraderie that transcends language and culture. Second, as many researchers have found, it's a lot harder to verbally abuse the person standing in front of you, and I have seen several examples of individuals who have modified their behaviour after that sort of personal confrontation. And, as a member of the over-50 set, I've always been pleasantly surprised at how non-marginalized older Wikimedians are - I found less age bias at Wikimedia events than I have in almost all other similar events. I do encourage those who can attend events, whether local, national or international, to do so. Risker/Anne ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Help us fill the Ally Skills Workshop at Wikimania!
This is a bit of a problem, as I see it. While it is invitation only (and at this point, there is no feedback about what percentage of the available seats are taken), the very limited advertising is not targeting people who are actually going to be at Wikimania. Now, it could be that all the seats are full, in which case no further advertising is needed. But attaching this to Wikimania and then not bothering to take advantage of the advertising power of Wikimania wiki at least does not seem terribly helpful. There are several sessions that will occur that are strictly invitation-only, but those invitations are much more narrowly focused and the potential invitees have been communicated with much more directly. Perhaps Valerie or someone else directly involved in the seminar can advise if all the seats are full and, if not, how many more applicants they are seeking. Risker/Anne On 6 July 2015 at 19:53, J Hayes slowki...@gmail.com wrote: it's not on the programme it's invitation only https://adainitiative.org/2015/06/apply-now-for-the-ally-skills-workshop-at-wikimania-2015/ On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 4:46 AM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Valerie, Is the workshop listed on the Wikimania programme? I can't see it. https://wikimania2015.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programme (Great that this is happening, though!) Chris On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Valerie Aurora vale...@adainitiative.org wrote: Hi long-suffering Gender Gap list members, I have good news! Thanks to the hard work of many of the people on this list, the WMF funded a grant to run a pilot Ally Skills Workshop at Wikimania in July: https://adainitiative.org/2015/06/apply-now-for-the-ally-skills-workshop-at-wikimania-2015/ The Ally Skills Workshop teaches men simple, everyday ways to support women in their communities. This workshop will be laser-focused on techniques that work specifically in Wikipedia and related projects, including how to use existing policies and suggestions for advocating for new policies. It will also teach people about the mindset of trolls and what strategies work best for foiling them. If it goes well, we'll apply for another WMF grant to run a train-the-trainers, with the end goal of teaching the workshop to many of the Wikipedia admins around the world. The goal is to get them educated and wised up to the sexist tactics often used against women editors, women's bios, and women's causes on Wikipedia. If you are going, or if you know someone who would be a good person to attend this workshop, please sign up or encourage them to sign up! You can also retweet the announcement here: https://twitter.com/adainitiative/status/613803456692793344 Thanks, -VAL -- Valerie Aurora Interim Executive Director You can help increase the participation of women in open technology and culture! Donate today at http://adainitiative.org/donate/ ___ 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 ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Motivating women to run for board seats
On 6 June 2015 at 18:32, Zana Strkovska 777.z...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everybody, Thank you Anne for mention only one woman candidate for FDC this year, it was me. I would like to say something: not time, not money is issue for me (I am free lancer, meaning I can manage my time). My theory is that I didn't pass because I didn't answer questions in the way the community wanted. I am not sure how many woman we have who are free to help, serve and travel. But, what I found discourage after mine failure is the oppose votes. One thing is to see how many Wikipedians voted for you, but it's not so pleasant to count oppose votes. I hope my words could help on why women aren't generally volunteering to run. Regards, Zana (user:Violetova) Zana - I would really like to encourage you to post that at the election post-mortem page, perhaps in the section about voting methodology (which is titled Electoral system).[1] Your perspective, as a candidate, is really important on this issue. I have said for a while now that I am unlikely to ever participate in another WMF-related election, but it was only on reading what you wrote here that I realized how demoralizing the opposes are in any of these elections for me as well. Risker/Anne [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/Post_mortem ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Motivating women to run for board seats
Expenses, including travel, lodging, conference fees (if applicable) and the same per diem as staff receive (if food is not supplied) are paid for Board-related activities. Other reasonable expenses are also covered, although everyone is encouraged to take advantage of cost efficiencies where possible (e.g., group taxis to the airport, using public transit where possible). [As a side note, these same rules apply to the FDC, for which there was only one woman candidate this year.] The bigger factor may be time, for both of these roles. The FDC is mostly not that busy most of the year, but is hyperactive during the two 10-12 week periods a year when they are considering proposals (From my experience, a thorough review of the average proposal takes 10-15 hours total. Multiply that by 6-8 in April/May and 12-18 in October/November, and that is a LOT of volunteer time). Members of the Board of Trustees have stepped down in the past because of the time commitment expectations (including several full weekends a year, a retreat, attendance at Wikimania, and participation in online/teleconference meetings). Risker/Anne On 6 June 2015 at 15:48, Carol Moore dc carolmoor...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/6/2015 3:15 PM, Pine W wrote: We had no new female candidates for board seats in the WMF election. For affiliates, I know of at least two affiliates that also have male board members saying that they/we would like to have more gender diversity on our boards but women aren't generally volunteering to run. What could be done to encourage more women to run for affiliate and WMF board seats? Thanks, Pine Does the job description mention whether there's pay or at least free travel and hotel expenses for meetings? $ is often a big factor for women. 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
Re: [Gendergap] Retired
There is a tendency to ascribe a great deal of power to the Arbitration Committee of English Wikipedia - and of the various arbitration committees, it is the one with the greatest scope and perceived power. In fact, Arbcom has almost no ability to manage the world outside of the pages of the Wikipedia project, and even within the project it can only handle minuscule portions of the activities. It has no power at all to control other websites, can only take action against Wikipedians acting outside of the project if there is an extremely clear and direct link between the Wikipedia persona and the persona outside of WP, and is very wary of taking action in the absence of direct links because many if not most arbitrators and functionaries over the last 8-10 years have been the subject of joe-jobs themselves. I've had to have three separate LinkedIn accounts purporting to be me taken down over the last 8 years, for example; others have had their personal images and names attached to accounts on porn sites, paid editing sites, and a fair number of other unsavory sites - so as a group we can honestly say there's plenty of reason to doubt in a lot of cases. Arbcom is not all-powerful. Even the full force of the WMF can only be turned on to the most extreme cases of harassment; there simply aren't the human resources to address comparatively run-of-the-mill harassment, especially when it's occurring outside the walls of their projects. Not even huge internet-based companies like Facebook, Twitter, or Yahoo have the personnel or the ability to prevent or address harassment on unrelated sites, and they have hundreds of times more community managers than the WMF has. To compare to a non-internet situation: How many police officers would be needed to effectively stop catcalls being directed to women walking down the street? Or preventing bullies from picking on the skinny kid? We know the answer - there aren't enough cops in the world to stop these things even in one medium-sized city. What needs to change is society's attitude toward these activities - and because the internet isn't a single society, the task is extremely difficult. The WMF isn't going to be able to solve it, Arbcom doesn't have a hope of solving it, and as long as the same privacy laws that prevent people from digging into deeply private information about us also protect people whose behaviour is very much unappreciated, I'm not sure the legal systems of most democratic countries will be able to solve it. Risker/Anne On 27 May 2015 at 00:21, Neotarf neot...@gmail.com wrote: This might also be a good time to mention the conversation about harassment on the recent Inspire grant project. Fourteen of the proposals were concerned with managing harassment. I don't believe I ever saw anyone from the Foundation comment on this. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Community_discussion_on_harassment_reporting Instead we now have the English Wikipedia's Arbcom taking on their third or fourth sexual harassment within the year, without having even established a working definition of what it is. On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:06 AM, Neotarf neot...@gmail.com wrote: Totally understandable. I too have also been sexually harassed and doxxed, on at least two other sites besides WP. The ArbCom and the WMF are well aware of it, and have been unwilling to lift a finger against it. There is a book about cyber harassment making the rounds: Hate Crimes in Cyberspace by Danielle Keats Citron ISBN 978-0-674-36829-3 describing both the horrible price that individuals pay and the legal underpinnings of the problem. It's a pity WP is not in the vanguard of this movement in the same way it has pioneered in other areas. Instead, those who report harassment will find themselves treated worse than the harassers. On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmoor...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/26/2015 8:35 PM, LB wrote: Due to off-wiki harassment, I have retired. Thank you to those of you who have been friendly with me over the past year. Lightbreather Plus all that on-wiki harassment! I did notice something interesting and actually positive in Lightbreather's arbitration, compared to GGTF and others I've seen. Which is that now editors only can comment on Arbitration talk pages in their own sections. This lessens opportunities for drive-by harassing taunts against, and replies against, various editors who harassers are trying to get kicked off Wikipedia. They have to take responsibility in their own sections. Perhaps my screaming about institutionalized harassment at Arbcom had at least this minor effect... I hope they keep it for all future arbitrations... Announcement on this page, after which went into effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Evidence#Sectioned_discussion_is_now_in_effect_on_this_page Also in effect here. https
Re: [Gendergap] [Wikitech-l] Nominations being accepted for 2015 Wikimedia Foundation elections
I'm going to take a moment here to encourage people on this list to consider whether they may be willing to stand as candidates for any of these positions. While there's generally a reasonable idea of what the Board of Trustees do, there are also 5 Funds Dissemination seats and the FDC Ombudsman seat up for grabs. The FDC does have a very important role to play in determining funding for many large movement chapters and affiliates, and makes recommendations to the board about the distribution of about $6 million US annually. So far, the board has agreed with the FDC recommendations. There is a fair amount of reading to be done going in to each session (the November round is quite heavy) and generally speaking members will be expected to go to San Francisco for a week in November, and then to a European location (this year it is Berlin) in May to meet face-to-face and make their decisions. Sitting members of the FDC are also invited to attend Wikimania wherever it may be held, as that is where the annual new-member orientation is held. Dependent on how quickly you assimilate sometimes-complex material, the non-meeting time commitment is in the range of about 250-350 hours over the course of the year, with concentrated effort in September to November, and April-May. You do not need to be a member of a chapter or affiliate to be on the FDC - in fact it is important that the FDC have non-aligned members from the community as well. FULL DISCLOSURE - I am currently a member of the FDC. The FDC ombudsman has the role of reviewing certain FDC decisions at the direction of the Board, and may have additional tasks added in. Based on the current ombudsman's report in August 2014, the total time commitment is in the range of 60-100 hours/year. Please consider whether you might be a good candidate for any of the roles currently open for election. Women have been important participants in all of these roles, and it would be good to keep it that way. Women from outside of North America/Europe would add even more to the diversity of these groups. Risker/Anne On 20 April 2015 at 19:29, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: FYI -- Forwarded message -- From: Gregory Varnum gregory.var...@gmail.com Date: 20 April 2015 at 18:59 Subject: [Wikitech-l] Nominations being accepted for 2015 Wikimedia Foundation elections To: Wikimedia developers wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org Greetings, I am pleased to announce that nominations are now being accepted for the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections. This year the Board and the FDC Staff are looking for a diverse set of candidates from regions and projects that are traditionally under-represented on the board and in the movement as well as candidates with experience in technology, product or finance. To this end they have published letters https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/Call_for_candidates describing what they think is needed and, recognizing that those who know the community the best are the community themselves, the election committee is accepting nominations https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015#Information_for_nominators for community members you think should run and will reach out to those nominated to provide them with information about the job and the election process. This year, elections are being held for the following roles: *Board of Trustees* The Board of Trustees is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long term sustainability of the Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. There are three positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/Board_elections/2015 . *Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)* The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) makes recommendations about how to allocate Wikimedia movement funds to eligible entities. There are five positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/FDC_elections/2015 . *Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) Ombud* The FDC Ombud receives complaints and feedback about the FDC process, investigates complaints at the request of the Board of Trustees, and summarizes the investigations and feedback for the Board of Trustees on an annual basis. One position is being filled. More information about this role can be found at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/FDC_Ombudsperson_elections/2015 . The candidacy submission phase lasts from 00:00 UTC April 20 to 23:59 UTC May 5 for the Board and from 00:00 UTCApril 20 to 23:59 UTC April 30 for the FDC and FDC Ombudsperson. This year, we are accepting both self-nominations and nominations of others. More information on this election and the nomination process can be found at https
[Gendergap] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] Nominations being accepted for 2015 Wikimedia Foundation elections
FYI -- Forwarded message -- From: Gregory Varnum gregory.var...@gmail.com Date: 20 April 2015 at 18:59 Subject: [Wikitech-l] Nominations being accepted for 2015 Wikimedia Foundation elections To: Wikimedia developers wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org Greetings, I am pleased to announce that nominations are now being accepted for the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections. This year the Board and the FDC Staff are looking for a diverse set of candidates from regions and projects that are traditionally under-represented on the board and in the movement as well as candidates with experience in technology, product or finance. To this end they have published letters https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/Call_for_candidates describing what they think is needed and, recognizing that those who know the community the best are the community themselves, the election committee is accepting nominations https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015#Information_for_nominators for community members you think should run and will reach out to those nominated to provide them with information about the job and the election process. This year, elections are being held for the following roles: *Board of Trustees* The Board of Trustees is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long term sustainability of the Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. There are three positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/Board_elections/2015 . *Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)* The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) makes recommendations about how to allocate Wikimedia movement funds to eligible entities. There are five positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/FDC_elections/2015 . *Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) Ombud* The FDC Ombud receives complaints and feedback about the FDC process, investigates complaints at the request of the Board of Trustees, and summarizes the investigations and feedback for the Board of Trustees on an annual basis. One position is being filled. More information about this role can be found at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/FDC_Ombudsperson_elections/2015 . The candidacy submission phase lasts from 00:00 UTC April 20 to 23:59 UTC May 5 for the Board and from 00:00 UTCApril 20 to 23:59 UTC April 30 for the FDC and FDC Ombudsperson. This year, we are accepting both self-nominations and nominations of others. More information on this election and the nomination process can be found at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015. Please feel free to post a note about the election on your project's village pump. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the talk page on Meta, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-electi...@wikimedia.org On behalf of the Elections Committee, -Gregory Varnum (User:Varnent) Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee ___ Wikitech-l mailing list wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] Art+Feminism edit-a-thon in Toronto
Just thought I would pop a note here to let people on the list that I was quite impressed with the Art+Feminism get-together held yesterday (March 8) here in Toronto, at the Art Gallery of Ontario. As you can see by the page,[1] there were over 70 people in attendance (about 75% of whom were women). The quality of the resources was excellent, and the AGO staff and volunteers were extremely helplful in locating those resources and bringing them to the editors to build the articles. I attended primarily as an editor myself, but there was a special thrill in helping a first-time editor tidy up a few things on the page in her sandbox and then showing her how to move the article to mainspace. I was also really impressed with the ability of the attendees to quickly grasp the Wikipedia concept, linking to references, following formatting suggestions, and speaking in our patented Wikipedia voice. I was also fascinated to see how so many of the editors were able to reflect the feminist attributes of their article subjects in so many cases (e.g., first woman to...,). I came away with the impression that many had actually caught the editing bug, and I have some hope that there will be some editor retention out of this one. Much to my surprise, I realised that this was the largest Wiki*edia event I had attended outside of Wikimania. It bodes well for both the Canadian editing community, and for the narrowing of the gender gap. Risker/Anne [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Toronto/ArtAndFeminism_2015 ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Thank someone today.
