Re: [Gendergap] [Spam] Re: Sexualized environment on Commons
I totally agree, and no offense to the people who have contributed to help pages, but I find them very unhelpful and sometimes downright wrong. Sent from my iPad On Jul 31, 2014, at 4:55 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com I Still stand by hand holding...personal out weighs what we attempt... ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] [Spam] Re: Sexualized environment on Commons
Marie, Thanks very much for this overview of your early experience as an editor. Would you mind sending this email to the editor growth team so that they can look at your experience for ideas about what they can improve? Their email list is called Editor Engagement and you can find it on lists.wikimedia.org. I'm also pinging Mssemantics who may be interested in your experience for her research. Pine On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 2:51 AM, Marie Earley eir...@hotmail.com wrote: What's interesting to me about this discussion, and Gender Gap generally, is the discrepancy between what is perceived as being driving women editors away (and if you really want to see a classic example then the 'drop the sticks' closed section of this discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive263#Topic_ban_proposal_for_Gibson_Flying_V ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive263#Topic_ban_proposal_for_Gibson_Flying_V and the things that I have actually found difficult on Wikipedia. These are my bullet points about my first few months of joining Wikipedia. 1. Was reading something on WP and, out of curiousity, clicked on the other tabs 'edit' 'history' and 'discussion' just to see what they were about. 2. Realized they were discussions about editing WP and decided to look further considered editing WP myself. 3. One tab open with daunting looking amounts of code that I could make absolutely nothing of, and another tab open next to it with a thing called 'Sandbox'. 4. Almost gave up there and then due to the mistaken idea that I if I wanted to write an article then I would have nothing but a completely blank canvass and have to write all the code from scratch by myself. 5. Came back to it the next day thinking, That can't be it., created an account and started making small edits, single lines with a citation, obvious copy edit errors and asked for help on noticeboards when I was stuck. 6. I had some stuff seized on, deleted as 'unimportant' or tagged for 'not enough refs', 'orphan', as well as some curt / abrasive comments but nice and helpful ones too. I should say something more about this - Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum, either online or in the world, if nasty comments are the reason that women don't edit Wikipedia then they wouldn't use social media either - but they do. Did I think that my edits were being treated disproportionately to male editors? Yes, but I am female and the off-line world that I inhabit is also sexist - so what else is new?. 7. So what did have me tearing my hair out early on? I would say that it was what I would call 'the washing machine effect'. I would have saved myself a lot of time and trouble if I had had a quick-start guide that explained Help:, Template:, WP:. I would click 'Help' and be taken to the help homepage, search 'X', be taken to Help:'X', click on 'Y' - and here was the bit I didn't realize - when I clicked on 'Y' I was also, by default, leaving 'Help'. I regarded clicking the Help button as walking into the the lobby of Hotel Help, I would go through 2-3 links and then think, Wait a minute, this is just ordinary Wikipedia, and this is just a definition of [word]. When did I leave Help? Back button, back button, back button. Okay, start over... I would go around, and around like this for ages, either stumbling across what I was looking for, finding another way of doing what I wanted to do, or ask at the Teahouse (not New Users House? Why?). 8. I only ever visited the Commons when I need a picture for something, used the search engine to see if the Commons had what I wanted and then went back to Wikipedia. I didn't stick around to read the conversations so I didn't even know much about that side of it until I joined Gender Gap. Things that I think might help: 1. A culture of irresponsible behaviour stems from bad people. A culture of responsible behaviour stems from good people. The way to really make a difference is to crowd out the bad with the good so they bad get bored and go and find a new place to play. An increased number of sexist images will then be deleted by the improved culture of the community. 2. The greatest form of outreach is Wikipedia itself. When I was a student what was valuable to me was a way of accessing resources on topics. I recently went through Amartya Sen's page and fixed the bibliography / referencing including author / editor links. This is what his bibliography looked like before: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amartya_Senoldid=65580#Publications and this is it now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amartya_Sen#Bibliography The same with the referencing section, before: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amartya_Senoldid=65580#References and after: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amartya_Sen#References Similar clean ups / new articles on other academics from the world
Re: [Gendergap] [Spam] Re: Sexualized environment on Commons
