Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)
On 7 September 2013 10:49, Jeremy Baron jer...@tuxmachine.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, I keep hearing those excuses for performance problems, Jeremy. It
takes longer to serve up the original page here in North America on a
fast
connection - enough so that it is noticeable on a normal computer.
I don't know what that means. (Original page? does that mean it loads
faster with a redirect than by hitting the canonical URL directly?)
Please provide enough details (steps, recipe, instructions, whatever you
want to call it) so that someone else could repeat your experiment to
verify your results.
Ideally we'd do that for both logged in and logged out users (and various
combinations of prefs) but in the case of redirects for Shirley Temple
Black and Chelsea Manning I think we mostly care about logged out users
visiting the /wiki/${title} style URLs (so not people visiting uselang= or
useskin= URLs) so let's focus on those. Which case were you testing?
Jeremy, this is not the performance testing list. The paragraph you've
written above is pretty well the definition of why women don't stick around
wikipedia - they say something that to anyone else is obvious, but not to
those who just cannot resist writing code into their responses. You know
why they call it code? Because *most* people don't understand it.
The fact that you're entirely missing the point of this discussion by
digressing into a proposal to test the speed of redirects vs canonical
pages should generally be a hint that you're moving into your own comfort
zone and leaving the rest of us behind.
Risker
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)
On 06.09.2013, at 01:43, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: My opinion is that it makes sense to continue to host the article at [[Bradley Manning]], and to avoid trying to preempt or influence coverage in favor of using Chelsea Manning's preferred identity. So you're influencing coverage in favor of using “Bradley”. I believe that over time the weight of coverage will change in favor of her preference, and our article can evolve accordingly. Since when is Wikipedia about beliefs? ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)
On Sep 5, 2013, at 11:34 PM, Helga Hansen m...@helgahansen.de wrote: Since when is Wikipedia about beliefs? The question of what policy to follow regarding article names, in general, has no externally valid single right answer. Cat? Felis Silvestrus Catus? Kitties!? Neko? The default standard is the most widely used common (not jargon) name for the thing. The logic is, that's the most likely search start, particularly for non experts. That is intentionally biased; towards a perceived norm, rather than an academic or technically more correct answer, towards internet search results as a proxy for popularity, towards the US as the most likely source of a first consensus on common name, etc. Which of these biases to adopt as default was a value or belief system judgement. We know that, intellectually. But there was no other framework in which to decide. Sent from Kangphone ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)
On Sep 5, 2013 6:55 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Secondly, redirects are expensive - not to those in the Western world with fast computers and high speed internet, but to those who are on dial-up or have comparatively high lag times because of distance (lots of people at Wikimania had difficulty getting good access to Wikipedia during their stay in Hong Kong, for example). A redirect means that the reader must first load up the redirect page and then follow the redirect instruction and wind up on the intended page. I don't think we pay nearly enough attention to the comparatively poor performance from WMF that our Asian, African, and South American colleagues experience; we're terribly spoiled. that's not how redirects work on Wikipedia. (at least for a redirect directly to a page with content… double redirects, i.e. a redirect to a redirect which then points to a real page it is more like how you described. but we have bots and special: pages for fixing double redirects) we serve a 200 with a little hatnote that says it was a redirect and otherwise serve the same content as if they had visited the canonical name directly. i.e. we don't currently send a 30x to the canonical name and the alternative name remains in the URL in the user's location bar. the actual timing difference client-side should be smaller than anything a human could detect. (or too small for a computer to notice? idk if anyone's done a study) -Jeremy ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)
Odd thing about the current Google search results for Bradley Manning. It gives the title Bradley Manning with a link to the Chelsea Manning page, which when followed is a redirect to Bradley Manning. SS attached. attachment: bradley manning google search result 9-6-13.PNG___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote: Actually you would be surprised at the nature of some of the renaming debates on Wikipedia in the area of artists like the one you mention, but also artists from the 17th-century. One could probably write a funny book about renaming debates on Wikipedia. I do think the Shirley Temple article should be named Shirley Temple for the notability issue. In the second screen effect, during a Shirley Temple movie, people will google Shirley Temple and not Shirley Temple Black. Okay, I've been wondering about this argument for a while - It's what people search for so we have to keep that as the name of the article. As far as I can tell, that's what redirects are for: search for Shirley Temple and you can get a page named Shirley Temple Black with a little note at the top that says Redirected from Shirley Temple. Can someone with more WP experience explain why redirects aren't sufficient for the what people search for argument? (FYI I'm on the call people what they want to be called, including pronouns side of the question.) -VAL -- 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 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)
