Re: [Gendergap] Systematic tagging for deletion of articles created at Art And Feminism editathon

[Neotarf]

Out of 12 deletion nominations for that group, the final result was one
delete, one merge, and one draft moved to article space, plus some others
created, for a net total of 19 articles.

A few new editors submitted draft articles for review.  None of the
submissions that went that route ended up as articles, and those new
editors didn't receive any help, other than a rejection notice on a
template.

Wikimedia Blog has a post about the event.
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/03/24/art-feminism-editathon/

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 9:22 PM, J Hayes  wrote:

> it's hard to tell the privileged ignorance from the actively sexist.
> ultimately motive does not matter.
> the biting culture  rejects what does not fit the stereotype
> just as associate professor is a delete me sign,  so is "feminist"
> an editathon for newbies are SPA, and where one of the article subjects
> are present is COI
> it's all about the NPOV ethics. lol
>
> and after 12 nominations maybe 2 deletions.
> we should expect this kind of push back from the cultural buzzsaw.
> our scrunity of the newbie work will be part of the editathon process.
> so it goes.
>
> cheers
>
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 6:37 PM, Emily Monroe 
> wrote:
>
>> It was mostly a passing impulse that I was worried about, and decided to
>> express, just in case.
>>
>> But since I'm currently semi-wikibonked, and you're actually
>> participating in the discussions (thanks!), you probably know more than I
>> do.
>>
>> From,
>> Emily
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Pete Forsyth 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Emily, could you elaborate on your reason for thinking sexist
>>> Wikipedians were a significant factor here? Having reviewed and engaged
>>> with several of the articles and AfDs under discussion, I don't see any
>>> reason for that. In my view, there were some unnecessarily unpleasant
>>> comments, but nothing that struck me as sexist. But if I've missed
>>> something, I'd like to know.
>>> -Pete
>>> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Emily Monroe 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Do you think the draft templates were the issue? Maybe I'm overly
 cynical, perhaps they advertised the fact that they were created by arts
 and feminism to sexist wikipedians.

 From,
 Emily

 On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Pharos 
 wrote:

> This is actually the 3rd year of Art+Feminism, and the organizers'
> focus has consistently been on improving existing articles (particularly
> stubs!), as most appropriate to new Wikipedians, particularly at this 
> scale
> of effort.
>
> Of course some new Wikipedians are eager to start new articles, and we
> accommodate that as best we can, both with personal assistance from
> long-term Wikipedians where possible, and also technical innovations like
> the draft template system we premiered this year.
>
> Thanks,
> Pharos
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
>
>> I very much agree, Emily. I wonder if this time, perhaps all the
>> (wonderful and timely) media coverage of Emily Temple Wood's efforts to
>> create new articles may have influenced organizers and/or participants?
>> Perhaps it created a bit of a consensus, conscious or unconscious, that
>> *creating new articles* was the main desired result.
>>
>> If so, this might be a bit of a one-time anomaly, may not indicate a
>> need for major changes.
>>
>> -Pete
>> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Emily Monroe <
>> emilymonro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In general, creating articles are very difficult. The learning curve
>>> is steep, and it may be best to have people expand/improve articles 
>>> instead
>>> of creating them.
>>>
>>> From,
>>> Emily
>>> On Mar 12, 2016 11:48 AM, "Ryan Kaldari" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I find it disappointing that so many of the Art and Feminism
 editathons end up focusing almost exclusively on creating new articles 
 for
 artists at the hosting institution. Not only does this lead to a high
 percentage of the articles being deleted, but it's a waste of a huge
 opportunity to create and expand articles about artists and artworks 
 with
 unquestionable notability and high encyclopedic value.

 I have no doubt that many of the Art and Feminism articles that are
 nominated for deletion are nominated due to gender bias (as some of 
 them
 seem rather trivial to find sources for and improve), but many of them 
 are
 also legitimately on the notability borderline. At all of the Art and
 Feminism editathons that I've volunteered at, 

Re: [Gendergap] Systematic tagging for deletion of articles created at Art And Feminism editathon

[J Hayes]

it's hard to tell the privileged ignorance from the actively sexist.
ultimately motive does not matter.
the biting culture  rejects what does not fit the stereotype
just as associate professor is a delete me sign,  so is "feminist"
an editathon for newbies are SPA, and where one of the article subjects are
present is COI
it's all about the NPOV ethics. lol

and after 12 nominations maybe 2 deletions.
we should expect this kind of push back from the cultural buzzsaw.
our scrunity of the newbie work will be part of the editathon process.
so it goes.