Thanks Pine! ~ A. On Jul 30, 2014, at 3:27 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.commailto:wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: Marie, Thanks very much for this overview of your early experience as an editor. Would you mind sending this email to the editor growth team so that they can look at your experience for ideas about what they can improve? Their email list is called Editor Engagement and you can find it on lists.wikimedia.orghttp://lists.wikimedia.org. I'm also pinging Mssemantics who may be interested in your experience for her research. Pine On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 2:51 AM, Marie Earley eir...@hotmail.commailto:eir...@hotmail.com wrote: What's interesting to me about this discussion, and Gender Gap generally, is the discrepancy between what is perceived as being driving women editors away (and if you really want to see a classic example then the 'drop the sticks' closed section of this discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive263#Topic_ban_proposal_for_Gibson_Flying_V )https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive263#Topic_ban_proposal_for_Gibson_Flying_V and the things that I have actually found difficult on Wikipedia. These are my bullet points about my first few months of joining Wikipedia. 1. Was reading something on WP and, out of curiousity, clicked on the other tabs 'edit' 'history' and 'discussion' just to see what they were about. 2. Realized they were discussions about editing WP and decided to look further considered editing WP myself. 3. One tab open with daunting looking amounts of code that I could make absolutely nothing of, and another tab open next to it with a thing called 'Sandbox'. 4. Almost gave up there and then due to the mistaken idea that I if I wanted to write an article then I would have nothing but a completely blank canvass and have to write all the code from scratch by myself. 5. Came back to it the next day thinking, That can't be it., created an account and started making small edits, single lines with a citation, obvious copy edit errors and asked for help on noticeboards when I was stuck. 6. I had some stuff seized on, deleted as 'unimportant' or tagged for 'not enough refs', 'orphan', as well as some curt / abrasive comments but nice and helpful ones too. I should say something more about this - Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum, either online or in the world, if nasty comments are the reason that women don't edit Wikipedia then they wouldn't use social media either - but they do. Did I think that my edits were being treated disproportionately to male editors? Yes, but I am female and the off-line world that I inhabit is also sexist - so what else is new?. 7. So what did have me tearing my hair out early on? I would say that it was what I would call 'the washing machine effect'. I would have saved myself a lot of time and trouble if I had had a quick-start guide that explained Help:, Template:, WP:. I would click 'Help' and be taken to the help homepage, search 'X', be taken to Help:'X', click on 'Y' - and here was the bit I didn't realize - when I clicked on 'Y' I was also, by default, leaving 'Help'. I regarded clicking the Help button as walking into the the lobby of Hotel Help, I would go through 2-3 links and then think, Wait a minute, this is just ordinary Wikipedia, and this is just a definition of [word]. When did I leave Help? Back button, back button, back button. Okay, start over... I would go around, and around like this for ages, either stumbling across what I was looking for, finding another way of doing what I wanted to do, or ask at the Teahouse (not New Users House? Why?). 8. I only ever visited the Commons when I need a picture for something, used the search engine to see if the Commons had what I wanted and then went back to Wikipedia. I didn't stick around to read the conversations so I didn't even know much about that side of it until I joined Gender Gap. Things that I think might help: 1. A culture of irresponsible behaviour stems from bad people. A culture of responsible behaviour stems from good people. The way to really make a difference is to crowd out the bad with the good so they bad get bored and go and find a new place to play. An increased number of sexist images will then be deleted by the improved culture of the community. 2. The greatest form of outreach is Wikipedia itself. When I was a student what was valuable to me was a way of accessing resources on topics. I recently went through Amartya Sen's page and fixed the bibliography / referencing including author / editor links. This is what his bibliography looked like before: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amartya_Senoldid=65580#Publications and this is it now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amartya_Sen#Bibliography The same with the referencing section, before:
Re: [Gendergap] [Spam] Re: Sexualized environment on Commons
On 7/30/2014 5:51 AM, Marie Earley wrote: Things that I think might help: Help pages wise, I'm sure they'd love to see you at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Help I know I wasted a couple years learning the hard way because the Help pages didn't seem intuitive enough. However one trick we have to remember is to go to the search box and type WP:_ whatever the topic of interest is. One often gets a search return that get one just where one wants to go. A cheat sheet of editing and conflict resolution tips for women would be a great addition to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force Which is slowly but surely coming along. CM ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] [Spam] Re: Sexualized environment on Commons