Let me chime in with some background information that might help explain. Article title disputes are some of the longest and most difficult disputes to resolve on Wikipedia because many people, places, and things are well known by different names. So it is almost impossible to make everyone feel good about the final decision. Plus there is constantly a large incoming group of people who reopen the dispute. Deciding on a name that is most widely associated with the person, place, and thing is a reasonably good way to resolve the dispute and explain it to the next group of people who question the title. So it is customary to use most widely known name when deciding on a title of an article. That said, Biographies of Living People need to be handled with extra care. I'm in favor of taking into consideration the views of the person if it does not violate other core policies. For example the name must be verifiable in reliable sources. This is a general issue beyond transgender naming rules. Part of the problem is the high profile nature of the person behind this article and the dramatic way the announcement took place. If I saw a request by a living person to rename an article that was verifiable I would change it and most of the time no one would care. Documenting the reason on the talk page would be adequate. This particular article dispute is troubling to me because it seems to highlight the systemic bias in Wikipedia. The talk page discussions had many I unenlightened comments that were offensive. I'm most worried that we are going enshrine in a revised policy a rigid naming convention that will cause distress to lesser known people who are trying to make their way in the world as they transition to their prefer gender identity. I, too, support giving a living person a voice in deciding. and I see no harm in using the gender pronouns and name that they prefer. Hope that helps explain why using re-directs is not the first way editors think to resolve this and other similar disputes. Sydney Poore User:FloNight Sent from my iPhone On Sep 5, 2013, at 6:16 PM, Valerie Aurora vale...@adainitiative.org wrote: On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote: Actually you would be surprised at the nature of some of the renaming debates on Wikipedia in the area of artists like the one you mention, but also artists from the 17th-century. One could probably write a funny book about renaming debates on Wikipedia. I do think the Shirley Temple article should be named Shirley Temple for the notability issue. In the second screen effect, during a Shirley Temple movie, people will google Shirley Temple and not Shirley Temple Black. Okay, I've been wondering about this argument for a while - It's what people search for so we have to keep that as the name of the article. As far as I can tell, that's what redirects are for: search for Shirley Temple and you can get a page named Shirley Temple Black with a little note at the top that says Redirected from Shirley Temple. Can someone with more WP experience explain why redirects aren't sufficient for the what people search for argument? (FYI I'm on the call people what they want to be called, including pronouns side of the question.) -VAL -- 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 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)
It's an interesting discussion on that move request page. I noticed the Wikibump for the Bradley Manning page peaked at 173,000 views on 22 August and went down to less that 3,000 per day a week later. I think the current situation (today I see an article named Bradley Manning, and an article named Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage on the English Wikipedia) is the correct way to go forward until the media coverage settles down. At this moment in time, the person formerly known as Bradley Manning is still most notable for Wikipedia under that name, as her most famous act is still the Wikileaks issue. After a few months, it could turn out that her fight for transexual awareness or hormone drug therapy while in prison becomes more notable, but right now it is simply too early to say. As for shouting matches and women contributors, I always tell everyone I meet to contribute to Wikipedia first on non-controversial topics, such as anything related to cultural heritage. If you are not a regular contributor to Wikipedia with a sound Wikipedia reputation, your edits to controversial topics will probably be reverted semi-automatically no matter what you do. This is one of the biggest problems facing new contributors, because obviously they are attracted to controversial topics where the need for correction is probably high. I didn't click on the Bradley Manning article on 22 August, but I can imagine that it was in bad shape about half the time before it was page-protected 14:41, 22 August 2013 by Mark Arsten. 2013/9/1, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org: Looks like the Chelsea Manning article has been changed back to Bradley Manning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chelsea_Manning/August_2013_move_request There is still a discussion ongoing about which name to lead the article text with, however: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bradley_Manning#First_sentence Ryan Kaldari On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Carol Moore dc carolmoor...