Kerry, I'm pretty sure you didn't know this, but you are amongst the top 10 thankers on English Wikipedia - and THANK YOU for doing that. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:F%C3%A6/sandboxoldid=149050523 - now being discussed on Wikimedia-L mailing list. (This is the result of a script that Fae ran on enwiki and commons - it would be really interesting to see how other projects do as well.) I do confess that I've started to use the number of thanks and on- or off-wiki positive messages about an action to reassure me that a chosen comment is on-point (or sometimes to recognize that it's not on-point, too). This kind of feedback is a lot more useful than I'd initially expected, and I'm working up to giving more of them. My initial restraint was probably linked to my unwillingness to use the Wikilove extension - nothing wrong with it except for using the word Wikilove in every edit summary, which I find really creepy. Risker/Anne On 5 February 2015 at 05:04, Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote: Well Jonathan, thanks for doing that! I am not an administrator, so I couldn't do those things you mentioned, but I often think that in some cases I wish I could do more than just thank the person. I know however that I was very suspicious of anyone posting on my talk page in the beginning, so I feel like the generic thanks is the best way to approach someone the first time. If someone comes across my watchlist a few times with I perceive as a theme, then I will tip them about how to do basic things like create a category on commons for related images, or fill out the Wikidata item, or browse similar items in Reasonator. On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 10:50 AM, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: Much of my editing on wikipedia is minor typo fixes, the sort that a normal spellchecker won't pick up. I secularised lots of sports teams from having mangers to managers and also dealt with the problem of rock stars preforming songs in sports stadiums. I used to be able to do hundreds of such edits without anyone seeming to notice any except where they had missed the l from public. But now I get thanked for several percent of my edits, I think that is a really positive change on the pedia, of course the metrics people will take it as a negative because some of those thanks will be replacing edits, so the short term effect on the editing level is likely to be slightly negative. I do tend to check out who has thanked me and make sure the newbies who do so have had a welcome and give the ignored old hands reviewer status if I think they are ready for it. One of the most dysfunctional bits of the project is the way that people can do huge amounts of uncontentious stuff with very little interaction with others. I sometimes trawl the accounts who have recently created their 100th article and where appropriate set them as auto patrolled, often when i look at their talk pages the interactions they've had have been minimal. Regards Jonathan Cardy On 5 Feb 2015, at 00:11, Keilana keilanaw...@gmail.com wrote: I love the thanks button, it's such an easy way to add more positivity to the wiki and the world. :) On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Katherine Casey fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com wrote: I have found myself using the thank button more than usual recently. In the middle of all the turmoil that goes on onwiki, a simple hey, that thing you did that you thought no one noticed? Yeah, thanks for doing that goes a long way toward cancelling some of it out. On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 6:52 PM, LB lightbreath...@gmail.com wrote: I agree, Kerry. I try to use the thank button at least once a day. Lightbreather On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.com wrote: We talk a lot of about the culture of Wikipedia being negative, critical, abrasive etc; this is a turn-off to a lot of women (and also to a lot of men). But what can we do to change that? Well, I thought about the way that postings get Liked on Facebook. Indeed, most postings get many Likes on Facebook. It seems if you read something and appreciate the post in any way (which includes when you agree with the poster that it is unhappy matter and hence unlikeable matter), you click Like. Well, I decided to try it on Wikipedia. Now, when I run through my watchlist (which I do most mornings), instead of just looking for what's wrong and needs to be fixed, instead if I see a positive contribution to an article, even a small one, I thank the contributor for the edit. And if I notice I am thanking someone quite a bit, I send them some Wikilove or a Barnstar. I notice a small increase in the number of thanks I am receiving. While I realise this may be simple reciprocation, I'd like to think I might be creating a small culture of appreciation in my topic space, hoping that people choose to Pay It Forward. So, that's my suggestion. Try thanking
Re: [Gendergap] Test Kaffeeklatsch area for women-only
On 17 January 2015 at 14:06, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote: We would never even consider calling people who have two feet cispedal or people who have blood pressure in the normal range cistensive. Well, yes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cis%E2%80%93trans_isomerism In organic chemistry, cis/trans isomerism (also known as geometric isomerism) is a form of stereoisomerism describing the relative orientation of functional groups within a molecule. Thank you for proving my point. I despair of having to defend humanity from comparisons to molecules. RIsker/ANne ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Test Kaffeeklatsch area for women-only
On 16 January 2015 at 17:13, Heather Walls hwa...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Whatever else cis is, it's not a scientific term. It's a buzzword that sounds scientific because it derives from the Latin, but in fact it's a coined term that is not used in science. What makes a term scientific other than that scientists use it? Sociologists Kristen Schilt and Laurel Westbrook define *cisgender* as a label for individuals who have a match between the gender they were assigned at birth, their bodies, and their personal identity as a complement to *transgender https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender*. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender#cite_note-2 *Sociology* is the academic study of social behaviour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_behaviour, its origins, development, organisation, and institutions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology#cite_note-1 It is a social science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science that uses various methods of empirical investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_method[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology#cite_note-Classical_Statements8-2 and critical analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_analysis [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology#cite_note-Classical_Statements4-3 to develop a body of knowledge about social order, social disorder and social change. Simply because two sociologists say it means X doesn't mean that there's any indication that term is widely accepted even with the academic field of sociology; in fact, the next paragraph of the lede of the article indicates it's only one of many terms that are used by various social science fields. And just to be clear, social science != science; they're two very different things. The cis prefix is most frequently used when there is a fairly equal division between two different presentations. Thus, using this prefix prefix inaccurately reflects the distribution of gender identities. Let's not kid ourselves, no matter what data are being presented, 70% or more of the human population *does* self-identify with the gender assigned at birth. (The whole first paragraph on the origin of the term is original research, but I'm not going to touch it with a 10-foot pole.) We would never even consider calling people who have two feet cispedal or people who have blood pressure in the normal range cistensive. In fact, there's a word for those with blood pressure in the normal range: normotensive. But it wouldn't look politically correct to call people who identify with their assigned birth gender as normogender, which would be the linguistically correct prefix, because that encompasses the majority of people. [For the record, I'd never advocate the use of that term, either.] Let's just call women women or, if it's really felt that we need to be exclusive, those who self-identify as women. Risker/Anne ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] Upcoming Steward elections
In the next two weeks, candidates will be nominating themselves to become stewards. Right now, of 31 stewards, only one self-identifies as a woman. There was a point in time where this ratio was much higher (I can think of several other women from around the world who have fulfilled this role), but in recent years the majority of new stewards have come from the group of global administrators and vandal-fighters, with those who vote tending to focus on those skills. History of leadership and stewardship (in the true sense of the word), once valued, has come to be a genuine challenge for new candidates, particularly if they've upset someone along the way. There is now a more common focus on contributions across a broad array of projects (whether or not the user can communicate in the language of the project). The overwhelming majority of stewards today come from European countries. I draw this to your attention because it would be good to see a much more diverse group of stewards in the future. Although many stewards will say that the role has little authority and power, that it is only intended to act on the requests of various communities, the facts are quite different. Right now, stewards are playing *the* crucial role in determining which of several users with the same username will get to keep that name globally, for example. Sosome of you may want to consider a candidacy (I can think of a few on this list who stand a good chance of success). And all of us should seriously consider participating actively in these elections[1] and the annual review of current stewards [2] that happens concurrently. Risker/Anne [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/Elections_2015 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/Confirm/2015 ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] FYI - another trolling? Fwd: Google Groups: You've been added to Wikimedia-l
Just copy-pasting this from another thread on Wikimedia-L, where similar events are happening in relation to members of that list: I think it will be better if most of us can Report the Group. Yes, please do this. We're also talking with Google about trying to resolve the issue, but my understanding is that reporting that you've been fraudulently subscribed will help move that conversation along. [Same applies to the fake gender-gap list.] Thanks- Luis -- Luis Villa Deputy General Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6810 On 9 January 2015 at 13:51, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com wrote: yes, I've been subscribed several time to it over the past few days. Sydney Sydney Poore User:FloNight Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane Collaboration On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote: Another trolling I think. A Wikimedia Lesbians group this time. -- Forwarded message -- From: toby.dollmann (Google Groups) wikimedia-l+nore...@googlegroups.com Date: Jan 9, 2015 10:36 AM Subject: Google Groups: You've been added to Wikimedia-l To: sarah.stie...@gmail.com Cc: Some disturbing news entered my mailbox the past days. The grant making team is going to shut down the grantmaking process for Project and Event Grants (PEG) and Individual Engagement Grants (IEG) for three full months! They have decided that they want to focus only on a specific strategic priority: the gender gap, and that all other good projects are refused for 3 months (February-April) Good projects to be ignored, just because the WMF think those are less important. They say this is a positive campaign, but this sounds as a negative campaign to me. This discourages many volunteers in doing projects.With increasing vandalism and disruption the WMF seems looking to close some mailing lists for lack of volunteers. This is a negative signal to all those volunteers who are currently working on project plans. As LGBT related proposals will presumably be amongst the first to be rejected, a small actively moderated external mailing list for action is formed of engaged Wikimedians. About this group: A group for Wikimedian Lesbians The owner of the group has set your subscription type as Email, meaning that you'll receive a copy of every message posted to the group as they are posted. Visit This Group http://groups.google.com/d/forum/wikimedia-l?hl=en [image: Visit Google Groups] https://groups.google.com/?hl=en Start your own group http://groups.google.com/d/creategroup?hl=en, unsubscribe from this group http://groups.google.com/d/forum/wikimedia-l/unsubscribe/P7gvqhQAAABonccx-O4-0bg_FUisIR3XFNjJ6aDtACudYo8Pf2wyCQ?hl=en, or stop invitations like this http://groups.google.com/d/optout?hl=en. or report spam http://groups.google.com/d/abuse/YQAAAKBXSy7zf5nKiUUAAABPi6LFT8Iru9AmBRmFMHh3EYnhZfs?hl=en. ___ 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
Re: [Gendergap] Gender gap blamed for shuttting down grantmaking
On 6 January 2015 at 09:38, Neotarf neot...@gmail.com wrote: The beginning of a contentious thread on the Wikimedia mailing list about Project and Event Grants (PEG) and Individual Engagement Grants (IEG): https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-January/076243.html An earlier official explanation here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikilovesmonuments/2014-December/007600.html and here, offers to work with anyone who needs funds before that time, and notes that last year the earliest request was made in June: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikilovesmonuments/2014-December/007603.html Some strong words here: Shutting down the grantmaking gives a strong negative signal to every organiser. 'Your project is not important enough for the movement', that is what this campaign says. This is campaign is not benefiting the community, it is damaging it and it is damaging the trust of the community in WMF. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-January/076276.html Note that Gender Gap is not viewed here as *part of* the community, but as a barrier to the community. I think things may be calming down now that there is a much more complete response from WMF Grants staff in respect of this action plan. One of the issues that arose was the finding that WLM, for example, came to realise that they had not given enough lead time for the grants process by putting in their applications in June, so they were already consciously planning to submit applications earlier, pretty much in the middle of this period. That was intended to make it easier for grants request reviewers to make timely decisions, and I for one think it was a good idea on their part. Similarly, a few chapters whose requests are too small to go to FDC would be making their *annual* request during this period, something they may have scheduled months in advance. So yes, this sort of very sudden change in direction does have an impact on other activities, and from a narrow focus does give the impression that these large-scale activities are seen as less important than a bunch of not-yet-posted grant requests. I don't think the issue is really about the gender gap, it's about giving the impression that just about any grant that is not exclusively and specifically about the experiment topic (whatever that topic happens to be) would be left unconsidered for months, even if it has some focus on the experiment topic. I'm pretty sure there would be the same reaction if the topic was bots or GLAM or Sister Projects or Research. I've got a bit of a concern that the process may be too exclusionary in some ways. For example, WLM has historically had higher-than-average participation by women, especially in certain countries, so one might think that it could rationally fall into the catchment for gender gap funding; however, it's been specifically excluded. This is coming as a huge surprise to a lot of people, and I think with good reason. The Grants portal is notoriously unnavigable, and without a direct link to the page where this particular project was discussed, it's next to impossible to find it.[1] The Grants portal doesn't have a general administrative page for announcements or discussions that apply broadly (as this does), and you literally can't get from one section of the portal to another without leaving the portal and starting over. And the page discussing the project doesn't actually describe it in the same way that the emails do - the timeline is quite different, and there's nothing that says other than very time-sensitive grants, we won't consider anything else. One other thing I found odd here: In the first half of this year, IEG and PEG combined have spent only 9% of funds on projects aiming to directly impact this gap and less than ⅓ of our grantee project leaders have been women. While the dollar value of the funding is roughly proportional to the percentage of women participating in Wikimedia projects, I was actually extremely impressed by the fact that almost a third of grantee project leaders are women. That's a dramatically higher percentage than we have ever seen actively participating in Wikimedia projects overall. Again, I'm a bit concerned that more general programs that could be funded and are known to have attracted higher than average percentage of women participants wouldn't be included in any calculation of funding focused on gender gap issues. I can't speak for anyone else, but I genuinely do not believe that women only want to work in areas directly related to the gender gap. For example Reimagining Wikipedia Mentorship,[2] a current grant, should be at least as interesting to women as to men, and has the potential to have at least as significant an effect in retaining new women editors as new men editors. But it's not counted as a gender gap activity. Risker/Anne [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire_Grants_%E2%80
[Gendergap] Strong support for grants directly related to addressing the gender gap
(Changing the perspective on the previous thread a bit) Well, it's official - the Individual Engagement Grants (IEG) and Project Event Grants (PEG) will be focused almost exclusively for a 3-month period on providing financial support and mentorship for requests focused specifically at addressing the gender gap. The funding allocated - $250,000, roughly equivalent to the annual budget of many large chapters - is very significant and should help to promote good experimentation throughout this area. If you've been thinking about a project you'd like to organize that is specifically gender-gap related, now's the time to start drafting your ideas and asking for support from the broader grants and GG community. You'll need to describe your idea, set some targets, and collaborate with others as a team for the best chance of success. In particular, IEGs are intended to be experiments, and there's a recognition that some are going to be successful, while others (even if they look good on paper) are not going to produce results. The key is ensuring that there is some learning derived from the experiments. Don't be afraid to try something! Risker/Anne ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] Makers.com
For completely un-Wikipedia related reasons, I happened to stumble upon a website called makers.com - which appears to be a fairly large repository of the video stories of women who are experiencing successes, ranging from the extremely well known (e.g., Hilary Rodham Clinton) to Barbara Burns, a woman coal miner who successfully sued her employer for sexual harassment, with the case going all the way to the US Supreme Court. The site is American-centric, but I suspect the videos would make for some very good reliable sources for many articles, and perhaps motivate the creation of several articles that don't currently exist. Risker/Anne ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] WikiProject Women