Nice idea in principle, but there are still two hurdles to be overcome 1. How do you get the cheatsheet to the new female editor? How do you spot new female editors? By what mechanism do you communicate with them? Can you assume they know about User Talk (my almost entirely unsuccessful attempts to communicate with new users in a friendly way to offer help suggests many don't see the message. 2. People don't read user manuals, cheatsheets, etc. Every new Wikipedia user already gets one of those Welcome to Wikipedia on their User Tal which points them to a morass of information (which is admittedly written in the language of the expert Wikipedian not the new user) and I think these days they are also offered the onboarding experience (or whatever precisely it is called) which aims to teach them to do basic editing. However, generally what people (men and women) really want is the answer to the question I have here and now to get them past the immediate barrier to achieving their mission (whatever it was that motivated them to click that Edit button), not a set of lessons nor a set of documentation. Part of the problem we have created for ourselves is that all the policies and processes and technologies have set the bar far too high for many new editors to get started on their own. :-( Kerry _ From: gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Carol Moore dc Sent: Thursday, 31 July 2014 10:24 AM To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participationof women within Wikimedia projects. Subject: Re: [Gendergap] [Spam] Re: Sexualized environment on Commons On 7/30/2014 5:51 AM, Marie Earley wrote: Things that I think might help: Help pages wise, I'm sure they'd love to see you at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Help I know I wasted a couple years learning the hard way because the Help pages didn't seem intuitive enough. However one trick we have to remember is to go to the search box and type WP:_ whatever the topic of interest is. One often gets a search return that get one just where one wants to go. A cheat sheet of editing and conflict resolution tips for women would be a great addition to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias /Gender_gap_task_force Which is slowly but surely coming along. CM ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] [Spam] Re: Sexualized environment on Commons
Nope and I get consistent messages on and off wiki from women saying cheat sheets are poorly designed or people are too busy... But I don't think surveys are being done about workshops and the guides they pass out (I believe in throwing people into the pool to learn how to swim). I Still stand by hand holding...personal out weighs what we attempt... But perhaps I am old school in the world of wiki. I also lost a job to trolls who coincidentally also disagreed with my beliefs on commons...so I am particularly sensitive. Commons is a terrible and demoralizing place. The women's Commons revolution won't happen anytime soon. Sarah On Jul 30, 2014 7:48 PM, Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.com wrote: Nice idea in principle, but there are still two hurdles to be overcome 1. How do you get the cheatsheet to the new female editor? How do you spot new female editors? By what mechanism do you communicate with them? Can you assume they know about User Talk (my almost entirely unsuccessful attempts to communicate with new users in a friendly way to offer help suggests many don’t see the message. 1. People don’t read user manuals, cheatsheets, etc. Every new Wikipedia user already gets one of those “Welcome to Wikipedia” on their User Tal which points them to a morass of information (which is admittedly written in the language of the expert Wikipedian not the new user) and I think these days they are also offered the “onboarding experience” (or whatever precisely it is called) which aims to teach them to do basic editing. However, generally what people (men and women) really want is “the answer to the question I have here and now” to get them past the immediate barrier to achieving their mission (whatever it was that motivated them to click that Edit button), not a set of lessons nor a set of documentation. Part of the problem we have created for ourselves is that all the policies and processes and technologies have set the bar far too high for many new editors to get started on their own. L Kerry -- *From:* gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Carol Moore dc *Sent:* Thursday, 31 July 2014 10:24 AM *To:* Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participationof women within Wikimedia projects. *Subject:* Re: [Gendergap] [Spam] Re: Sexualized environment on Commons On 7/30/2014 5:51 AM, Marie Earley wrote: Things that I think might help: Help pages wise, I'm sure they'd love to see you at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Help I know I wasted a couple years learning the hard way because the Help pages didn't seem intuitive enough. However one trick we have to remember is to go to the search box and type WP:_ whatever the topic of interest is. One often gets a search return that get one just where one wants to go. A cheat sheet of editing and conflict resolution tips for women would be a great addition to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force Which is slowly but surely coming along. 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