@verizon.netwrote: There have been similar problems at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/** Chelsea_Manning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning Obviously there have been a number of comments that are obviously transphobic. However, there also have been repeated false charges of transphobia against those who cite good policy reasons for not changing the name. I personally oppose the change to Chelsea as premature for a number of reasons, FYI. And there are good reasons to question what happened at that article process wise (the policy reasons for and against the change are discussed ad nauseam at the talk page where editors are just trying to get it changed back to Bradley Manning, though I think that's morphed into a final discussion - hard to tell!! ): * an admin changed the title to Chelsea Manning with no discussion on the talk page, given it's a controversial move in such a high publicity figure *the admin then spoke to the press about it, wrote a blog entry with their opinion, tweeted about it, and got even more media publicity for their blog entry and/or tweets *I would not be surprised if a number of editors also alerted the media to her writings and actions in order to try to influence the outcome of a Wikipedia policy decision *I don't know how much off wiki canvassing there was, but I did start a list of wikiprojects alerted, so at least that aspect of WP:Canvass would be covered *an editor threatened anyone moving the title back would become a minor celebrity for a few days, a threat only to those whose actual names were used, which implied outing (there's a subsection of the larger ANI thread on that threat and related insults) Wonder if I'll get shouted down *here* yet again for expressing my opinions... sigh... CM On 8/24/2013 7:34 AM, Helga Hansen wrote: In the German Wikipedia a huge discussion has erupted over the question how to change the Wikipedia page for Chelsea Manning and it's another textbook example over how to drive women of Wikipedia. You can see the gory details here (in German of course): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/** Diskussion:Bradley_Manninghttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Bradley_Manning I don't want to discuss this because it has already exhausted me to no end but it's another example of “How not to deal with women” and especially “How not to deal with transwomen” and it's important to understand the dynamics. After her statement on Today, one user went over the article, changing it from Bradley to Chelsea. When discussions about this started, two other users set up a section Namensänderung that addressed some of the criticism (confusion over names, before „Breanna“ was mentioned, how the support network has handled the name question) and provided sources. They did this on an etherpad and then moved the complete section into Wikipedia. By the way a modus operandi that I have heard from several women, to minimize chances of their work
Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)
Looks like the Chelsea Manning article has been changed back to Bradley Manning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chelsea_Manning/August_2013_move_request There is still a discussion ongoing about which name to lead the article text with, however: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bradley_Manning#First_sentence Ryan Kaldari On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Carol Moore dc carolmoor...@verizon.netwrote: There have been similar problems at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/** Chelsea_Manning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning Obviously there have been a number of comments that are obviously transphobic. However, there also have been repeated false charges of transphobia against those who cite good policy reasons for not changing the name. I personally oppose the change to Chelsea as premature for a number of reasons, FYI. And there are good reasons to question what happened at that article process wise (the policy reasons for and against the change are discussed ad nauseam at the talk page where editors are just trying to get it changed back to Bradley Manning, though I think that's morphed into a final discussion - hard to tell!! ): * an admin changed the title to Chelsea Manning with no discussion on the talk page, given it's a controversial move in such a high publicity figure *the admin then spoke to the press about it, wrote a blog entry with their opinion, tweeted about it, and got even more media publicity for their blog entry and/or tweets *I would not be surprised if a number of editors also alerted the media to her writings and actions in order to try to influence the outcome of a Wikipedia policy decision *I don't know how much off wiki canvassing there was, but I did start a list of wikiprojects alerted, so at least that aspect of WP:Canvass would be covered *an editor threatened anyone moving the title back would become a minor celebrity for a few days, a threat only to those whose actual names were used, which implied outing (there's a subsection of the larger ANI thread on that threat and related insults) Wonder if I'll get shouted down *here* yet again for expressing my opinions... sigh... CM On 8/24/2013 7:34 AM, Helga Hansen wrote: In the German Wikipedia a huge discussion has erupted over the question how to change the Wikipedia page for Chelsea Manning and it's another textbook example over how to drive women of Wikipedia. You can see the gory details here (in German of course): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/** Diskussion:Bradley_Manninghttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Bradley_Manning I don't want to discuss this because it has already exhausted me to no end but it's another example of “How not to deal with women” and especially “How not to deal with transwomen” and it's important to understand the dynamics. After her statement on Today, one user went over the article, changing it from Bradley to Chelsea. When discussions about this started, two other users set up a section Namensänderung that addressed some of the criticism (confusion over names, before „Breanna“ was