So perhaps the question is how many women would be interested in participating in off-wiki...I'm not really sure entirely what exactly it is, although hypothetically it's mentoring and... well, I keep coming back to I'm not sure what it is. I have a hard enough time keeping up with my current load, and am not particularly interested in going to more venues, but I may be the exception. Risker/Anne On 1 January 2015 at 19:49, LB lightbreath...@gmail.com wrote: Thank you, Heather! This is what we run into on the WP GGTF every time we open something up for discussion. All I wanted to discuss the possibility of such a group. Are there any policies that would make it impossible? How would we determine who is a woman? Could inclusion/exclusion be automated? What might the benefits of such a group be? The liabilities? What would its scope be? It's goals? Can we discuss this? On Jan 1, 2015 5:30 PM, Heather Walls hwa...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Tim Davenport shoehu...@gmail.com wrote: I for one would immediately be running the project through the Miscellany for Deletion process. You don't see anything slightly wrong with this idea? Really?!? This is 100% unadulterated identity politics. You say that as if identity politics is somehow inherently negative. Tim Davenport Carrite on WP /// Randy from Boise on WPO Corvallis, OR Is it simply impossible to start a Wikipedia project that's open to women, or people who identify as women? (I'm sorry if I don't use the correct terms, but I haven't kept up with them in recent years.) I mean if we did it... what would the consequences be? Lightbreather ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- *Heather Walls* Communications Design Manager I Wikimedia Foundation 149 New Montgomery Street I San Francisco, CA 94105 heat...@wikimedia.org ___ 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
Re: [Gendergap] GGTF talk page
Could you please clarify, Lightbreather? Do you mean a wikiproject that is *only* open to women/those who identify as women? Because all wikiprojects are open to all interested editors, generally speaking. Would that not require editors to have to publicly self-identify? How would that be done? Risker/Anne On 31 December 2014 at 10:31, LB lightbreath...@gmail.com wrote: Is it simply impossible to start a Wikipedia project that's open to women, or people who identify as women? (I'm sorry if I don't use the correct terms, but I haven't kept up with them in recent years.) I mean if we did it... what would the consequences be? Lightbreather On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 7:43 PM, LB lightbreath...@gmail.com wrote: Why abandon it? Let's reclaim it. Just ignore those who try to distract and derail. There are sanctions so no nastiness, but nastiness is not my usual style anyway. I don't know whether it's better to abandon, reclaim or move it. But it has been a lesson in how deep Wikipedia's sexism runs. Any journalists in future wanting examples of it need only read those archives and the dispute-resolution threads that failed to deal with it (which one of us ought to compile at some point). Marie, I saw the suggestion on GGTF that women might prefer to edit [f]ashion, cookery, domestic affairs, childrearing. Is it worth continuing with it when that's what we have to deal with? Sarah On Dec 30, 2014 10:25 AM, Marie Earley eir...@hotmail.com wrote: 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 ___ 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
Re: [Gendergap] GGTF talk page
Ahh. I am not certain how public that particular preference is; I'm fairly certain there's no public list. The preference was installed on all WMF wikis at the request of projects where there is a different term for user depending on the self-identified gender of the user. (For example, the user pages of self-identified female editors on our German projects uses the feminine term for user.) Not quite sure what the result is on English Wikipedia - is there a list somewhere? Risker/Anne On 31 December 2014 at 10:59, LB lightbreath...@gmail.com wrote: Well, I'm brainstorming, but yes... a project that is only open to women or those who identify as women. And yes, that would mean identifying (via one's she edits preference - as I know of no other ways to identify, right?) Hypothetically, is there anything to prevent us from doing it? (I just went and re-identified as she edits. I had turned that off for a while when I first started getting harassed, but WTF. I'm tired of hiding. I'll bet other women are tired of hiding, too.) Lightbreather On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Could you please clarify, Lightbreather? Do you mean a wikiproject that is *only* open to women/those who identify as women? Because all wikiprojects are open to all interested editors, generally speaking. Would that not require editors to have to publicly self-identify? How would that be done? Risker/Anne On 31 December 2014 at 10:31, LB lightbreath...@gmail.com wrote: Is it simply impossible to start a Wikipedia project that's open to women, or people who identify as women? (I'm sorry if I don't use the correct terms, but I haven't kept up with them in recent years.) I mean if we did it... what would the consequences be? Lightbreather On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 7:43 PM, LB lightbreath...@gmail.com wrote: Why abandon it? Let's reclaim it. Just ignore those who try to distract and derail. There are sanctions so no nastiness, but nastiness is not my usual style anyway. I don't know whether it's better to abandon, reclaim or move it. But it has been a lesson in how deep Wikipedia's sexism runs. Any journalists in future wanting examples of it need only read those archives and the dispute-resolution threads that failed to deal with it (which one of us ought to compile at some point). Marie, I saw the suggestion on GGTF that women might prefer to edit [f]ashion, cookery, domestic affairs, childrearing. Is it worth continuing with it when that's what we have to deal with? Sarah On Dec 30, 2014 10:25 AM, Marie Earley eir...@hotmail.com wrote: 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 ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing
Re: [Gendergap] GGTF talk page
On 31 December 2014 at 11:18, LB lightbreath...@gmail.com wrote: I can imagine the complaints and hurdles. The discussion is it possible? Could it work? To your specific questions, if there's no page-protection option, can there be? If it's absolutely impossible, then the moderators would have to keep an eye on those things. Also, I think there would be parts of the project that would be vehemently opposed, but others who wouldn't care one way or another, and some who would welcome such a space with open arms. I don't know about EEML. I will read that. The EEML (Eastern European Mailing List) was an invitation-only mailing list populated by a group of editors who supported each other in content contributions, deletion discussions, and other on-wiki activities related generally to the Eastern European region of the world (including articles on the history, economics, politics, notable persons, geography, etc. of the region). The mailing list was non-public. Almost all participants on the list were very significantly sanctioned (including some permanent bans, some topic bans, and a desysop) because of the attempt to manage content in a non-transparent way, in addition to the entire canvassing aspect. There was once a Wikichix mailing list, moderated and very similar to the one described by Lightbreather. It died a slow death several years ago because, essentially, nobody really had much to say there, absent the ability to discuss actual content. Risker/Anne ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] GGTF talk page
On 31 December 2014 at 11:38, LB lightbreath...@gmail.com wrote: I've started two separate mailing list topics today - Women of GGTF and WP:WOMEN - but they haven't posted. You do send to Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org, right? I think that's what I've used before. Lightbreather They've been posted, Lightbreather; at least I've seen both of them. Perhaps you've got preferences (either on Mailman or on Gmail) set so that you don't get copies of your sent mails. Risker/Anne ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Techno issues (was Wikimedia Conference)
On 31 December 2014 at 11:52, Carol Moore dc carolmoor...@verizon.net wrote: The below definitely are interesting issues which deserve their own thread. I kept reading the proposals but had not run into the implementation very often. On 12/30/2014 3:24 PM, Risker wrote: Keep in mind that the majority of Wikimedians (i.e., people making edits on the 900+ sites hosted by the WMF) do so without registering an account. The existence of these projects was entirely dependent on that fact in the early days (and in younger and smaller projects, still is). I recall seeing data indicating that over 90% of Wikimedians made their first edits without creating an account, and I'll wager the same is true for the majority of people on this list, at least anyone who joined before about 2009. However, as time has progressed, it's become increasingly difficult to get edits accepted from unregistered editors: some projects have flagged revisions for every single edit, for example, which means that an edit by an IP isn't even visible until it's been approved - which can sometimes take weeks; **Wikiprojects themselves can do it? What percentage of projects do it and articles covered? German Wikipedia, Russian Wikipedia and some other projecs have flagged revisions (aka pending changes) on ALL articles, and there are others as well but I don't recall them off the top of my head. The vast majority of wikiprojects have only a few active members; the most active on enwiki seem to be related to entertainment and US politics. Wikiprojects have no relationship with adding flagged revisions on enwiki: it is a form of page protection and can only be added by administrators based on specific criteria. Repeated vandalism from unregistered users is the most common one, followed closely by repeated unsourced BLP-related/statistical edits by unregistered users. There is a secondary level of flagged revisions that permits only those with reviewer level permissions to accept edits; however, it is extremely controversial because it's all-or-nothing (either you have it for any article or you don't have that permission at all) and it is very easy to manipulate articles through this. others have groups of 'recent changes patrollers' that revert almost all edits by unregistered users (anti-vandalism patrol) whether or not the content is reasonable or even good. **I somehow ended up as one on the devolution article and dealt with it; what happens when all patrollers for an article stop watching for whatever reason? The majority of recent changes patrollers work off the recent changes feed, not watchlists. A while back, I decided to do some minor copy edits without logging in, and was within a whisker of getting blocked for fixing typos - 70% of my edits were reverted, even though 100% of them were correct. **Which of the above systems did this or usual editing practices from questionable editors? I suspect this was people working off the recent changes feed. You can select reviewing all edits or only those from unregistered (IP) editors, and quite a few RC patrollers *only* monitor IP edits. Does this show that WMF is more interested in looking for techno-fixes to the problems of vandalism or crappy editing by inexperienced editors? That projects are being dominated by individuals, possibly for personal reasons or POV reasons? In fairness here, all of the technologies that have been built to reduce vandalism/crappy editing by inexperienced editors were built at the request of (and often by) members of the editing communities. Most edit filters are written by community members, and the overall management of the edit filters is done by community members; the WMF staff only step in if a filter is having a problematic effect on something core like page load time. I think it was Wikipediocracy that alleged they are putting most of their $50 million a year into tech. With a little for research, but nothing to support editors. REAL ENCYCLOPEDIAS do help out their writers. Why not hire a) mentors to help new editors out, including dealing with civility issues, at least showing them where to go or asking uncivil jerks to lay off and b) mediators for more experienced editors having content disputes. I don't know where you get your data about REAL ENCYCLOPEDIAS - or how comparable it would be given the commercial and profit-oriented and expertise-oriented differences between them and us. But I'm not averse to the WMF doing some significant beefing up of the community advocacy department. Risker/Anne ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] GGTF talk page
Carollet's just deconstruct what you're saying here. If we were to take the words female and male and women and men out of it entirely, would it sum up one of the major issues in editor retention? I'm going to be honest, I've read a genuinely disproportionate number of insulting edits made by women (as a percentage of overall edits by editors I know to be women), and it's something that needs to be kept in mind; while the overwhelming majority of editors are male, I've not seen any evidence that a male editor is any more or less likely to behave badly than a female editor. It's just more obvious because they outnumber us 10 to 1. Risker/Anne On 30 December 2014 at 09:57, Carol Moore dc carolmoor...@verizon.net wrote: As long as (mostly male) Wikipedia editors are allowed to insult and harass editors whose edits they oppose for whatever reason Wikipedia cannot retain women, no matter how much they follow the suggestions below. (Unless of course they focus on shaming the WMF until it uses its terms of service against offending editors and administrators and arbitrators and that is my particular interest at this point.) Since few women have any interest in editing in a hostile editing environment. Many males leave quickly for the same reason. This is especially true in political, economic or current events areas which too many males consider their fiefdoms where womens' input not appreciated. And FYI just 2% of males is too many IF they are allowed to get away with insults and harassment. So reigning in the worst offenders on Wikipedia - without punishing even harder those who oppose - or EVEN lose their tempers about - their offenses is necessary. On 12/30/2014 8:30 AM, Tim Davenport 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 Davenport Carrite on WP /// Randy from Boise on WPO Corvallis, OR ___ 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
Re: [Gendergap] Wikimedia Conference (was - Diversity training for functionaries)
Keep in mind that the majority of Wikimedians (i.e., people making edits on the 900+ sites hosted by the WMF) do so without registering an account. The existence of these projects was entirely dependent on that fact in the early days (and in younger and smaller projects, still is). I recall seeing data indicating that over 90% of Wikimedians made their first edits without creating an account, and I'll wager the same is true for the majority of people on this list, at least anyone who joined before about 2009. However, as time has progressed, it's become increasingly difficult to get edits accepted from unregistered editors: some projects have flagged revisions for every single edit, for example, which means that an edit by an IP isn't even visible until it's been approved - which can sometimes take weeks; others have groups of 'recent changes patrollers' that revert almost all edits by unregistered users (anti-vandalism patrol) whether or not the content is reasonable or even good. A while back, I decided to do some minor copy edits without logging in, and was within a whisker of getting blocked for fixing typos - 70% of my edits were reverted, even though 100% of them were correct. The sad point is that Wikipedia *has* changed. But it's not changed in the direction that encourages *any* new users to participate - regardless of gender. Nobody knew whether my edits were from a woman or a man; they were just reverted. With templates, but not a single actual attempt at human contact. Today, I wouldn't even get the templates, I bet; there's probably an edit filter somewhere that will prevent me from making the edit in the first place. Even if it's right. Risker/Anne On 30 December 2014 at 14:55, Marie Earley eir...@hotmail.com wrote: I don't know how it goes in other parts of the world but here in the UK if you apply for a job, take a one day course in a particular subject, or do just about anything, there is always an equal opportunities monitoring form like this one: http://www.city.ac.uk/about/working-at-city/hr-policies-and-health-and-safety/hr-policies/equal-opps-form to fill in. I found it a bit shocking when I registered for Facebook, Wikipedia and other US-based websites that they had no apparent interest in the demographic make up of those opening accounts. If Wikipedia had an equal opps form at the point of registering a lot of this talk of doing surveys and trying to figure this stuff out retrospectively could be avoided. It's just not the kind of conversation that takes place in the UK because the first thing that happens is the equal opps forms are collected into a pile, there is an afternoon set aside for data entry, and there are your stats. I find talk of surveys a bit frustrating. Marie -- Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 21:56:44 -0500 From: nawr...@gmail.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikimedia Conference (was - Diversity training for functionaries) On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Anne, Kerry and Christina - and everyone else, So the Wikimedia Conference programme committee appears keen to do something useful in terms of creating space for gender - gap work. So I wondered if you had any further thoughts about what *might* work at the Wikimedia Conference. As Anne points out it is an audience of people from Wikimedia movement organisations - board members, executive directors (where they exist), and a smaller number of other staff. Compared to other Wikimedia events there is probably a greater language and geographical diversity. There is also a reasonable degree of awareness of the issue - better than one would find if you put english Wikipedia administrators in a room. The main focus for the conference is going to be on helping Wikimedia organisations grow, learn and improve - we are looking to give people practical outcomes, and are avoiding theoretical discussion as far as possible. Thoughts on what we can put in the programme on this issue are very welcome :) (I'll pass everything on to the programme committee, though I suspect I'm not the only member of it subscribed to this list). Thanks and happy new year! Chris The simplest thing to do is to describe the gender gap related efforts that other organizations have sponsored, urge the various movement entities to consider their own initiatives and - especially - push them to innovate. Few if any organized efforts have resulted in even small lasting change, so brainstorming ways in which chapters etc. can put their resources - real life organization and money - to use will be of greatest benefit. This is an area where a chapter or affiliate has the opportunity to be a global leader and to have a high profile impact, and the more they understand that the more likely they are to participate. ___ Gendergap mailing
Re: [Gendergap] GGTF talk page
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=SearchmabReward=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 behaviorproblems; 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
Re: [Gendergap] Iraqi human rights lawyer Samira Salih al-Nuaimi tortured and executed because Facebook; where is her Wikipedia article?