cheers

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 6:37 PM, Emily Monroe 
wrote:

> It was mostly a passing impulse that I was worried about, and decided to
> express, just in case.
>
> But since I'm currently semi-wikibonked, and you're actually participating
> in the discussions (thanks!), you probably know more than I do.
>
> From,
> Emily
>
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
>
>> Emily, could you elaborate on your reason for thinking sexist Wikipedians
>> were a significant factor here? Having reviewed and engaged with several of
>> the articles and AfDs under discussion, I don't see any reason for that. In
>> my view, there were some unnecessarily unpleasant comments, but nothing
>> that struck me as sexist. But if I've missed something, I'd like to know.
>> -Pete
>> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Emily Monroe 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Do you think the draft templates were the issue? Maybe I'm overly
>>> cynical, perhaps they advertised the fact that they were created by arts
>>> and feminism to sexist wikipedians.
>>>
>>> From,
>>> Emily
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Pharos 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 This is actually the 3rd year of Art+Feminism, and the organizers'
 focus has consistently been on improving existing articles (particularly
 stubs!), as most appropriate to new Wikipedians, particularly at this scale
 of effort.

 Of course some new Wikipedians are eager to start new articles, and we
 accommodate that as best we can, both with personal assistance from
 long-term Wikipedians where possible, and also technical innovations like
 the draft template system we premiered this year.

 Thanks,
 Pharos

 On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Pete Forsyth 
 wrote:

> I very much agree, Emily. I wonder if this time, perhaps all the
> (wonderful and timely) media coverage of Emily Temple Wood's efforts to
> create new articles may have influenced organizers and/or participants?
> Perhaps it created a bit of a consensus, conscious or unconscious, that
> *creating new articles* was the main desired result.
>
> If so, this might be a bit of a one-time anomaly, may not indicate a
> need for major changes.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Emily Monroe  > wrote:
>
>> In general, creating articles are very difficult. The learning curve
>> is steep, and it may be best to have people expand/improve articles 
>> instead
>> of creating them.
>>
>> From,
>> Emily
>> On Mar 12, 2016 11:48 AM, "Ryan Kaldari" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I find it disappointing that so many of the Art and Feminism
>>> editathons end up focusing almost exclusively on creating new articles 
>>> for
>>> artists at the hosting institution. Not only does this lead to a high
>>> percentage of the articles being deleted, but it's a waste of a huge
>>> opportunity to create and expand articles about artists and artworks 
>>> with
>>> unquestionable notability and high encyclopedic value.
>>>
>>> I have no doubt that many of the Art and Feminism articles that are
>>> nominated for deletion are nominated due to gender bias (as some of them
>>> seem rather trivial to find sources for and improve), but many of them 
>>> are
>>> also legitimately on the notability borderline. At all of the Art and
>>> Feminism editathons that I've volunteered at, I've discouraged people 
>>> from
>>> creating articles about people they knew personally, and encouraged 
>>> them to
>>> use the lists at
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks
>>> instead. If you are helping to run an Art and Feminism editathon, I 
>>> would
>>> also suggest doing this, as it provides more value for Wikipedia and 
>>> leads
>>> to fewer deletions. I would also like to encourage everyone to edit the
>>> lists at
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks
>>> and help keep them full of good suggestions. Editathons are a great tool
>>> for addressing the gendergap, and I would hate for 

Re: [Gendergap] Systematic tagging for deletion of articles created at Art And Feminism editathon

[Emily Monroe]

It was mostly a passing impulse that I was worried about, and decided to
express, just in case.

But since I'm currently semi-wikibonked, and you're actually participating
in the discussions (thanks!), you probably know more than I do.