Re: [Gendergap] [Spam] Re: Sexualized environment on Commons
Hi Kerry, Sad as it is to be the bearer of dispiriting news... A proposal more or less similar to this was made by the Board in 2011 (some kind of image filtering on a user-selected basis) - http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content The debate about whether (and/or how) to implement it was pretty vicious, pretty angry, and went on for the best part of a year. A September 2011 community poll gave interestingly mixed results - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-09-05/News_and_notes and the development of any software was suspended pending further discussion. In mid-2012, the Board then formally rescinded the develop a filter system request - http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:_Personal_Image_Hiding_Feature - and it has more or less been dead in the water since then. There's been no significant attempt to revive it, but I think this is in part because the wounds are still fresh - I think were it to be reopened now you'd get much the same result, a lot of heat which eventually stalls. It's worth noting that a very small-scale version of this is in use for some wikis - it's been pointed out that some sexual topics on Arabic Wikipedia have a click to expand field which conceals an image - but this is pretty rare and done on a page-by-page, not image-by-image, basis; it also has no user-level customisability. Andrew. On 24 July 2014 02:51, Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.com wrote: I agree that offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder. And while there may be all manner of very niche groups who find strange things offensiveness, maybe some people object to seeing refrigerators or reading about cakes, nonetheless we know that there are a lot of widespread categories of offensiveness that generate the bulk of discussions about the inclusion of items on Wikipedia or Commons. What we could do is to have to some system of classification (like the movies) for articles, images, and/or categories indicating that they are potentially offensive for various reasons. Perhaps along similar lines to the “content advisories” in IMDB, e.g. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0295297/parentalguide?ref_=tt_stry_pg People could then put in their profiles that all classifications are acceptable or them or that these are the classifications they don’t want to see (e.g. Sex and Nudity, Gore and Violence, Profanity, etc – obviously our classifications might not be identical to IMDB as we are dealing with different kinds of content but you get the idea). When that person searches Wikipedia or Commons, then those articles, images and categories that they would find offensive are not returned. When a person reads an article containing an offensive-to-them categorised image, it is simply not displayed or some image saying “Suppressed at your request (Sex and Nudity)”. We could possibly bundle such these finer classifications into common collections, e.g. Inappropriate for Children, Suitable for Muslims, or whatever, so for many people it’s a simple tick-one-box. For anonymous users or users who have not explicitly set their preferences, rendering of an article or image could first ask “This article/image has been tagged as potentially offensive for SuchAndSuch reason, click OK to confirm you want to view it”. If they are a logged-in user, it could also offer a link to set their preferences for future use. I note that movies are often made with variants for different countries. Sometimes that’s simply a matter of being dubbed into another language but it can also include the deletion (or replacement) of certain scenes or language that would be offensive in those countries. So it is not as if we are reinventing the wheel here, just customising it to Wikipedia. Kerry From: gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Kaldari Sent: Thursday, 24 July 2014 7:11 AM To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participationof women within Wikimedia projects. Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Sexualized environment on Commons Personally, I don't think it's worth having a discussion here about the merits of deleting these images. There's no chance in hell they are going to be deleted from Commons. What I'm more interested in is the locker-room nature of the discussions and how/if this can be addressed, as I think that is actually more likely to dissuade female contributors than the images themselves. Ryan Kaldari On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: Ryan, thanks for bringing this up for discussion. I've put a lot of thought into the series of photos this comes from over the years, and it's well worth some discussion. I'd like to hear what others think about this. Here is a link to the category for the larger collection; warning, there's lots of nudity and
Re: [Gendergap] [Spam] Re: Sexualized environment on Commons