On 24 December 2014 at 11:22, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Carol Moore dc carolmoor...@verizon.net wrote: http://www.examiner.com/article/wikipedia-biographies-favor-men http://www.examiner.com/article/jimmy-wales-shows-favoritism-on-wikipedia hmmm, interesting but dated... http://www.examiner.com/article/number-of-women-going-down-on-wikipedia Merry Solstice! See my video - http://merrysolstice.com Carol, are you familiar with that author and his history with the projects? He's not exactly an objective journalist (or a journalist of any kind, actually). Oh, the irony. Carol, please don't ask people to put links to opinion pieces written by banned editors into the Gendergap project. We all get that you're really very angry right now, but this is not constructive. Risker ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Iraqi human rights lawyer Samira Salih al-Nuaimi tortured and executed because Facebook; where is her Wikipedia article?
Ummm. You're missing the point, Neotarf. The article about Tomlinson isn't his biography. It's an article about the event that led to his death. Tomlinson *isn't* notable, which is why the article isn't entitled Ian Tomlinson, it's titled Death of Ian Tomlinson. I am suggesting that she herself may not meet the threshold of notability, just as Tomlinson himself did not meet the threshold. Risker/Anne On 23 December 2014 at 00:45, Neotarf neot...@gmail.com wrote: Is Samira Salih al-Nuaimi notable? Just looking for an example of an article about someone notable for only one event, here is an article on the Death of Ian Tomlinson, a newspaper vendor who died during a London protest. Tomlinson's piece has been a featured article, and as far as I know, no one has ever challenged his notability. Tomlinson article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson BLP policy--people notable for only one event: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29#People_notable_for_only_one_event Al-Nuaimi seems to be much more notable than that. The UN and the US government have both issued official statements about al-Nuaimi's death. The UN statement calls her a well-known human rights lawyer and activist. http://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/un-envoy-condemns-public-execution-human-rights-lawyer-ms-sameera-al-nuaimy-enar This NZ piece has more detail about the statements issued by UN officials, apparently al-Nuaimi was running for office on the provincial council as well. There is more detail about two other female politicians killed or kidnapped, as well as five female political activists killed in Mosul, but no other names. http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-east/61509820/un-activist-publicly-executed-by-islamic-state.html And if you can get into some of the Arabic language sources, there is more nuance: you can see there were statements issued by two different UN officials, a statement issued by Prince Zeid Ra'ad Al Husssein, the High Commissioner for Human rights, in a statement issued by the UNHCR in Geneva and New York, and a statement by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations in Iraq, Nikolay Mladenov. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=ensl=aru=http://www.elaph.com/Web/News/2014/9/943993.htmlprev=search A google search for her name in Arabic turns up 138,000 results. Although Google results numbers are highly inaccurate, you can see at a glance from the URL's, this is not just a local personality, it has been widely reported across the Arabic-speaking world. https://www.google.com/search?q=%D8%B3%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%A9+%D8%B5%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD+%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B9%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%8Aie=utf-8oe=utf-8 If you wanted to skirt the notability issue, you could always just do a quick translation of the Italian piece, basically there is just a template so you can credit the original sources. More information can be added to a translated piece later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Translation#How_to_translate But I don't see how she is not notable. I daresay if someone created an article and it contained both a source, an internal link to another Wikipedia article, and a category, no one would challenge it. This is exactly the kind of information from the global south that the Foundation's official reports keep saying is lacking from Wikipedia, that they want to do something about. Regards, Neotarf On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 22 December 2014 at 15:34, Leigh Honeywell le...@hypatia.ca wrote: On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: It does not fall afoul of the meatpuppetry policy if the creator writes the article independently and using their own wording to create an appropriate article based on their own understanding and referencing to reliable sources. For example, this one could fall into several topics: Women and ISIS, biography of individual (although you'd have to show she was notable for a reason other than her execution), ISIS executions, etc. etc. Perhaps a stupid question but why is the coverage of her execution not enough for notability? ISIS is executing people by the tens of thousands (many for reasons that seem astonishingly petty to outsiders), so being executed by ISIS does not confer notability in and of itself. What would confer notability would be reporting about her *before* her death, such as multiple significant references where she is a primary focus of a report about (for example) women human rights activists in her native country, or conferring of significant recognition such as a government or significant NGO human rights award. In other words, she needs to be notable *before* her death in order to cross the notability threshold. The BLP1E threshold still applies. (For those of you unfamiliar with the acronym, that means that a person notable
Re: [Gendergap] Diversity training for functionaries
While it might be suitable as a pilot at the Wikimedia Conference (I promise not to harp on the name here), it's a by-invitation conference focused on chapter/affiliate executives, many of whom have very limited on-wiki presence. I'm not persuaded that they're the target audience. In fact, I'd suggest this would probably be best suited to a full-day session targeted at active Wikimedia project administrators and those with higher level permissions (think: oversighters, who frequently deal with requests from women who feel harassed because of gender; checkusers tracking down sockpuppets of harassers, and stewards, who can act in either role on projects that don't have their own CU/OS). There is not much overlap between these active on-wiki leaders and the leaders of chapters/affiliates. Strikes me that this would be more ideal for Wikimania, perhaps as a pre-WM session if that can be arranged. Risker/anne On 18 December 2014 at 11:04, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Christina - this sounds very interesting - would you be happy for me to propose it as a possible topic in the Wikimedia Conference, for which I'm on the programme committee? Chris On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Christina Burger christina.bur...@wikimedia.de wrote: Hi everyone, Please allow me to briefly introduce myself before coming to the point: I am Christina Dinar and I work at Wikimedia Deutschland for 1,5 years now. Originally, I was employed to take care of community projects that address newbies and enhance the diversity in Wikipedia as well other Wikimedia projects. I came with the professional background of doing workshops with young adults in political education, doing diversity trainings in order to address some of their existing social and violent behavioral problems with each other. Somehow it never got to that moment that I could actually offer this knowledge and experience to the German Wikipedia Community–my professional focus here shifted and I started to work in other fields. Coming from this background, I could definitely offer a diversity workshop at Wikimania, for functionaries as well as on the level of introduction as a train-the-trainer. We even have developed diversity guidelines (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charting_diversity), that theoretically frame the approach on diversity to the specifics of the Wikimedia world. If I get some positive feedback on offering this workshop at Wikimania–ideally not alone but with another interested person–I am not sure what the best way to proceed is: Wait for the submission process, or get in touch with the organizers to ask for a room and time for this special workshop (as others did in the past)? I had drafted a proposal for our diversity conference back in 2013 that we could use and build upon - (it was very general at that time, today I would address more the specfics of WM-movements..): Diversity? Deal with it! – Diversity as a concept has long development in management and especially in human ressource management in order to practically deal with diversity of people coming and working together from different backrounds and levels of knowledge. This 45-min lasting workshop you will actively engage in situations what actually to do and how possibly to act when divers and different opinions, people and backgrounds and communication cultures come together. Different strategies will be developed within the group participants leaving them with set of tools and strategies how to deal with diversity in real life and the online world. I am very much looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Warmly, Christina Christina Dinar Team Communitys Volunteer Support Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 260 Mobil: +49 17639238378 http://wikimedia.de Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. 2014-12-14 23:06 GMT+01:00 Jim Hayes slowki...@gmail.com: yes, training could work at wikimania the education foundation and eval. folks had seminars during hackathon, and a track at London https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programme what would a required list of HR, managment seminars look like? On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: I've added myself to the list of interested people :) Thinking out loud, would that kind of thing work in person at the Wikimedia Conference and/or Wikimania? On 12 Dec 2014 19:33, Siko Bouterse sboute...@wikimedia.org wrote: Along similar lines, this pilot training has been suggested for admins: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Gender-gap_admin_training And The Ada Initiative said they were interested in providing
Re: [Gendergap] Australian article about recent onwiki drama
It's just a reprint of the Slate article. Risker/Anne On 16 December 2014 at 11:09, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/12/14/comment-will-editing-disputes-mean-end-wikipedia -- 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
Re: [Gendergap] Gender gap emails Arbitrator doesn't like
Actually, GorillaWarfare was responding to the subject header. She is an arbitrator. She is also expressing her opinion about why, as an arbitrator, she has concerns about this list. I think she's bang on. And I agree with Chris. Risker/Anne On 12 December 2014 at 14:08, Reguyla regu...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, now, before this devolves further, let us all end this stupidity. Lets get back on topic! GW, your comments today have had nothing to do with this list other than to attack me. Enough is enough. On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:00 PM, gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com wrote: GW, accusing me of hijacking this list for a vendetta is a purely untrue and petty accusation. For the last couple of years my goal on the project has been to make it more fair for all editors regardless of status (admin or editor), gender, race, etc. Well, I’m glad you got some of this very pure fight for fairness in around the harassment you were leveraging against other editors. I’ve spoken out against this behavior because I don’t think people engaging in email harassment campaigns against editors such as myself should be allowed on this list any more than they should be allowed on Wikipedia. There has been discussion on this list recently about how there are so few women (and so few people of any gender) running for the Arbitration Committee, and meanwhile one of the ones helping to keep it an incredibly thankless and often unpleasant place to be is continuing to do so on the very same list. With that said, of the 2 of us, which one is responsible for participating in banning Carol, participating in setting in motion the series of events that have lead not only many discussion on this list but on Wikipediocracy and now news articles as well? Here's a hint, its not me. If you read the proposed decision, you’ll see that I did not vote for this. If my participation in the case—where I voted *against* banning Carol—makes me “responsible for participating in banning Carol,” then we’ll have to agree to disagree. — Molly (GorillaWarfare) ___ 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 ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Diversity training for functionaries
Kumioko, you can change your gmail preferences to have this list automatically dump to spam if you're not getting a fast enough response to your unsubscribe. Risker On 12 December 2014 at 14:43, Reguyla regu...@gmail.com wrote: While I am waiting for the email confirmation disenrolling me from this email list, I think this is only going to work if: 1) Someone establishes some metric for determining if the training is helping 2) If there is some teeth to failure to adhere to the training once its been taken. If the WMF has no intention of dealing with admins who continue to violate policy, then there is no reason to force them to take the training. 3) The training is also taken by editors. The majority of the problems come from the editors so they should also have some need to take the training On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Siko Bouterse sboute...@wikimedia.org wrote: Along similar lines, this pilot training has been suggested for admins: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Gender-gap_admin_training And The Ada Initiative said they were interested in providing training for such a pilot. WMF grantmakers like myself would be pleased to see something like this develop into a proposal, if folks felt it was worth trying. It might make sense to pilot at the admin level before focusing on functionaries like stewards, because admins have more day-to-day interactions with individual editors (and thus more opportunities to facilitate an on-wiki environment that supports diversity). On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Reguyla regu...@gmail.com wrote: I think this might be a good idea but it would be pretty hard to implement and I think, unnecessary. Most of the functionaries got to where they are because they have a calm demeanor and generally are fair in how they treat others. Additionally, its not usually the functionaries who are the problem. So without requiring the editors to perform the diversity training, I'm not sure how much it would help. On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: Don't know if this has been floated before - apologies if so - but: Part of the problem we have is the sheer depth of ignorance among otherwise well-intentioned community members. This depth of ignorance is naturally shared by the people who play leadership roles in the community. So we end up with stewards, arbitrators and bureaucrats who potentially end up reinforcing the gender gap problem because they just have no clue how the structure they maintain can sometimes be a tool to exclude people. How about offering some form of diversity training to functionaries to help broaden perspectives and raise understanding? Obviously, from the point of view of supporting them to do their difficult and fairly thankless roles better, rather than beating them with diversity sticks. It could happen (indeed, WMF could make it happen with some volunteer input); could it help? Chris ___ 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 -- Siko Bouterse Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. sboute...@wikimedia.org *Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. * *Donate https://donate.wikimedia.org or click the edit button today, and help us make it a reality!* ___ 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 ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Diversity training for functionaries
More likely, it is the fact that none of the moderators happen to be online right now. If you want to leave the list, as is your stated intention, you can go to your own Mailman preferences and decide which lists to unsubscribe without waiting for a moderator. Risker On 12 December 2014 at 14:49, Reguyla regu...@gmail.com wrote: Well, its also possible that whomever is removing me from the list, doesn't agree that I am a problem. Its funny that the people who want me off the list are or were members of the Arbcom I have often criticized as being self serving and problematic. On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Kumioko, you can change your gmail preferences to have this list automatically dump to spam if you're not getting a fast enough response to your unsubscribe. Risker On 12 December 2014 at 14:43, Reguyla regu...@gmail.com wrote: While I am waiting for the email confirmation disenrolling me from this email list, I think this is only going to work if: 1) Someone establishes some metric for determining if the training is helping 2) If there is some teeth to failure to adhere to the training once its been taken. If the WMF has no intention of dealing with admins who continue to violate policy, then there is no reason to force them to take the training. 3) The training is also taken by editors. The majority of the problems come from the editors so they should also have some need to take the training On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Siko Bouterse sboute...@wikimedia.org wrote: Along similar lines, this pilot training has been suggested for admins: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Gender-gap_admin_training And The Ada Initiative said they were interested in providing training for such a pilot. WMF grantmakers like myself would be pleased to see something like this develop into a proposal, if folks felt it was worth trying. It might make sense to pilot at the admin level before focusing on functionaries like stewards, because admins have more day-to-day interactions with individual editors (and thus more opportunities to facilitate an on-wiki environment that supports diversity). On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Reguyla regu...@gmail.com wrote: I think this might be a good idea but it would be pretty hard to implement and I think, unnecessary. Most of the functionaries got to where they are because they have a calm demeanor and generally are fair in how they treat others. Additionally, its not usually the functionaries who are the problem. So without requiring the editors to perform the diversity training, I'm not sure how much it would help. On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: Don't know if this has been floated before - apologies if so - but: Part of the problem we have is the sheer depth of ignorance among otherwise well-intentioned community members. This depth of ignorance is naturally shared by the people who play leadership roles in the community. So we end up with stewards, arbitrators and bureaucrats who potentially end up reinforcing the gender gap problem because they just have no clue how the structure they maintain can sometimes be a tool to exclude people. How about offering some form of diversity training to functionaries to help broaden perspectives and raise understanding? Obviously, from the point of view of supporting them to do their difficult and fairly thankless roles better, rather than beating them with diversity sticks. It could happen (indeed, WMF could make it happen with some volunteer input); could it help? Chris ___ 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 -- Siko Bouterse Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. sboute...@wikimedia.org *Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. * *Donate https://donate.wikimedia.org or click the edit button today, and help us make it a reality!* ___ 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 ___ 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 ___ Gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Diversity training for functionaries