mentioned, how the support network has handled the name question) and provided sources. They did this on an etherpad and then moved the complete section into Wikipedia. By the way a modus operandi that I have heard from several women, to minimize chances of their work being deleted again. One admin locked the article title to Chelsea Manning. Some friends told me how happy they were to see the page presenting her in this way. Over the night, though, the discussion exploded. Changes were made by the minute, or rather, the article was reverted. Every try, to change something back or to reason with people was made impossible. To keep up, you would have had to be there, writing and fighting not only during the day but also the night. That is just not possible for anybody except students. Somebody mentioned that “commonly referred to names” were ok to use, so I tried to get people to acknowledge that the final article will influence how Manning is referred to in German speaking countries. No avail. Instead, the amount of transphobic statements was disgusting. People wanting to check her therapy progress, ID documents or in her pants. I cannot blame anybody who doesn't want to deal with this sort of violence. Every try to get people consider US laws and customs, which differ from much stricter German transgender laws and guidelines, was totally ignored. Also, guidelines by transgender organizations on how to write about transpeople were ignored. Somebody brought up the fact that Manning hat entered the military in a profession reserved for men at the time. Instead of asking an expert how to deal with it, it was solely used as an argument. It was all just opinions, instead of facts. While some people were still talking about knowledge, someone else would start a vote and then the majority decided. (In case you wonder: one way
Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)
One thing I find interesting about the discussions on this is that people seem to be, sometimes, applying different standards from how we normally handle ourselves. So on WP normally, there is some deference paid to expertise (as distinct from credentials). Normally, editors will often defer to others who are known to have subject-matter expertise in a particular area. We express expertise through research: editors who have done a lot of reading and who cite reliable sources have more weight accorded to their views than those who have not done that reading and citing. It feels to me like on this issue people are often seeming to substitute common sense or conventional wisdom for expertise/knowledge. There has been lots of scholarly work on transgender issues, in the fields of psychology, gender studies, medicine, and so forth. So it surprises me to have editors making off-the-cuff comments, and expecting them to be taken seriously. A lot of people's expressed assumptions (that Chelsea may change her mind tomorrow, that Chelsea was a man and is now a woman, or even that a person's gender is easy to determine) are just flat-out wrong. It's okay for people to be wrong, but their wrong assumptions shouldn't determine what goes in an encyclopedia. (In saying this, I'm not responding directly to Helga or Carol. It's just something I've noticed on the enWP discussions that I think is interesting.) Thanks, Sue On Aug 24, 2013 6:18 AM, Carol Moore dc carolmoor...@verizon.net wrote: There have been similar problems at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/** Chelsea_Manning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning Obviously there have been a number of comments that are obviously transphobic. However, there also have been repeated false charges of transphobia against those who cite good policy reasons for not changing the name. I personally oppose the change to Chelsea as premature for a number of reasons, FYI. And there are good reasons to question what happened at that article process wise (the policy reasons for and against the change are discussed ad nauseam at the talk page where editors are just trying to get it changed back to Bradley Manning, though I think that's morphed into a final discussion - hard to tell!! ): * an admin changed the title to Chelsea Manning with no discussion on the talk page, given it's a controversial move in such a high publicity figure *the admin then spoke to the press about it, wrote a blog entry with their opinion, tweeted about it, and got even more media publicity for their blog entry and/or tweets *I would not be surprised if a number of editors also alerted the media to her writings and actions in order to try to influence the outcome of a Wikipedia policy decision *I don't know how much off wiki canvassing there was, but I did start a list of wikiprojects alerted, so at least that aspect of WP:Canvass would be covered *an editor threatened anyone moving the title back would become a minor celebrity for a few days, a threat only to those whose actual names were used, which implied outing (there's a subsection of the larger ANI thread on that threat and related insults) Wonder if I'll get shouted down *here* yet again for expressing my opinions... sigh... CM On 8/24/2013 7:34 AM, Helga Hansen wrote: In the German Wikipedia a huge discussion has erupted over the question how to change the Wikipedia page for Chelsea Manning and it's another textbook example over how to drive women of Wikipedia. You can see the gory details here (in German of course): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/** Diskussion:Bradley_Manninghttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Bradley_Manning I don't want to discuss this because it has already exhausted me to no end but it's another example of “How not to deal with women” and especially “How not to deal with transwomen” and it's important to understand the dynamics. After her statement on Today, one user went over the article, changing it from Bradley to