From,
Emily

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Emily, could you elaborate on your reason for thinking sexist Wikipedians
> were a significant factor here? Having reviewed and engaged with several of
> the articles and AfDs under discussion, I don't see any reason for that. In
> my view, there were some unnecessarily unpleasant comments, but nothing
> that struck me as sexist. But if I've missed something, I'd like to know.
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Emily Monroe 
> wrote:
>
>> Do you think the draft templates were the issue? Maybe I'm overly
>> cynical, perhaps they advertised the fact that they were created by arts
>> and feminism to sexist wikipedians.
>>
>> From,
>> Emily
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Pharos 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This is actually the 3rd year of Art+Feminism, and the organizers' focus
>>> has consistently been on improving existing articles (particularly stubs!),
>>> as most appropriate to new Wikipedians, particularly at this scale of
>>> effort.
>>>
>>> Of course some new Wikipedians are eager to start new articles, and we
>>> accommodate that as best we can, both with personal assistance from
>>> long-term Wikipedians where possible, and also technical innovations like
>>> the draft template system we premiered this year.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Pharos
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Pete Forsyth 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I very much agree, Emily. I wonder if this time, perhaps all the
 (wonderful and timely) media coverage of Emily Temple Wood's efforts to
 create new articles may have influenced organizers and/or participants?
 Perhaps it created a bit of a consensus, conscious or unconscious, that
 *creating new articles* was the main desired result.

 If so, this might be a bit of a one-time anomaly, may not indicate a
 need for major changes.

 -Pete
 [[User:Peteforsyth]]

 On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Emily Monroe 
 wrote:

> In general, creating articles are very difficult. The learning curve
> is steep, and it may be best to have people expand/improve articles 
> instead
> of creating them.
>
> From,
> Emily
> On Mar 12, 2016 11:48 AM, "Ryan Kaldari" 
> wrote:
>
>> I find it disappointing that so many of the Art and Feminism
>> editathons end up focusing almost exclusively on creating new articles 
>> for
>> artists at the hosting institution. Not only does this lead to a high
>> percentage of the articles being deleted, but it's a waste of a huge
>> opportunity to create and expand articles about artists and artworks with
>> unquestionable notability and high encyclopedic value.
>>
>> I have no doubt that many of the Art and Feminism articles that are
>> nominated for deletion are nominated due to gender bias (as some of them
>> seem rather trivial to find sources for and improve), but many of them 
>> are
>> also legitimately on the notability borderline. At all of the Art and
>> Feminism editathons that I've volunteered at, I've discouraged people 
>> from
>> creating articles about people they knew personally, and encouraged them 
>> to
>> use the lists at
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks
>> instead. If you are helping to run an Art and Feminism editathon, I would
>> also suggest doing this, as it provides more value for Wikipedia and 
>> leads
>> to fewer deletions. I would also like to encourage everyone to edit the
>> lists at
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks
>> and help keep them full of good suggestions. Editathons are a great tool
>> for addressing the gendergap, and I would hate for them to get a 
>> reputation
>> for just being self-promotional events.
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Carol Moore dc <
>> carolmoor...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Someone should write a letter to the editor of the those 5 or 6
>>> publications that came in my google alerts on the topic of the edit a 
>>> thon.
>>> (Search news google to find them.)  And of course deal with the few
>>> legtimate complaints and the trolls with nonsense complaints.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/12/2016 10:17 AM, Neotarf wrote:
>>>
 All the articles created at Regina ArtAndFeminism event have been
 tagged.   Ten of them have been submitted for deletion.


 

Re: [Gendergap] Systematic tagging for deletion of articles created at Art And Feminism editathon

[Pharos]

No, from what I've seen there were more difficulties in locations that
didn't use the draft template (we implemented the draft template pretty
last-minute, so it wasn't everywhere).

But I'm biased, because I helped to design the template :)

Thanks,
Pharos

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Emily Monroe 
wrote:

> Do you think the draft templates were the issue? Maybe I'm overly cynical,
> perhaps they advertised the fact that they were created by arts and
> feminism to sexist wikipedians.
>
> From,
> Emily
>
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Pharos 
> wrote:
>
>> This is actually the 3rd year of Art+Feminism, and the organizers' focus
>> has consistently been on improving existing articles (particularly stubs!),
>> as most appropriate to new Wikipedians, particularly at this scale of
>> effort.
>>
>> Of course some new Wikipedians are eager to start new articles, and we
>> accommodate that as best we can, both with personal assistance from
>> long-term Wikipedians where possible, and also technical innovations like
>> the draft template system we premiered this year.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Pharos
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Pete Forsyth 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I very much agree, Emily. I wonder if this time, perhaps all the
>>> (wonderful and timely) media coverage of Emily Temple Wood's efforts to
>>> create new articles may have influenced organizers and/or participants?
>>> Perhaps it created a bit of a consensus, conscious or unconscious, that
>>> *creating new articles* was the main desired result.
>>>
>>> If so, this might be a bit of a one-time anomaly, may not indicate a
>>> need for major changes.
>>>
>>> -Pete
>>> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Emily Monroe 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 In general, creating articles are very difficult. The learning curve is
 steep, and it may be best to have people expand/improve articles instead of
 creating them.