You've stated you have unsubscribed; usually, if it's done through your personal log-in using the mailman system, it should have happened automatically and you should no longer be getting emails, but that does not appear to be the case. I am sorry that hasn't happened for you, and to be honest I don't know what link to give you so that you can exercise that option, so I am also not able to help you to reach your stated objective via the list. I've suggested other options that are within your personal control; in fact, simply not reading the emails and not responding to them would also work if your objective is not to participate on the list any further. It might be useful for the list moderators to consider changing the footer message to include an unsubscribe link, as is done on several other Wikimedia-hosted lists. Risker On 12 December 2014 at 15:19, regu...@gmail.com regu...@gmail.com wrote: Im sorry if its not happening fast enough for you. Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device -- Original message-- *From: *Risker *Date: *Fri, Dec 12, 2014 3:03 PM *To: *Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation of women within Wikimedia projects.; *Subject:*Re: [Gendergap] Diversity training for functionaries More likely, it is the fact that none of the moderators happen to be online right now. If you want to leave the list, as is your stated intention, you can go to your own Mailman preferences and decide which lists to unsubscribe without waiting for a moderator. Risker On 12 December 2014 at 14:49, Reguyla regu...@gmail.com wrote: Well, its also possible that whomever is removing me from the list, doesn't agree that I am a problem. Its funny that the people who want me off the list are or were members of the Arbcom I have often criticized as being self serving and problematic. On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Kumioko, you can change your gmail preferences to have this list automatically dump to spam if you're not getting a fast enough response to your unsubscribe. Risker On 12 December 2014 at 14:43, Reguyla regu...@gmail.com wrote: While I am waiting for the email confirmation disenrolling me from this email list, I think this is only going to work if: 1) Someone establishes some metric for determining if the training is helping 2) If there is some teeth to failure to adhere to the training once its been taken. If the WMF has no intention of dealing with admins who continue to violate policy, then there is no reason to force them to take the training. 3) The training is also taken by editors. The majority of the problems come from the editors so they should also have some need to take the training On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Siko Bouterse sboute...@wikimedia.org wrote: Along similar lines, this pilot training has been suggested for admins: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Gender-gap_admin_training And The Ada Initiative said they were interested in providing training for such a pilot. WMF grantmakers like myself would be pleased to see something like this develop into a proposal, if folks felt it was worth trying. It might make sense to pilot at the admin level before focusing on functionaries like stewards, because admins have more day-to-day interactions with individual editors (and thus more opportunities to facilitate an on-wiki environment that supports diversity). On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Reguyla regu...@gmail.com wrote: I think this might be a good idea but it would be pretty hard to implement and I think, unnecessary. Most of the functionaries got to where they are because they have a calm demeanor and generally are fair in how they treat others. Additionally, its not usually the functionaries who are the problem. So without requiring the editors to perform the diversity training, I'm not sure how much it would help. On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: Don't know if this has been floated before - apologies if so - but: Part of the problem we have is the sheer depth of ignorance among otherwise well-intentioned community members. This depth of ignorance is naturally shared by the people who play leadership roles in the community. So we end up with stewards, arbitrators and bureaucrats who potentially end up reinforcing the gender gap problem because they just have no clue how the structure they maintain can sometimes be a tool to exclude people. How about offering some form of diversity training to functionaries to help broaden perspectives and raise understanding? Obviously, from the point of view of supporting them to do their difficult and fairly thankless roles better, rather than beating them with diversity sticks. It could happen (indeed, WMF could make it happen with some volunteer input); could it help? Chris
Re: [Gendergap] Arbcom election
On 9 December 2014 at 09:37, Jim Hayes slowki...@gmail.com wrote: one take away is how few voters there are. we have a lot of feminist editathons coming up should we consider recruiting at events to get new editors over 150 edits, with a view of block voting in next year's election? if we organize now, we could run a civility slate of candidates. Slates are specifically banned from arbcom elections. The majority of candidates who are running this year (and the past several years, for that matter) have stated they were very pro-civility. However, I'm not sure that it makes a difference, since Arbcom decisions and actions have so little impact on the project as a whole. Aside from actions against individual editors (i.e., banning or otherwise sanctioning individuals), pretty much everything else they decide has to be implemented by the broader community, and the committee has no way to leverage these things. Better than half the time when Arbcom asks the community to review certain things, it's ignored; discretionary sanctions are entirely based on who is willing to risk the boomerang effect of reporting someone at the DS noticeboard; and there is no apparent willingness of the community to proactively address these issues. Again, I think you're caught in the trap of believing Arbcom has more power and authority than it really has. Risker/Anne ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Women, cliques and Wikipedia's tyranny of structurelessness
Carol said: I do think there are structural things that can be imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation to make reforms happen. (Whether they'll choose the right reforms and the right people to make them happen is a whole 'nother story.) *But the purpose of this thread is not to discuss specific reforms, but to **focus on the issue of male dominated Wikipedia cliques intent on keeping Wikipedia a place where dominant males don't have to put up with these damned women (or radical feminist c*nts/tw*ats in their minds) who keep yammering about making Wikipedia a nice (or even safe!) place to edit.* Discussion of some womens' complicity in all this obviously is relevant too. I'm not certain you've got it right here, Carol. I think the cliques (which, given the overall makeup of the project, are almost always male-dominated) don't want to put up with *anyone*, male or female, that opposes their view. I've seen female-dominated cliques on the project (rare as they are) behave equally appallingly. There are corners of the project where any interloper, regardless of gender, is treated with the back of the hand by the regulars, whether those regulars are male or female. A friend of mine recently reminded me of the language of southern ladies and how they often use perfectly normal sounding phrases to cut people to the core. (A classic example would be bless his heart or, more emphatically, bless his dear little heart - which to all the world reads like a slight eye-roll, but is actually properly decoded as that idiot or (more emphatically) that *frickin* idiot.) I've seen a lot of examples of that on Wikipedia, where it's been so obvious that the written word *reads* civilly but is intended as a cutting insult - in my experience, women editors use this method out of proportion to the percentage of women on the project - and in some ways it is an even greater insult because it's hard to persuade others that what look like civil words are being used to convey quite the opposite meaning. Risker/Anne ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Arbcom election
Going to be honest here, I think the more interesting statistic is that there are only 590 voters in an active user base of about 30,000. I think this may reflect a change in the degree of importance the community places on the Arbitration Committee. On the female editors participating front, I'm fairly certain just from looking at the names and picking out ones I recognize as being women editors, that at least 10% of the participating electorate was female. I never bothered to set my gender preference (indeed, I know that preference was added to accommodate languages for which the word user is gender-specific, such as German, Spanish, etc), even though I've been openly female for most of my wiki-career. (I realise that it sounds like I came out as being a woman...when I look back on the earliest years of enwiki, there was a far less significant gender imbalance.) Risker/Anne On 9 December 2014 at 08:55, Katie Chan k...@ktchan.info wrote: On 09/12/2014 13:45, Fæ wrote: The statistic comes from querying the English Wikipedia database. This includes a table of user preferences which itself is where the on-wiki preferences stores information like preferred gender. Here's the SQL for anyone interested (it includes other redundant stuff, I was re-using something I already had to hand): SELECT user_name, user_editcount, LEFT(user_registration,4) AS reg, GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT ug_group SEPARATOR ' ') AS grps, GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT CONCAT(up_property,':',up_value)) AS prop FROM user u LEFT JOIN user_properties ON up_user=u.user_id LEFT JOIN user_groups ON u.user_id=ug_user WHERE user_name=''' +u +''' AND up_property=gender GROUP BY user_name ORDER BY user_editcount DESC; (Where u is a variable iterating over the listed voters.) As others are pointing out, the statistic of 1/590 is a fact Err https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?format=jsonaction= querylist=usersususers=KTCusprop=gender https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?format=jsonaction= querylist=usersususers=Fluffernutterusprop=gender and others. KTC -- Katie Chan Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the author is associated with or employed by. Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ___ 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] Arbcom election
There have never been anywhere near that many people voting for Arbcom elections; in fact, that's more people than voted in the last Board of Trustees elections for the elected seats, and hugely more than get a vote for the chapter/affiliate-selected Board seats. The fact of the matter is that not that many people actually care about Arbcom, and never really cared. The people who care are usually those who have interacted with the dispute resolution system on multiple occasions. The majority of active administrators participate, for example; but the number of active admins has also nosedived, so we may be seeing the effects of that reflected in the interest in voting, and even in the number and quality of candidates. Back in the earlier days, there were often 30-40 candidates. Risker/Anne On 9 December 2014 at 11:08, Carol Moore dc carolmoor...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/9/2014 9:08 AM, Risker wrote: Going to be honest here, I think the more interesting statistic is that there are only 590 voters in an active user base of about 30,000. I think this may reflect a change in the degree of importance the community places on the Arbitration Committee. They should say the election isn't valid unless, say, 2000 vote, and keep advertising that fact til 2000 vote. Far too easily manipulated this way. We'll see if the two most problematic candidates because of support for anti-GGTF people are elected. ___ 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] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF
Hmm. I look at it and think why is the term sex-positive being used in this way? It's highly biased, and it's certainly not terminology used in most of the world amongst those who support prostitution as a career choice; in fact the two have nothing to do with each other. I'd never heard of it being used in this manner before, although I'd heard and read the term being used in a lot of other ways - including the validation for including sex education in the school curriculum. Risker On 30 November 2014 at 16:13, Jim Hayes slowki...@gmail.com wrote: in re: video - addressing the video issue alone - i think you've sailed upon the shoals of multi-media phobia i don't like it = merely decorative better to argue: that the video, or a diagram illustrates the divergence between sex-positive and anti-sex work feminism; that the diagram certainly adds to your (or the reader's) understanding; that certain reliable sources include such a diagram (so it's not original to you) keep in mind that one tenet of white male privilege is 5. worship of the written word so it is a frequent content dispute masking ideology. On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Marie Earley eir...@hotmail.com wrote: Not sure if this will produce a new thread or attach to the existing one (I've checked my spam folder, there's nothing there) but anyway Tim: I just wondered whether you regard this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force#Moving_forward ...as a lack of civility or a gender gap issue? In particular this comment: ...As has been indicated on the talk page of the proposed decision, *repeatedly,* there is some question as to exactly *which* women this group seems to be reaching out toward, specifically, whether it is more or less of a more or less radical feminist perspective I thought it summed up in a nutshell what the GGTF was really up against. It's a kind of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism * Are you now or have you ever been a feminist who believes that sex work is the opposite of feminism? Anyone who answers yes that question is judged to be a radical, a subversive who wants to push POV and therefore they are fair game. On WP's list of feminists there were a very odd mish-mash of categories of feminist https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feministsoldid=544136790 and lots of names missing e.g. Gail Dines. I did a major rewrite to organize it chronologically and it meant that anti-pornography feminists, anti-prostitution feminists and socialist feminists could go onto the list https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feministsoldid=545667727 The list has recently been changed to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feminists and I'm working with a couple of editors to see how we can improve it further. I've largely avoided trouble by sticking to admin based work such as this, and similar work: Cleaning up bibliographies, e.g. Joseph Schumpeter, from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeteroldid=633566034#Major_works to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeteroldid=634343909#Major_works Creating an article for the International Association for Feminist Economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_for_Feminist_Economics and improving the article for the Human Development and Capability Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_and_Capability_Association then creating biographies for past presidents of IAFFE and fellows of the HDCA. Adding DOBs to notable scholars and then adding them to Wiki's calendar (births). These organisations / individuals argues against sex work on the grounds of the perception of women that is generated (i.e. as a thing / object). The problem with the MRA, pro-porn, pro-sex work POV is they have no problem with anti-porn etc. POV provided it is in a box labelled mad or religious with a sub-text that the only people that could possibly support that POV are from the moral right and are probably racist and homophobic as well. The other problem that the MRA have is that, human development and capability, which includes feminist economics / inequality / care work etc. collectively constitutes a 'single broad topic' (WP:SPATG), so they are unable to stop editors, who wish to edit in this area, from doing so. The natural place for this work is within the Gender Studies project. Which is why they write nonsense like this: http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corruption-censorship/ (if there were really the kind of censorship that they are talking about on WP then there would be no Pornography Project). Any attempt to show 3 distinct POVs (a) Pro-sex work (b) Right-wing anti-sex work (on moral / judgemental grounds), and (c) Left-wing anti-sex work (on negative perception grounds) - the POV that dare
Re: [Gendergap] coordination work off-wikie