The new hovercards (which I otherwise love) have created another problem, in that lead images show up when your cursor hovers over a wikilink. You would have to be reading an article where potentially offensive images are in linked pages, so this won't be a problem across the board. But it's easy to find yourself hovering over a link without intending to, so if you're in an article that contains such links, you can suddenly have images of genitalia on your screen without having clicked on the links that contain them. Sarah On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks to Andrew Gray for covering some of the history. Kerry, there is further material that you might find of interest in a recent (May 2014) discussion on the Wikimedia-l mailing list: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/engine?do=post_view_flat;post=466380;page=1;mh=-1;list=wiki;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC Best, Andreas On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.com wrote: Well, I am unsurprised that it has been considered before, as it's the obvious solution. Sad that the Board lacked the will to see it through. But it doesn't mean that it could not or should not be raised again. Social justice issues rarely succeed on their first attempt. If we took that attitude, women still wouldn't have the vote. The group we should be most concerned about is younger children. With many children increasingly having smartphones, it is far harder for parents to supervise the content they are viewing (unlike a desktop that can be positioned where the parent can keep an eye on things). At the same time, WMF is putting increasing effort into the mobile platforms and the WMF metrics show consistent uptrends in mobile access. The two trends suggest that Wikipedia and Commons are now a lot more likely to be accessed by children in an unsupervised context. Kerry -Original Message- From: shimg...@gmail.com [mailto:shimg...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Gray Sent: Saturday, 26 July 2014 4:08 AM To: kerry.raym...@gmail.com; Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation of women within Wikimedia projects. Subject: Re: [Spam] Re: [Gendergap] Sexualized environment on Commons Hi Kerry, Sad as it is to be the bearer of dispiriting news... A proposal more or less similar to this was made by the Board in 2011 (some kind of image filtering on a user-selected basis) - http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content The debate about whether (and/or how) to implement it was pretty vicious, pretty angry, and went on for the best part of a year. A September 2011 community poll gave interestingly mixed results - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-09-05/News_a nd_notes and the development of any software was suspended pending further discussion. In mid-2012, the Board then formally rescinded the develop a filter system request - http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:_Personal_Image_Hiding_Featur e - and it has more or less been dead in the water since then. There's been no significant attempt to revive it, but I think this is in part because the wounds are still fresh - I think were it to be reopened now you'd get much the same result, a lot of heat which eventually stalls. It's worth noting that a very small-scale version of this is in use for some wikis - it's been pointed out that some sexual topics on Arabic Wikipedia have a click to expand field which conceals an image - but this is pretty rare and done on a page-by-page, not image-by-image, basis; it also has no user-level customisability. Andrew. On 24 July 2014 02:51, Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.com wrote: I agree that offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder. And while there may be all manner of very niche groups who find strange things offensiveness, maybe some people object to seeing refrigerators or reading about cakes, nonetheless we know that there are a lot of widespread categories of offensiveness that generate the bulk of discussions about the inclusion of items on Wikipedia or Commons. What we could do is to have to some system of classification (like the movies) for articles, images, and/or categories indicating that they are potentially offensive for various reasons. Perhaps along similar lines to the content advisories in IMDB, e.g. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0295297/parentalguide?ref_=tt_stry_pg People could then put in their profiles that all classifications are acceptable or them or that these are the classifications they don't want to see (e.g. Sex and Nudity, Gore and Violence, Profanity, etc - obviously our classifications might not be identical to IMDB as we are dealing with different kinds of content but you get the idea). When that person searches Wikipedia or Commons, then those articles, images
Re: [Gendergap] [Spam] Re: Sexualized environment on Commons
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote: The new hovercards (which I otherwise love) have created another problem, in that lead images show up when your cursor hovers over a wikilink. Good point. In general, it would be good to have a more thorough process for exploring difficult-to-anticipate side effects before new features are broadly released -- something there's been a lot of discussion about lately. Back to Ryan's original topic -- the sometimes inappropriate nature of discussions on Commons -- I started a draft of an essay (which, at least theoretically, could eventually become a guideline if there is enough support for it). I think it might be a decent start, but it could use more input and fleshing out. Please take a look, and feel free to edit as you see fit: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Peteforsyth/Provocative_behavior -Pete ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