 From,
 Emily
 On Mar 12, 2016 11:48 AM, "Ryan Kaldari" 
 wrote:

> I find it disappointing that so many of the Art and Feminism
> editathons end up focusing almost exclusively on creating new articles for
> artists at the hosting institution. Not only does this lead to a high
> percentage of the articles being deleted, but it's a waste of a huge
> opportunity to create and expand articles about artists and artworks with
> unquestionable notability and high encyclopedic value.
>
> I have no doubt that many of the Art and Feminism articles that are
> nominated for deletion are nominated due to gender bias (as some of them
> seem rather trivial to find sources for and improve), but many of them are
> also legitimately on the notability borderline. At all of the Art and
> Feminism editathons that I've volunteered at, I've discouraged people from
> creating articles about people they knew personally, and encouraged them 
> to
> use the lists at
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks
> instead. If you are helping to run an Art and Feminism editathon, I would
> also suggest doing this, as it provides more value for Wikipedia and leads
> to fewer deletions. I would also like to encourage everyone to edit the
> lists at
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks
> and help keep them full of good suggestions. Editathons are a great tool
> for addressing the gendergap, and I would hate for them to get a 
> reputation
> for just being self-promotional events.
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Carol Moore dc <
> carolmoor...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Someone should write a letter to the editor of the those 5 or 6
>> publications that came in my google alerts on the topic of the edit a 
>> thon.
>> (Search news google to find them.)  And of course deal with the few
>> legtimate complaints and the trolls with nonsense complaints.
>>
>>
>> On 3/12/2016 10:17 AM, Neotarf wrote:
>>
>>> All the articles created at Regina ArtAndFeminism event have been
>>> tagged.   Ten of them have been submitted for deletion.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Regina/ArtAndFeminism_2016/University_of_Regina
>>>
>>> For example, see comments here:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Risa_Horowitz
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Gendergap mailing list
>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing,
>>> please visit:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>>
>>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

Re: [Gendergap] Systematic tagging for deletion of articles created at Art And Feminism editathon

[Emily Monroe]

Do you think the draft templates were the issue? Maybe I'm overly cynical,
perhaps they advertised the fact that they were created by arts and
feminism to sexist wikipedians.

From,
Emily

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Pharos 
wrote:

> This is actually the 3rd year of Art+Feminism, and the organizers' focus
> has consistently been on improving existing articles (particularly stubs!),
> as most appropriate to new Wikipedians, particularly at this scale of
> effort.
>
> Of course some new Wikipedians are eager to start new articles, and we
> accommodate that as best we can, both with personal assistance from
> long-term Wikipedians where possible, and also technical innovations like
> the draft template system we premiered this year.
>
> Thanks,
> Pharos
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
>
>> I very much agree, Emily. I wonder if this time, perhaps all the
>> (wonderful and timely) media coverage of Emily Temple Wood's efforts to
>> create new articles may have influenced organizers and/or participants?
>> Perhaps it created a bit of a consensus, conscious or unconscious, that
>> *creating new articles* was the main desired result.
>>
>> If so, this might be a bit of a one-time anomaly, may not indicate a need
>> for major changes.
>>
>> -Pete
>> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Emily Monroe 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In general, creating articles are very difficult. The learning curve is
>>> steep, and it may be best to have people expand/improve articles instead of
>>> creating them.
>>>
>>> From,
>>> Emily
>>> On Mar 12, 2016 11:48 AM, "Ryan Kaldari"  wrote:
>>>
 I find it disappointing that so many of the Art and Feminism editathons
 end up focusing almost exclusively on creating new articles for artists at
 the hosting institution. Not only does this lead to a high percentage of
 the articles being deleted, but it's a waste of a huge opportunity to
 create and expand articles about artists and artworks with unquestionable
 notability and high encyclopedic value.