Well, hold on. The content dispute that is being described is one that rages within the feminist community (note the lack of gender there - it encompasses people of all genders), and is not a male vs female thing. Often as not, it is women disagreeing on the definitions amongst themselves. The same is true of many topics of interest to women: abortion, marriage, gender identity, etc. Let's not simply dump all of these in the men vs women drawer, please. Risker/Anne On 30 November 2014 at 08:12, Kathleen McCook klmcc...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, one can see easily how they move from topic to topic. Connected and ensuring their POV dominates. The issue of feminism should not be defined by men whose motivation seems to be to create an environment where women are free to be what they (the men discussed here ) imagine to us to be. I believe that Marie's statements about keeping these issues off one's main course are the result of continuous attacks. Wikipedia needs a TAKE BACK THE NIGHT movement. In my days on campus women attacked were told they shouldn't be out at night.So marches began to TAKE BACK THE NIGHT. On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 2:16 AM, JJ Marr jjm...@gmail.com wrote: To quote you in the context of your dispute over a video, you say I dispute that it makes little sense and why does it even need to add informational value? Why can't it just be to add aesthetics to the article as pictures and videos often are?” I ask why don't you take that dispute up with the editor in question? Also, you need to be more clear in what you are saying. I have no context to this message, and I think it is a complaint about a content dispute. Please explain why this is relevant to the gender gap, since you are sending it out to everyone on the gender gap mailing list, and secondly, why a minor content dispute on enwiki is relevant to the Wikimedia gender gap community as a whole. On Nov 30, 2014 1:47 AM, Marie Earley eir...@hotmail.com wrote: Not sure if this will produce a new thread or attach to the existing one (I've checked my spam folder, there's nothing there) but anyway Tim: I just wondered whether you regard this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force#Moving_forward ...as a lack of civility or a gender gap issue? In particular this comment: ...As has been indicated on the talk page of the proposed decision, *repeatedly,* there is some question as to exactly *which* women this group seems to be reaching out toward, specifically, whether it is more or less of a more or less radical feminist perspective I thought it summed up in a nutshell what the GGTF was really up against. It's a kind of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism * Are you now or have you ever been a feminist who believes that sex work is the opposite of feminism? Anyone who answers yes that question is judged to be a radical, a subversive who wants to push POV and therefore they are fair game. On WP's list of feminists there were a very odd mish-mash of categories of feminist https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feministsoldid=544136790 and lots of names missing e.g. Gail Dines. I did a major rewrite to organize it chronologically and it meant that anti-pornography feminists, anti-prostitution feminists and socialist feminists could go onto the list https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feministsoldid=545667727 The list has recently been changed to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feminists and I'm working with a couple of editors to see how we can improve it further. I've largely avoided trouble by sticking to admin based work such as this, and similar work: Cleaning up bibliographies, e.g. Joseph Schumpeter, from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeteroldid=633566034#Major_works to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeteroldid=634343909#Major_works Creating an article for the International Association for Feminist Economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_for_Feminist_Economics and improving the article for the Human Development and Capability Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_and_Capability_Association then creating biographies for past presidents of IAFFE and fellows of the HDCA. Adding DOBs to notable scholars and then adding them to Wiki's calendar (births). These organisations / individuals argues against sex work on the grounds of the perception of women that is generated (i.e. as a thing / object). The problem with the MRA, pro-porn, pro-sex work POV is they have no problem with anti-porn etc. POV provided it is in a box labelled mad or religious with a sub-text that the only people that could possibly support that POV are from the moral right and are probably racist and homophobic as well. The other problem that the MRA have
Re: [Gendergap] Google Group invite
I got one and promptly unsubscribed. I don't do google groups, and every time someone has invited me to one, I've found they were not to my taste. Risker/Anne On 1 December 2014 at 02:08, Alison Cassidy coot...@mac.com wrote: I didn't get one. Now, I feel cheated! :D -- Allie On Nov 30, 2014, at 11:07 PM, Leigh Honeywell le...@hypatia.ca wrote: Someone purporting to be Russavia appears to have added a number of people from this list to a Google Group with a similar title to this list. Wearing my mod hat, I just want to be clear: this list isn't going anywhere, the Google Group is not WMF-sanctioned as far as I know, and scraping list members to add people to a third-party mailing list is terrible netiquette that will get you kicked off this list. -Leigh -- Leigh Honeywell http://hypatia.ca @hypatiadotca ___ 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 ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] WP:ANI on Disruption of Gender Gap Task Force
Check your spam folder and spam filters - many of us have had problems from time to time with mailing list posts winding up in spam or junk. Risker On 29 November 2014 at 16:05, Marie Earley eir...@hotmail.com wrote: Okay, so this is the last message that I had in my e-mail inbox (it's from 4 September 2014). I've checked my settings and they show me as still subscribing to the list and the check-box to receive the messages is ticked. Can someone please look into how I've dropped off the system? Thanks Marie -- Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 13:47:08 -0400 From: carolmoor...@verizon.net To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Gendergap] WP:ANI on Disruption of Gender Gap Task Force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption_of_Wikiproject After multiple complaints by other editors about this, I decided to bring an ANI. It might not be the best constructed one possible. And maybe I'm not the best person to do it, being a little too outspoken (I even make jokes!) and controversial with too many enemies (guys who don't like women who stick to their opinions on hot topics?) But the project is so disrupted I cannot even put up the resources page because I know that it will be gutted down to zilch by one editor especially if I do. (He's been wikihounding me and reverting me for over a year and multiple complaints have come to naught.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carolmooredc/My_Sandbox_1 The community has to face the fact that this is the only Wikiproject under attack. Like I said, other projects don't permit it. Can you imagine if it were permitted on the Palestine or Israel wikiprojects and they were going at each other? Or the Christian and LGBT? Absurd... At least Mr. Wales agrees... sigh... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#WP:ANI_on_.E2.80.9Cdisruption_of_Wikiproject.E2.80.9D CM ___ 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 ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF
I'm not going to opine on the decision that's being voted upon by Arbcom; I've been there, and ultimately the decision is based on the quality and nature of the evidence that people bother to present - which often means that the decision that ultimately gets posted, because entire sides of the story are not presented by someone as evidence, seems to have very little to do with the original reason for accepting the case. I have, however, entered a plea that they rename the case. The decision they're voting on now has almost nothing at all to do with the Gender Gap Task Force, and isn't really addressing any of problematic behaviours that are evident on the talk pages of the wikiproject. (It's obvious to me that a significant proportion of people posting there, including ones whom I otherwise hold in fairly high regard, just really don't get gender gap issues. There was belittling of suggestions, an insistence that the way things are done now is the right way to do them, that there's no such thing as topics of particular interest to womenwell, we all know the story. I've asked Arbcom to rename the case to something that doesn't include the name of the GGTF. It's hard enough to attract editors to participate constructively on the topic now because of all the nonsense noted above. It will just become that much more difficult to attract editors who prefer to work in a non-confrontational environment once this case is closed. Note that the wikiproject will be the subject of discretionary sanctions effective at the close of the case, as well. [1] As if that will make any difference. Risker/Anne [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision#Discretionary_sanctions On 25 November 2014 at 20:14, LB lightbreath...@gmail.com wrote: I cannot believe the crap going on on that talk page now! Having watched this case develop over the past few weeks, I finally ventured to share my disgust with the way things ended up, and now I'm being accused of basing my opinion *completely* on gender. Another guy chimed in to say: Some people aren't happy unless they are 'the victim', as odd as this sounds. The perpetual contrarian underdog. And no, I don't say this to be mean, it is simply a fact in human behavior that some people are like that. Both of these remarks were made by (male) admins. This is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision#A_strong_signal_to_the_GGTF Lightbreather ___ 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] [Research] Communicating on Wikipedia while female
I also find it very interesting. I have, however, asked Laura to redact the identifying information of one of the editors whose actions are incorporated into this research. Research rarely includes publishing identifying information about specific individuals, particularly without the direct permission of those individuals. Regardless of what any of us think of the specific editor who is named, it behooves us all to act as we would expect to be treated - and I'd be pretty ticked if someone published research that included examples that identified me by name. Risker/Anne On 21 November 2014 14:55, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: A very interesting study, and rather depressing. I love that I'm cited as a radical feminist though :) On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Netha Hussain nethahuss...@gmail.com wrote: Dear all, I found an interesting research done by Laura Hale about Communicating on Wikipedia while female : A discursive analysis of the use of the word cunt on English Wikipedia user talk pages on meta wiki. The link to the research page is here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_female Regards Netha -- Forwarded message -- From: Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com Date: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:57 PM Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Communicating on Wikipedia while female To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org Hey, I posted some new research to meta at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_female . It is titled: Communicating on Wikipedia while female A discursive analysis of the use of the word cunt on English Wikipedia user talk pages. Thought it might be of some interest to people on this list. Sincerely, Laura Hale -- twitter: purplepopple ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Netha Hussain Student of Medicine and Surgery Govt. Medical College, Kozhikode Blogs : *nethahussain.blogspot.com http://nethahussain.blogspot.comswethaambari.wordpress.com http://swethaambari.wordpress.com* ___ 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 ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] [Research] Communicating on Wikipedia while female
Well, then, that speaks more to the quality of the research if an entire section is devoted to slagging a specific editor, and what you're suggesting is that the research really should be interpreted as we have this one guy who keeps using this word, plus a rare occasional other editor who uses it, and we're going to group all obscenities together and use it to slag off the guy we're ticked off with. This isn't claimed to be journalism, it's claimed to be research, and it needs to be held to a higher standard. The more I'm reading this, the more I'm finding it problematic. Risker/Anne On 21 November 2014 15:59, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote: Honestly, I don't see a giant problem with identifying the person in question by name (and also find the research rather interesting.) Eric hasn't indicated that he regrets using the term, and has pretty robustly defended using it (going as far back as at least 2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eric_Corbett/Statement - and he is very easily linked via Google to his statements and general use of the word. Realistically any research posted on meta will be primarily consumed by Wikimedians, and the current GGTF arb case is quite high profile. Although it's not incredibly common to name people in research without their explicit consent, it's quite common in journalism - I've had full comments of mine quoted by name in prominent media outlets going back years, with me often only finding out after someone pointed them out to me (and happening way before I did any voluntary media outreach.) - Kevin Gorman On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: I also find it very interesting. I have, however, asked Laura to redact the identifying information of one of the editors whose actions are incorporated into this research. Research rarely includes publishing identifying information about specific individuals, particularly without the direct permission of those individuals. Regardless of what any of us think of the specific editor who is named, it behooves us all to act as we would expect to be treated - and I'd be pretty ticked if someone published research that included examples that identified me by name. Risker/Anne On 21 November 2014 14:55, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: A very interesting study, and rather depressing. I love that I'm cited as a radical feminist though :) On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Netha Hussain nethahuss...@gmail.com wrote: Dear all, I found an interesting research done by Laura Hale about Communicating on Wikipedia while female : A discursive analysis of the use of the word cunt on English Wikipedia user talk pages on meta wiki. The link to the research page is here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_female Regards Netha -- Forwarded message -- From: Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com Date: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:57 PM Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Communicating on Wikipedia while female To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org Hey, I posted some new research to meta at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_female . It is titled: Communicating on Wikipedia while female A discursive analysis of the use of the word cunt on English Wikipedia user talk pages. Thought it might be of some interest to people on this list. Sincerely, Laura Hale -- twitter: purplepopple ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Netha Hussain Student of Medicine and Surgery Govt. Medical College, Kozhikode Blogs : *nethahussain.blogspot.com http://nethahussain.blogspot.comswethaambari.wordpress.com http://swethaambari.wordpress.com* ___ 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 ___ 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 ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] [Research] Communicating on Wikipedia while female
Fair enough. I was aware that Laura isn't on this list so I have been posting on Meta, which to me is the most appropriate place to critique the study. Frankly, most of it has little to do with editing while female since much of the scatological language being referred to is gender neutral. Risker/Anne On 21 November 2014 16:41, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think it's at all fair to characterize the section as an attempt to rail on Eric. He just happens to have been at the center of the most recent high profile controversy about the word - which means that quoting recent defenses of the use of the word as an insult will naturally mean mostly quoting defenses of him. I've gone ahead and CC'ed Laura on this thread, since she's not on gendergap-l. Kevin Gorman On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Well, then, that speaks more to the quality of the research if an entire section is devoted to slagging a specific editor, and what you're suggesting is that the research really should be interpreted as we have this one guy who keeps using this word, plus a rare occasional other editor who uses it, and we're going to group all obscenities together and use it to slag off the guy we're ticked off with. This isn't claimed to be journalism, it's claimed to be research, and it needs to be held to a higher standard. The more I'm reading this, the more I'm finding it problematic. Risker/Anne On 21 November 2014 15:59, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote: Honestly, I don't see a giant problem with identifying the person in question by name (and also find the research rather interesting.) Eric hasn't indicated that he regrets using the term, and has pretty robustly defended using it (going as far back as at least 2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eric_Corbett/Statement - and he is very easily linked via Google to his statements and general use of the word. Realistically any research posted on meta will be primarily consumed by Wikimedians, and the current GGTF arb case is quite high profile. Although it's not incredibly common to name people in research without their explicit consent, it's quite common in journalism - I've had full comments of mine quoted by name in prominent media outlets going back years, with me often only finding out after someone pointed them out to me (and happening way before I did any voluntary media outreach.) - Kevin Gorman On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: I also find it very interesting. I have, however, asked Laura to redact the identifying information of one of the editors whose actions are incorporated into this research. Research rarely includes publishing identifying information about specific individuals, particularly without the direct permission of those individuals. Regardless of what any of us think of the specific editor who is named, it behooves us all to act as we would expect to be treated - and I'd be pretty ticked if someone published research that included examples that identified me by name. Risker/Anne On 21 November 2014 14:55, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: A very interesting study, and rather depressing. I love that I'm cited as a radical feminist though :) On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Netha Hussain nethahuss...@gmail.com wrote: Dear all, I found an interesting research done by Laura Hale about Communicating on Wikipedia while female : A discursive analysis of the use of the word cunt on English Wikipedia user talk pages on meta wiki. The link to the research page is here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_female Regards Netha -- Forwarded message -- From: Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com Date: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:57 PM Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Communicating on Wikipedia while female To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org Hey, I posted some new research to meta at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_female . It is titled: Communicating on Wikipedia while female A discursive analysis of the use of the word cunt on English Wikipedia user talk pages. Thought it might be of some interest to people on this list. Sincerely, Laura Hale -- twitter: purplepopple ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l -- Netha Hussain Student of Medicine and Surgery Govt. Medical College, Kozhikode Blogs : *nethahussain.blogspot.com http://nethahussain.blogspot.comswethaambari.wordpress.com http://swethaambari.wordpress.com* ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo
Re: [Gendergap] [arbcom-appeals-en] [Child Protection Policy]Gender Gap issues
Please moderate or even remove access to this list. Risker On 18 November 2014 16:52, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: Yeah, I don't see how this is at all relevant to the gender gap. Please moderate the sender. On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 1:27 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: I was going back and forth on speaking up myself, but I concur. George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:21 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Hello the moderators, I think the legal threats implied in this e-mail (and the other) are sufficient to warrant moderating the sender. On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Romana Busse romana.bu...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Mr. Davies From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee#Members I observe you are an inactive Member of this alleged committee. I hence suspect that your email is bogus. Accordingly I would appreciate receiving a signed email, or even a scanned signed email clearly given on behalf of the Arbitration Committee listing its physical address for service of legal process. I am shocked by the casual and secretive approach adopted to such concerns of child pornography, especially when it was previously made on another website http://wikipediocracy.com, naming 2 of your users Sitush and Bishonen using sexually colored language and referring to child pornography on your website. This Sitush is a serial stalker and harasser of female Wikipedia editors as your Arbcom knows well.. It is certainly strange that I was blocked as a sock puppet at the instance of these same 2 users (1 of whom is your Admin) when I brought that message to their attention. It seems Wikipedia actively discourages reporting such sexual harassment to Admins and wipes out all trace of it from public gaze, to the extent of terminating the account of the person who reported me for being an alleged sockpuppet.. It is even stranger that you will not disclose / specify the multiple accounts and IPs I am accused of using as an alleged sock puppet or why I am accused of being an India Against Corruption sockpuppet when I have never edited any page concerned with that body. It is very strange that Arbcom will not comply with its own policies for this. . It is clear that the Arbcom is covering up the actions of its anonymous users implicated in child pornography by another website. I urge you to reconsider as I firmly intend to pursue this matter and investigate all your own antecedents on your inactions.. On 11/19/14, Roger Davies roger.davies.w...@gmail.com wrote: Romana Busse: This is to acknowledge receipt of your emails of yesterday and today. The Arbitration Committee is unable to assist you further in this matter. Any further communications should be sent to: le...@wikimedia.org Roger Davies Arbitration Committee On 18/11/2014 15:41, Romana Busse wrote: Dear Anthony (AGK) I'm very sorry to bother you, but could I have a timeline with respect to deletion, or not, of those images ? With the welfare of the children in mind, I feel that the school, the children's parents and the local child welfare committees, magistrates and police should be properly sensitized to the incidents of that day, and to ensure it cannot reoccur I'm sure the police and the Indian Govt Cyber Advisory Committee would be interested in learning from you or NYBrad the finer points of law whereby Citizendium encyclopedia decides to completely wipes out the images within 12 hours but Wikipedia has not done anything till now on identical complaint. I would also like to know by when you will publish across all Wikipedia projects the complete list of accounts and IPs I have allegedly used, and also if I am a sockpuppet of User:MehulWB as alleged or not. This is required by your same policy WP:SOCK under which was blocked. Thanks On 11/18/14, Romana Busse romana.bu...@gmail.com wrote: This is about a potential threat to clearly identifiable Indian minor school children whose images are retained on WMF servers in USA and India despite legal notice to remove them. Taken within their school (where their parents expected the same degree of privacy as they enjoy at home) and uploaded without their permission, consent or knowledge, at a location where they allegedly viewed grossly obscene pornography accessed on a Wikimedia Foundation service which has now been disabled on complaint by a body called [[India Against Corruption]]. ___ ArbCom-appeals-en mailing list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BASC https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-appeals-en ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Fwd: fembot: Announcing a new pictorial digital women's history collection
The University does actually have a pretty good statement here: http://uwdc.library.wisc.edu/about/copyright The key issue would more likely be that some of the articles are still under natural copyright, such as this one: http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/WebZ/FETCH?sessionid=01-51412-1451625788recno=55resultset=2format=Fnext=html/nffull.htmlbad=error/badfetch.htmlentitytoprecno=55entitycurrecno=55entityreturnTo=brief Risker/Anne On 22 October 2014 12:17, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote: Hi - I actually professionally consult with GLAMs (galleries, libraries, archives and museums) regarding the copyright of their images and the content within them and how copyright works. I have worked with everyone from the Smithsonian Institution to the Getty regarding opening their cultural heritage materials. To be brutally honest: the university can claim copyright over the photographs of those images all they want but they will lose that case in a court of law if the photograph is of an object that was created before 1923. The news about these images has been disseminated in the Open Culture (GLAM) community already, and they'll most likely end up being uploaded to websites like Wikimedia Commons, with proper attribution of where they came from (the university) but because the objects are public domain (1923 and before) there will be little to nothing the university can do to control that. For example, a Wikipedia edit uploaded thousands of images from the National Portrait Gallery in London. All of artworks in the public domain. NPG tried to sue this editor (who is still an active editor). They failed - it was determined that the case had no chance. Basically, a museum or library can sit around and claim copyright over photographs of public domain images all they want, but, they can't win in a court of law.[1] So regardless, they'll end up on Commons eventually and be disseminated. I can go on and on and on about this, it's my big passion - professionally and personally. -Sarah [1] http://www.dmlp.org/threats/national-portrait-gallery-v-coetzee#description On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 9:11 PM, Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe I am missing something (USA copyright law is not my area of expertise) but I see recent photographs of old things, which would make the photos the copyright of Dovie Horvitz (who is described as the person who took the photos). If the copyright has been assigned to the university, the university's website asserts copyright over things in electronic format (which seems to cover anything on a website!). Sent from my iPad On 22 Oct 2014, at 9:13 am, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote: Fabulous collection of images, see below. Most are public domain - meaning ripe for uploading to Commons :) -- Forwarded message -- From: Carol Stabile carol.stab...@gmail.com Date: Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 4:11 PM Subject: fembot: Announcing a new pictorial digital women's history collection To: media technology collaboration gender fem...@lists.uoregon.edu Thought some of you would be interested in this. best, Carol A. Stabile, Professor School of Journalism and Communication/Department of Women’s and Gender Studies University of Oregon Editor, The Fembot Collective Dear WMST-Lers I am pleased to announce the availability of a wonderful online collection of photographs of women’s everyday possessions in the 19th and early 20th centuries, plus numerous digitized texts (magazines, books, postcards, posters, and more) concerning women during that period. The objects and printed works themselves were amassed by Dovie Horvitz, and Illinois-based collector who hopes to find an institutional home for the entire collection some day — perhaps the presence of the photographs and digitized works will spark that interest. We hope so. Objects in the collection include clothing (dresses, hosiery, bustles, garters, swimwear, undergarments, aprons, and more), accessories such as shoes and boots, hats, gloves, purses, fans, handkerchiefs, furs, and parasols; menstrual and other health products; cosmetic and grooming kits, powders, and related make-up items; dresser sets (combs and brushes); curling irons and other hair care devices; perfumes; boudoir pillow covers; eye glasses; and exercise equipment. The printed matter includes numerous women’s magazines, Sunday supplement illustrations, sheet music about women, suffrage postcards, World War I and II posters, photographs of teen parties, and pamphlets about sex, health, and menstruation. Page after page of ad-filled women’s magazines, as well as packaging elements such as hairnet envelopes, hosiery, handkerchief and hat boxes, constitute an important part of the collection. Most of the material is American in origin. The collection seems of most immediate interest to women’s history classes, but American literature
Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia and the war on women’s dignity
Frankly, I see little value in creating a site whose goal includes attracting journalists - particularly given the poor quality, sensationalistic journalism that we've all seen reporting on anything Wikimedia. Risker/Anne On 11 September 2014 18:51, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: In my opinion, women should look to organising off-wiki. Women-only site Women.com was mentioned the other day on the Gender Gap Task Force page. Activism there could certainly fulfil a useful function. Ultimately, I think there should be a separate site for the gender gap effort – combining a blog and a forum, much like Wikipediocracy – where women and men interested in narrowing the gender gap and documenting the existing problems can exchange views in an atmosphere undisturbed by men pretending to be women, men opposed to narrowing the gender gap, men arguing that it's not really proven that the gender gap is a problem, and so forth. It could do wonders for the effort's signal-to-noise ratio, and could probably achieve exponentially more in terms of raising public awareness. As it is, discussions on-wiki get bogged down in arguments leading nowhere, and contributors' energies are dissipated.[1] A well-publicised off-wiki site forming links to journalists and academics working in this field would be an ideal complement to this mailing list – which is useful for networking with researchers and Wikipedians, but creates little or no direct publicity. No journalist will comb through the voluminous discussions here. You need a place where you can summarise issues in a more easily digestible format. Unrelated to this, some of you may be interested in an ongoing discussion of the Wikipedia gender gap happening on Hacker News / Y Combinator: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8304173 [1] Note the current arbitration request on the English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gender_Gap_Task_Force_Issues On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Katherine Casey fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think it's appropriate to use this list to link to pages that out other users. I understand your frustration with nothing onwiki getting done, Carol, I truly do, but part of the social contract of being a Wikipedian is that we're expected to not attack the real lives of other Wikipedians - even when we think they're terrible or totally wrong. On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmoor...@verizon.net wrote: Wikipedia and the war on women’s dignity http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/09/07/wikipedia-and-the-war-on-womens-dignity/ This article mentions an individual who's caused problems at the Gender Gap task force. Off wiki sites engaging in outing is, like hashtags, a two edged sword. It can be used against truly problematic individuals who troll behind anonymity. But it also can be used against solid editors whose job or other situation necessitates anonymity but who have angered the wrong troll by trying to comply with policy. And the absurdities continue CM ___ 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 ___ 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] Wikipedia and the war on women’s dignity
I'd disagree with you there, Andreas. A lot of journalism is badly researched for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia or Wikimedia. It has to do with limited resources, the need to make a splashy headline, and nowhere near enough sexy stuff. Not even the most fascinated journalists could make the majority of issues on Wikipedia look interesting: the biggest issues internally are so far inside baseball that even most Wikimedians don't get them. Example: Despite a vast amount of effort, the overwhelming majority of news articles relating to the monkey selfie really missed the point of the copyright issue that was at the heart of the discussion. And even those that seemed to get the point still treated the subject as Wikipedia being copyright wonks to the point of 'stealing' money out of the pocket of a real photographer. No, I don't have a great deal of faith in journalists to get things right. Risker/Anne On 11 September 2014 22:31, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Anne, That's precisely the point. A lot of journalism is badly researched, because Wikipedia is remarkably opaque to many outside observers. So you simply end up with people repeating PR fluff, or going for the easy headline. Here are a couple of articles that are different. I would contend they had a palpable positive impact on Wikipedia: http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/ http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-network-history-wiki-pr/ This one didn't make a big impact, but it was a story I cared about: http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/wikipedia-plastic-surgery-otto-placik-labiaplasty/ There are stories like this about the gender gap that simply haven't been heard. They have only bounced off the walls within the Wikipedia echo chamber, muffled by nay-sayers. Those stories *should* be heard. Andreas On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:59 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Frankly, I see little value in creating a site whose goal includes attracting journalists - particularly given the poor quality, sensationalistic journalism that we've all seen reporting on anything Wikimedia. Risker/Anne On 11 September 2014 18:51, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: In my opinion, women should look to organising off-wiki. Women-only site Women.com was mentioned the other day on the Gender Gap Task Force page. Activism there could certainly fulfil a useful function. Ultimately, I think there should be a separate site for the gender gap effort – combining a blog and a forum, much like Wikipediocracy – where women and men interested in narrowing the gender gap and documenting the existing problems can exchange views in an atmosphere undisturbed by men pretending to be women, men opposed to narrowing the gender gap, men arguing that it's not really proven that the gender gap is a problem, and so forth. It could do wonders for the effort's signal-to-noise ratio, and could probably achieve exponentially more in terms of raising public awareness. As it is, discussions on-wiki get bogged down in arguments leading nowhere, and contributors' energies are dissipated.[1] A well-publicised off-wiki site forming links to journalists and academics working in this field would be an ideal complement to this mailing list – which is useful for networking with researchers and Wikipedians, but creates little or no direct publicity. No journalist will comb through the voluminous discussions here. You need a place where you can summarise issues in a more easily digestible format. Unrelated to this, some of you may be interested in an ongoing discussion of the Wikipedia gender gap happening on Hacker News / Y Combinator: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8304173 [1] Note the current arbitration request on the English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gender_Gap_Task_Force_Issues On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Katherine Casey fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think it's appropriate to use this list to link to pages that out other users. I understand your frustration with nothing onwiki getting done, Carol, I truly do, but part of the social contract of being a Wikipedian is that we're expected to not attack the real lives of other Wikipedians - even when we think they're terrible or totally wrong. On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmoor...@verizon.net wrote: Wikipedia and the war on women’s dignity http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/09/07/wikipedia-and-the-war-on-womens-dignity/ This article mentions an individual who's caused problems at the Gender Gap task force. Off wiki sites engaging in outing is, like hashtags, a two edged sword. It can be used against truly problematic individuals who troll behind anonymity. But it also can be used against solid editors whose job or other
Re: [Gendergap] Addressing incivility (was: men on lists)
Speaking personally, whenever I am asked what my gender is, I say do not
want to answer; if that isn't an option, I have refused to join sites
before. As often as not, that information is used to categorize and
ghetto-ize people. I'm gobsmacked that you've found most people post their
gender on their userpages; I've never found that to be the case, and
looking at 25 or so userpages on my personal watchlist revealed only one
editor who included herself in a gender category; the rest (mostly male)
editors didn't come close. Are you sure that you're not perceiving that
information to be there because you know the gender of the editor?