Chelsea. When discussions about this started, two other users set up a section Namensänderung that addressed some of the criticism (confusion over names, before „Breanna“ was mentioned, how the support network has handled the name question) and provided sources. They did this on an etherpad and then moved the complete section into Wikipedia. By the way a modus operandi that I have heard from several women, to minimize chances of their work being deleted again. One admin locked the article title to Chelsea Manning. Some friends told me how happy they were to see the page presenting her in this way. Over the night, though, the discussion exploded. Changes were made by the minute, or rather, the article was reverted. Every try, to change something back or to reason with people was made impossible. To keep up, you would have had to be there, writing and fighting not only during the day but also the night. That is just not possible for anybody except
Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)
There have been similar problems at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning Obviously there have been a number of comments that are obviously transphobic. However, there also have been repeated false charges of transphobia against those who cite good policy reasons for not changing the name. I personally oppose the change to Chelsea as premature for a number of reasons, FYI. And there are good reasons to question what happened at that article process wise (the policy reasons for and against the change are discussed ad nauseam at the talk page where editors are just trying to get it changed back to Bradley Manning, though I think that's morphed into a final discussion - hard to tell!! ): * an admin changed the title to Chelsea Manning with no discussion on the talk page, given it's a controversial move in such a high publicity figure *the admin then spoke to the press about it, wrote a blog entry with their opinion, tweeted about it, and got even more media publicity for their blog entry and/or tweets *I would not be surprised if a number of editors also alerted the media to her writings and actions in order to try to influence the outcome of a Wikipedia policy decision *I don't know how much off wiki canvassing there was, but I did start a list of wikiprojects alerted, so at least that aspect of WP:Canvass would be covered *an editor threatened anyone moving the title back would become a minor celebrity for a few days, a threat only to those whose actual names were used, which implied outing (there's a subsection of the larger ANI thread on that threat and related insults) Wonder if I'll get shouted down *here* yet again for expressing my opinions... sigh... CM On 8/24/2013 7:34 AM, Helga Hansen wrote: In the German Wikipedia a huge discussion has erupted over the question how to change the Wikipedia page for Chelsea Manning and it's another textbook example over how to drive women of Wikipedia. You can see the gory details here (in German of course): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Bradley_Manning I don't want to discuss this because it has already exhausted me to no end but it's another example of “How not to deal with women” and especially “How not to deal with transwomen” and it's important to understand the dynamics. After her statement on Today, one user went over the article, changing it from Bradley to Chelsea. When discussions about this started, two other users set up a section Namensänderung that addressed some of the criticism (confusion over names, before „Breanna“ was mentioned, how the support network has handled the name question) and provided sources. They did this on an etherpad and then moved the complete section into Wikipedia. By the way a modus operandi that I have heard from several women, to minimize chances of their work being deleted again. One admin locked the article title to Chelsea Manning. Some friends told me how happy they were to see the page presenting her in this way. Over the night, though, the discussion exploded. Changes were made by the minute, or rather, the article was reverted. Every try, to change something back or to reason with people was made impossible. To keep up, you would have had to be there, writing and fighting not only during the day but also the night. That is just not possible for anybody except students. Somebody mentioned that “commonly referred to names” were ok to use, so I tried to get people to acknowledge that the final article will influence how Manning is referred to in German speaking countries. No avail. Instead, the amount of transphobic statements was disgusting. People wanting to check her therapy progress, ID documents or in her pants. I cannot blame anybody who doesn't want to deal with this sort of violence. Every try to get people consider US laws and customs, which differ from much stricter German transgender laws and guidelines, was totally ignored. Also, guidelines by transgender organizations on how to write about transpeople were ignored. Somebody brought up the fact that Manning hat entered the military in a profession reserved for men at the time. Instead of asking an expert how to deal with it, it was solely used as an argument. It was all just opinions, instead of facts. While some people were still talking about knowledge, someone else would start a vote and then the majority decided. (In case you wonder: one way would be to keep referring to Chelsea as female while noting that the profession was reserved for men at the time and she entered presenting as male.) Of course, people who identified as women or worse, transwomen, were shouted down to no end and accused of being too emotional or having a political agenda. Wanting to be treated with respect and having human rights is indeed a political agenda but none to be insulted for. Also: one transwoman was not egligible to vote, her account was too “new”. She had shut down her old account,