 I have no doubt that many of the Art and Feminism articles that are
 nominated for deletion are nominated due to gender bias (as some of them
 seem rather trivial to find sources for and improve), but many of them are
 also legitimately on the notability borderline. At all of the Art and
 Feminism editathons that I've volunteered at, I've discouraged people from
 creating articles about people they knew personally, and encouraged them to
 use the lists at
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks
 instead. If you are helping to run an Art and Feminism editathon, I would
 also suggest doing this, as it provides more value for Wikipedia and leads
 to fewer deletions. I would also like to encourage everyone to edit the
 lists at
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks
 and help keep them full of good suggestions. Editathons are a great tool
 for addressing the gendergap, and I would hate for them to get a reputation
 for just being self-promotional events.

 On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Carol Moore dc <
 carolmoor...@verizon.net> wrote:

> Someone should write a letter to the editor of the those 5 or 6
> publications that came in my google alerts on the topic of the edit a 
> thon.
> (Search news google to find them.)  And of course deal with the few
> legtimate complaints and the trolls with nonsense complaints.
>
>
> On 3/12/2016 10:17 AM, Neotarf wrote:
>
>> All the articles created at Regina ArtAndFeminism event have been
>> tagged.   Ten of them have been submitted for deletion.
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Regina/ArtAndFeminism_2016/University_of_Regina
>>
>> For example, see comments here:
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Risa_Horowitz
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing,
>> please visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>
>>
> ---
> 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 

Re: [Gendergap] Systematic tagging for deletion of articles created at Art And Feminism editathon

[Pharos]

This is actually the 3rd year of Art+Feminism, and the organizers' focus
has consistently been on improving existing articles (particularly stubs!),
as most appropriate to new Wikipedians, particularly at this scale of
effort.

Of course some new Wikipedians are eager to start new articles, and we
accommodate that as best we can, both with personal assistance from
long-term Wikipedians where possible, and also technical innovations like
the draft template system we premiered this year.

Thanks,
Pharos

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> I very much agree, Emily. I wonder if this time, perhaps all the
> (wonderful and timely) media coverage of Emily Temple Wood's efforts to
> create new articles may have influenced organizers and/or participants?
> Perhaps it created a bit of a consensus, conscious or unconscious, that
> *creating new articles* was the main desired result.
>
> If so, this might be a bit of a one-time anomaly, may not indicate a need
> for major changes.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Emily Monroe 
> wrote:
>
>> In general, creating articles are very difficult. The learning curve is
>> steep, and it may be best to have people expand/improve articles instead of
>> creating them.
>>
>> From,
>> Emily
>> On Mar 12, 2016 11:48 AM, "Ryan Kaldari"  wrote:
>>
>>> I find it disappointing that so many of the Art and Feminism editathons
>>> end up focusing almost exclusively on creating new articles for artists at
>>> the hosting institution. Not only does this lead to a high percentage of
>>> the articles being deleted, but it's a waste of a huge opportunity to
>>> create and expand articles about artists and artworks with unquestionable
>>> notability and high encyclopedic value.
>>>
>>> I have no doubt that many of the Art and Feminism articles that are
>>> nominated for deletion are nominated due to gender bias (as some of them
>>> seem rather trivial to find sources for and improve), but many of them are
>>> also legitimately on the notability borderline. At all of the Art and
>>> Feminism editathons that I've volunteered at, I've discouraged people from
>>> creating articles about people they knew personally, and encouraged them to
>>> use the lists at
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks
>>> instead. If you are helping to run an Art and Feminism editathon, I would
>>> also suggest doing this, as it provides more value for Wikipedia and leads
>>> to fewer deletions. I would also like to encourage everyone to edit the
>>> lists at
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks and
>>> help keep them full of good suggestions. Editathons are a great tool for
>>> addressing the gendergap, and I would hate for them to get a reputation for
>>> just being self-promotional events.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Carol Moore dc <
>>> carolmoor...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
 Someone should write a letter to the editor of the those 5 or 6
 publications that came in my google alerts on the topic of the edit a thon.
 (Search news google to find them.)  And of course deal with the few
 legtimate complaints and the trolls with nonsense complaints.


 On 3/12/2016 10:17 AM, Neotarf wrote:

> All the articles created at Regina ArtAndFeminism event have been
> tagged.   Ten of them have been submitted for deletion.
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Regina/ArtAndFeminism_2016/University_of_Regina
>
> For example, see comments here:
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Risa_Horowitz
>
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing,
> please visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
 ---
 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
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Systematic tagging for deletion of articles created at Art And Feminism editathon

[Emily Monroe]

In general, creating articles are very difficult. The learning curve is
steep, and it may be best to have people expand/improve articles instead of
creating them.