I know what it's like to have my inbox flooded with requests for assistance
in relation to dispute resolution - just for oversight requests I get an
average of 8 emails a day, when I was on arbcom it was over 100/day to
various lists for various purposes. (Yes, it's one of the reasons that
people burn out.)
I also have a real problem with the idea of anonymous reporting and even
more so anonymous assessment of disputes. As an administrator, I'd have
really grave concerns about people gaming the system - it happens
constantly - and with only about 10% of administrators (that is, around
80-100) routinely having anything to do with dispute resolution, it would
take nothing to overwhelm them and burn them out.
It seems to me that there's this very mistaken impression amongst many on
this list that administrators on Wikipedia are somehow equivalent to
moderators on other webistes. In reality, very very few administrators
become admins in relation to dispute resolution. Most are looking at mop
work - deletions, vandal blocking, page protections and the like. Most
admins who are involved in dispute resolution were involved in it before
they became administrators. That's because Wikipedia is not primarily a
social site, it is an encyclopedia.
I will speak personally for a minute here. I have seen almost no
correlation at all between blocking people and changing behaviour; unless
someone's kicked out entirely and permanently, blocking tends to actually
escalate behaviour. A borderline first block without significant attempts
at discussion beforehand almost always leads to either (a) the person
leaving and never returning or (b) a disinhibition effect - since the
incentiveof being a user in good standing has been removed by the
existence of the block log. Many of our most seriously problematic
sockpuppeting accounts are people who've been blocked for behavioural
reasons - and we waste a huge amount of time trying to keep them off the
site.
Risker/Anne
On 7 July 2014 03:20, Marie Earley eir...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Risker / Anne,
In response to the points you raise:
* A panel suggests a group of people who discuss and decide things, it
wouldn't be that, it would be a pool of adjudicators.
* The home page shows 130,858 active editors, if 15% of those are female
then it means there must be 19,628 female editors to draw the 50% from.
* I don't participate in dispute management, but then I have never been
asked to.
* More people might agree to take part in dispute management if they know
that their input will be kept anonymous.
* Administrators would do what they have always done.
Example of a possible way to approach potential adjudicators:
Those eligible (maybe they've been editing for more than a year and they
have an edit history of 1,000+ edits) are sent a private e-mail, this would
be a circular to all eligible editors. It would say something like:
According to our records you have been with us for more than [length of
time] and have contributed over [number of edits]. We would therefore like
to invite you join our pool of adjudicators which we are currently in the
process of establishing. The purpose of adjudication would to consider
editors requests to block other editors ('cases'). We envisage adjudication
to be the first stage in managing cases with the second stage being handled
by administrators.
Your anonymity as an adjudicator would be protected by us at all times,
in fact one of the conditions of being an adjudicator would be that you
have no direct contact with those involved any of the cases which you are
asked to consider (although you may inform the Wikipedia community that you
are an adjudicator). If you wish to become an adjudicator please click on
the link and fill out the form. (The form would include equal opportunities
monitoring questions
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/private-and-public-sector-guidance/employing-people/recruitment/monitoring-forms
).
Example case:
* Editor 'X' wants a block against editor 'Y'.
* Editor X submits a case for adjudication.
* Adjudicator 'A' requests a case, the case is randomly selected from
those pending by computer.
* Adjudicator A reads the details and decides whether X has a point, or
whether Y appears to have behaved reasonably (even if X didn't like
Re: [Gendergap] Addressing incivility (was: men on lists)
On 7 July 2014 09:51, Carol Moore dc carolmoor...@verizon.net wrote: While I've barely had a chance to read through proposal and comments, I'd like to just ask re the below which applies generally right now: On 7/7/2014 9:35 AM, Risker wrote: I know what it's like to have my inbox flooded with requests for assistance in relation to dispute resolution - just for oversight requests I get an average of 8 emails a day, when I was on arbcom it was over 100/day to various lists for various purposes. (Yes, it's one of the reasons that people burn out.) *Is it possible to establish a group of editors called arbcom assistants who would be admins appointed by arbcom to help with the workflow?? Well. It's hard enough to get qualified volunteers to work on Arbcom, and their work is mainly on major cases with a lot of participants about disputes that have been adversely affecting the project for an extended period of months or in some cases years. There are arbcom clerks, whose job it is to keep the (few) cases moving relatively smoothly, and there's a bit of dispute resolution there. It looks like there are four of them - probably an historic low, and looking at the list I'm pretty sure two of them are actually inactive. Arbcom moving out of their very narrow scope has been very loudly and vigorously opposed by the community, and Arbcom itself is looking to try to divest itself of several of its current responsibilities rather than considering taking on anything new. This is absolutely *not* a job for arbcom. It's pretty much the kind of thing that arbitrators kept finding in their mailboxes that someone expected them to solve, but took hours away from the work they were supposed to be doing, and required the individual arbitrators to act on their own because the matter was outside of jurisdiction. Risker/Anne ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Addressing incivility (was: men on lists)
On 7 July 2014 13:00, Daniel and Elizabeth Case danc...@frontiernet.net wrote: 2) the reasons that people enforcing the rules on Wikipedia ignore incivility, harassment, and trolling is because that approach is often the best way to stop attention seeking behavior. The idea to not feed trolls is well engrained into the culture and advise given by mature and experienced people on the Internet. Or you can just block them firmly when they deserve it, escalate if and when you need to block them again, revoke their talk page access if they continue to use it to troll or harass (they can still use OTRS to request unblock; however, it’s amazing to see how much humbler they get when denied an audience), semi-protect pages they continue to use IPs to make the same problematic edits to and generally make it clear to them they are being eased away from the community. I realize there *is* a small percentage of such users that this will not stop, but in seven years as an admin I *have* seen this approach work much more often than not, regardless of whether said trolls were harassing me or someone else. Interesting to hear your experience, Daniel. It doesn't parallel mine at all, but then perhaps we're looking at different groups of problem users. I've never seen anyone humbled by a behaviour block, in my experience they're usually gone for good (those ones, I suppose, were humbled) or come back worse behaved but usually in a much sneakier way. Of course, on enwiki we do eventually manage to ban a significant percentage of really bad players over time; not all of them, but a fair number once they've pushed enough buttons and annoyed enough people and lost their supporters. On some projects, it is essentially impossible to ban community members (as opposed to one-off vandal accounts). Risker/Anne ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Addressing incivility (was: men on lists)
A few points here: - If less than 15% of editors identify as female, and the vast majority of those do not regularly participate in dispute management, how are you going to establish a panel that is 50% women? This isn't a small point - there are so few individuals generally speaking who regularly participate in dispute management at all (I'd put the number on enwiki at less than 150 total), and many of them are there because of the perceived power gradient, not because they have a genuine interest in managing disputes. - What disputes, exactly, would the panel be analysing? I'm having a hard time visualizing this. User: made a sexist comment here (link)? - What would you expect administrators to do, exactly? They're directly accountable for the use of their tools and have to be able to personally justify any actions they take - and surprisingly, a huge percentage of administrators (almost) never use the block button. (There's a subset of admins who only use their tools to read deleted versions, and another subset that only shows up once a year, makes a couple of edits so they keep their tools, and disappears again.) - How would you develop any statistics based on gender of editor, when the overwhelming majority of editors do not identify their gender at all in any consistent fashion? I've personally never added any gender categories to my userpage, for example, and I have no intention of doing so now. Some thoughts. Risker/Anne On 6 July 2014 04:51, Marie Earley eir...@hotmail.com wrote: I previously described my experience of being a member of Kevin Spacey's Trigger Street Labs website http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2014-June/004388.html I think part of my shock was based on being British, and how the sink-or-swim attitude prevailed by those running and moderating. At least at Wikipedia there is some notion of We have a problem here, let's discuss how best to fix it. The name of one forum at TS was Free for all - enter at your own risk followed by a note that more members had been suspended from that message board than from any of the others, and this is all they have in the way of rules http://labs.triggerstreet.com/labs/Help?faqCat=Message%20Board Having said that, the one thing that I thought worked well was their Hall of Justice. Members earn credits for their reviews (which are randomly assigned by the 'assignment generator') they then spend them on the website. An obvious way of earning a lot of credits is to make up a load of generic comments like, the characters in this screenplay are very interesting, request another assignment, copy and paste, earn credit, and repeat. The HOJ exists for members who think the review that they received was unfair. There is a criteria for the reviews including: not cutting and pasting from other reviews, (if you think it has happened then you include the ref. no. from the other review as evidence), reviews should be constructive and non-abusive, a decent word length (I think the minimum was 100 words), there should also be evidence in the review which shows that the reviewer definitely read / watched the submission. If a member thinks they have been unfairly treated then they send a review to the HOJ. Other members - let's call them arbitrators - with a high enough participation level (like having 'enough' edits in your edit history) can request a - randomly generated - docket, read the review, read the details of the complaint e.g. (I think this review is a cut past of ref. # 'x' ). The arbitrator who received the docket for review then has a choice of Y/N check-boxes relating to the review critieria and a comment form, for anything else that they might like to add. The same docket goes to a number of different arbitrators in the same way. (Note: there is a limit to how many dockets a member can request in 24 hrs.) If the majority think it should go further, it is passed on to the jury. Details about the jury from the website: The jury is a group of your peers made up of seasoned members picked by site staff. Although we cannot say what the criteria is used to pick the jury, logic dictates that they are active, positive, and objective members of the community. They are asked not to reveal themselves or discuss their status with anyone so they can vote without retribution. (FAQs about the HOJ: http://labs.triggerstreet.com/labs/Help?faqCat=Hall%20of%20Justice ) A Wikipedia variation on it might include: * editors would need a certain number of edits before they are eligible to become an arbitrator * there would be a time-limit from the end of being blocked before being eligible for 'arbitration duty' * administrators / senior figures would be ineligible to be arbitrators * 'cases' for arbitrators to consider would be assigned randomly by computer * it would be prohibited for an arbitrator to tell those
Re: [Gendergap] A cautionary tale
I'm sorry Derric, but I think the topic of this thread is the notion that many men, including those in administrator roles (e.g. list moderators) simply don't even recognize misogyny, and don't recognize the importance of providing systems by which women (and others, for that matter) can easily limit the ability of people who have caused them problems from continuing to communicate with them. The focus on technology here is very important. Right now, there is no way for Wikimedians to control from whom they receive email this user emails, or pings through the notification system. We know that both have been, and continue to be, vectors for harassment and trolling. There's never, to my knowledge, been any consideration given to including these features. We keep being told we're going to get this wonderful new communication system called Flow to replace talk pages. Features that allow users to control who posts to their page, or even to let non-admin users remove individual threads or posts from their stream, aren't included - and I'm not sure they're even under consideration. And I'm going to be honest - I've seen more people blocked for homophobic comments than misogynistic ones. Nemo, your Hm, we've discussed that author before... oh well. is really unhelpful and dismissive - and is pretty much exactly the kind of statement that Violet Blue is talking about in her article. It comes across as She wrote something I didn't agree with in the past, so there's no reason to ever pay attention to her again. I am really hoping you didn't intend that. And Carol has a point. There are now more men posting to this thread than there are women. And most of you have missed the point entirely. Heaven help us from those who see themselves as our saviours. Risker On 23 June 2014 09:57, Derric Atzrott datzr...@alizeepathology.com wrote: Carol Moore dc, 23/06/2014 06:34: A lot of women used to be outspoken about all this here when this email list started, but that stopped after a bunch of guys joined and started hassling them about it. SURPRISE!! By looking at this directory, I can tell that I mostly stopped reading this list in January 2012, one week after a fight between two vocal women. Nemo Nemo and Carol both, I really don't like the direction that this discussion is going. Can we please steer it back on topic and remember why we are all here? From the Mailing list signup page: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation of women within Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Foundation surveys show that the participation of women in Wikipedia and related projects are between 9 and 13 percent. This mailing list is provided by the Wikimedia Foundation as a communication tool to collectively address the realities of the gender gap within our projects. We are focused on discussing solutions and exploring opportunities that may serve as a starting point to improve gender equity, increase the participation of women and trans women, and reduce the impact of the gender gap within Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, and the 'free knowledge movement'. We want to encourage you to engage with others in this effort. Your thoughts and opinions in this regard matter to us and to the community. Thank you, Derric Atzrott ___ 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] men on lists
Derric, if I may suggest - the best way to get a mailing list back on topic is to write to the topic, not to remind people of the rules. Risker/Anne On 23 June 2014 11:49, Derric Atzrott datzr...@alizeepathology.com wrote: I'm sorry Derric, but I think the topic of this thread is the notion that many men, including those in administrator roles (e.g. list moderators) simply don't even recognize misogyny, and don't recognize the importance of providing systems by which women (and others, for that matter) can easily limit the ability of people who have caused them problems from continuing to communicate with them. My email was an attempt to bring us back to that topic and diffuse what I, at least in my head, had expected to turn into a situation that I felt uncomfortable with, and that I felt others on the list (men and women both) would. There is a tendency of men to disregard women's discussion of issues that affect them so, yes, men on a list like this can undermine its purpose. This is a discussion I would be glad to have. Just not the way it looked like it was going to happen. Again, I'm really sorry if I offended anyone. I was genuinely trying to make sure that we didn't have a situation crop up that I thought would really make everyone uncomfortable. Instead I seem to have just buggered things up more. Thank you, Derric Atzrott ___ 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
[Gendergap] A reason to celebrate
Looking at the Signpost today, I was really pleased and pleasantly surprised to discover that the top two most-viewed articles this past week were biographical articles about women. Not only that, they were both featured articles, so our reading public got a really good, informative article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-06-04/Traffic_report A thank you to Christine for the Maya Angelou article, and to Sage Ross (with support from Awadewit) for the Rachel Carson article. Risker/Anne ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