From,
Emily
On Mar 12, 2016 11:48 AM, "Ryan Kaldari"  wrote:

> I find it disappointing that so many of the Art and Feminism editathons
> end up focusing almost exclusively on creating new articles for artists at
> the hosting institution. Not only does this lead to a high percentage of
> the articles being deleted, but it's a waste of a huge opportunity to
> create and expand articles about artists and artworks with unquestionable
> notability and high encyclopedic value.
>
> I have no doubt that many of the Art and Feminism articles that are
> nominated for deletion are nominated due to gender bias (as some of them
> seem rather trivial to find sources for and improve), but many of them are
> also legitimately on the notability borderline. At all of the Art and
> Feminism editathons that I've volunteered at, I've discouraged people from
> creating articles about people they knew personally, and encouraged them to
> use the lists at
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks
> instead. If you are helping to run an Art and Feminism editathon, I would
> also suggest doing this, as it provides more value for Wikipedia and leads
> to fewer deletions. I would also like to encourage everyone to edit the
> lists at
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks and
> help keep them full of good suggestions. Editathons are a great tool for
> addressing the gendergap, and I would hate for them to get a reputation for
> just being self-promotional events.
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Carol Moore dc  > wrote:
>
>> Someone should write a letter to the editor of the those 5 or 6
>> publications that came in my google alerts on the topic of the edit a thon.
>> (Search news google to find them.)  And of course deal with the few
>> legtimate complaints and the trolls with nonsense complaints.
>>
>>
>> On 3/12/2016 10:17 AM, Neotarf wrote:
>>
>>> All the articles created at Regina ArtAndFeminism event have been
>>> tagged.   Ten of them have been submitted for deletion.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Regina/ArtAndFeminism_2016/University_of_Regina
>>>
>>> For example, see comments here:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Risa_Horowitz
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Gendergap mailing list
>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
>>> visit:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>>
>>>
>> ---
>> 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
>
___
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] Systematic tagging for deletion of articles created at Art And Feminism editathon

[Ryan Kaldari]

I find it disappointing that so many of the Art and Feminism editathons end
up focusing almost exclusively on creating new articles for artists at the
hosting institution. Not only does this lead to a high percentage of the
articles being deleted, but it's a waste of a huge opportunity to create
and expand articles about artists and artworks with unquestionable
notability and high encyclopedic value.

I have no doubt that many of the Art and Feminism articles that are
nominated for deletion are nominated due to gender bias (as some of them
seem rather trivial to find sources for and improve), but many of them are
also legitimately on the notability borderline. At all of the Art and
Feminism editathons that I've volunteered at, I've discouraged people from
creating articles about people they knew personally, and encouraged them to
use the lists at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks
instead. If you are helping to run an Art and Feminism editathon, I would
also suggest doing this, as it provides more value for Wikipedia and leads
to fewer deletions. I would also like to encourage everyone to edit the
lists at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Tasks
and help keep them full of good suggestions. Editathons are a great tool
for addressing the gendergap, and I would hate for them to get a reputation
for just being self-promotional events.

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Carol Moore dc 
wrote:

> Someone should write a letter to the editor of the those 5 or 6
> publications that came in my google alerts on the topic of the edit a thon.
> (Search news google to find them.)  And of course deal with the few
> legtimate complaints and the trolls with nonsense complaints.
>
>
> On 3/12/2016 10:17 AM, Neotarf wrote:
>
>> All the articles created at Regina ArtAndFeminism event have been
>> tagged.   Ten of them have been submitted for deletion.
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Regina/ArtAndFeminism_2016/University_of_Regina
>>
>> For example, see comments here:
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Risa_Horowitz
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
>> visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>
>>
> ---
> 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] Systematic tagging for deletion of articles created at Art And Feminism editathon

[Carol Moore dc]

Someone should write a letter to the editor of the those 5 or 6 
publications that came in my google alerts on the topic of the edit a 
thon. (Search news google to find them.)  And of course deal with the 
few legtimate complaints and the trolls with nonsense complaints.


On 3/12/2016 10:17 AM, Neotarf wrote:

All the articles created at Regina ArtAndFeminism event have been
tagged.   Ten of them have been submitted for deletion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Regina/ArtAndFeminism_2016/University_of_Regina

For example, see comments here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Risa_Horowitz


___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap



---
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