[Gendergap] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)
Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting double standard about profanity in the comment section. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)
Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by Keilana, would it have been published as is? Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite the one some think it would be. Risker/Anne On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarfwrote: > Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting double > standard about profanity in the comment section. > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed > > ___ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please > visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)
The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community takes all of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of profanity in a positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia calls a female editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye. On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Riskerwrote: > Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by Keilana, > would it have been published as is? > > Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite the one > some think it would be. > > Risker/Anne > > On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf wrote: > >> Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting double >> standard about profanity in the comment section. >> >> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed >> >> ___ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please >> visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> > > > ___ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please > visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)
>"Badass" isn't a compliment. And "cunt" is a friendly term of camaraderie in British English. Apparently I just don't have a good command of the English language. On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Riskerwrote: > I feel very sad that you fellows don't see the problem in using this kind > of language to describe women. "Badass" isn't a compliment. After the first > two descriptions, I was fully expecting to see "brilliant motherf***er" to > describe the third one. I'm surprised it wasn't used, in fact. > > The subjects of our articles deserve to be treated much better than this. > > Further, I'm incredibly disappointed that this got published in The > Signpost. On Emily's own page...well, okay. But instead of drawing > attention to the women who are the subjects of the articles, almost all of > the discussion is about the language used to describe themand pointing > out that several of them already had articles about them that were > improved, rather than that they'd not been written about at all. > > All in all, it impressed me as an island of lovely flowers in a garden > with a winter's worth of St. Bernard droppings. > > Risker > > On 21 February 2016 at 17:13, Pete Forsyth wrote: > >> +1 Ryan. >> >> This was one article, and no Wikipedians, readers, or article subjects >> were injured as a result of its publication. I don't really have a strong >> opinion one way or the other about whether using language in this way is >> OK. But the main lesson to me is how much the English Wikipedia community >> has come to value the Signpost as an institution. It's hard to imagine such >> any Signpost column inspiring so much passion, say, five years ago. Above >> all, I think this constitutes a strong endorsement of the general value of >> the Signpost. >> >> -Pete >> >> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari >> wrote: >> >>> The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community takes >>> all of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of profanity >>> in a positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia calls a >>> female editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye. >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Risker wrote: >>> Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by Keilana, would it have been published as is? Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite the one some think it would be. Risker/Anne On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf wrote: > Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting double > standard about profanity in the comment section. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed > > ___ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, > please visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> Gendergap mailing list >>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please >>> visit: >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >> >> >> ___ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please >> visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> > > > ___ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please > visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)
Unless my vision has completely eroded, I do not see the word "cunt" anywhere in that article, Ryan. Nobody on this list has ever said that calling someone a cunt is a good thing. What I do not understand is why anyone on this list would think that calling someone a "badass" is a good thing. Risker On 21 February 2016 at 18:19, Ryan Kaldariwrote: > >"Badass" isn't a compliment. > > And "cunt" is a friendly term of camaraderie in British English. > Apparently I just don't have a good command of the English language. > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Risker wrote: > >> I feel very sad that you fellows don't see the problem in using this kind >> of language to describe women. "Badass" isn't a compliment. After the first >> two descriptions, I was fully expecting to see "brilliant motherf***er" to >> describe the third one. I'm surprised it wasn't used, in fact. >> >> The subjects of our articles deserve to be treated much better than >> this. >> >> Further, I'm incredibly disappointed that this got published in The >> Signpost. On Emily's own page...well, okay. But instead of drawing >> attention to the women who are the subjects of the articles, almost all of >> the discussion is about the language used to describe themand pointing >> out that several of them already had articles about them that were >> improved, rather than that they'd not been written about at all. >> >> All in all, it impressed me as an island of lovely flowers in a garden >> with a winter's worth of St. Bernard droppings. >> >> Risker >> >> On 21 February 2016 at 17:13, Pete Forsyth wrote: >> >>> +1 Ryan. >>> >>> This was one article, and no Wikipedians, readers, or article subjects >>> were injured as a result of its publication. I don't really have a strong >>> opinion one way or the other about whether using language in this way is >>> OK. But the main lesson to me is how much the English Wikipedia community >>> has come to value the Signpost as an institution. It's hard to imagine such >>> any Signpost column inspiring so much passion, say, five years ago. Above >>> all, I think this constitutes a strong endorsement of the general value of >>> the Signpost. >>> >>> -Pete >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari >>> wrote: >>> The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community takes all of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of profanity in a positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia calls a female editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye. On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Risker wrote: > Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by Keilana, > would it have been published as is? > > Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite the > one some think it would be. > > Risker/Anne > > On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf wrote: > >> Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting double >> standard about profanity in the comment section. >> >> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed >> >> ___ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, >> please visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> > > > ___ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, > please visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> Gendergap mailing list >>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please >>> visit: >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >> >> >> ___ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please >> visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> > > > ___ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please > visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >
Re: [Gendergap] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)
I'm not sure that "badass" is a bad thing to call someone nowadays. It has been appropriated by feminists, according to the Atlantic. [1] They describe it as "a term of acclamation and aspiration, both for women and for a culture that is finally giving them their due. It’s a recognition that women can 'radiate confidence in everything they do' just as readily as men can." Sarah [1] http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/11/how-badass-became-feminist/417096/ On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Riskerwrote: > Unless my vision has completely eroded, I do not see the word "cunt" > anywhere in that article, Ryan. Nobody on this list has ever said that > calling someone a cunt is a good thing. What I do not understand is why > anyone on this list would think that calling someone a "badass" is a good > thing. > > Risker > > > On 21 February 2016 at 18:19, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > >> >"Badass" isn't a compliment. >> >> And "cunt" is a friendly term of camaraderie in British English. >> Apparently I just don't have a good command of the English language. >> >> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Risker wrote: >> >>> I feel very sad that you fellows don't see the problem in using this >>> kind of language to describe women. "Badass" isn't a compliment. After the >>> first two descriptions, I was fully expecting to see "brilliant >>> motherf***er" to describe the third one. I'm surprised it wasn't used, in >>> fact. >>> >>> The subjects of our articles deserve to be treated much better than >>> this. >>> >>> Further, I'm incredibly disappointed that this got published in The >>> Signpost. On Emily's own page...well, okay. But instead of drawing >>> attention to the women who are the subjects of the articles, almost all of >>> the discussion is about the language used to describe themand pointing >>> out that several of them already had articles about them that were >>> improved, rather than that they'd not been written about at all. >>> >>> All in all, it impressed me as an island of lovely flowers in a garden >>> with a winter's worth of St. Bernard droppings. >>> >>> Risker >>> >>> On 21 February 2016 at 17:13, Pete Forsyth >>> wrote: >>> +1 Ryan. This was one article, and no Wikipedians, readers, or article subjects were injured as a result of its publication. I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other about whether using language in this way is OK. But the main lesson to me is how much the English Wikipedia community has come to value the Signpost as an institution. It's hard to imagine such any Signpost column inspiring so much passion, say, five years ago. Above all, I think this constitutes a strong endorsement of the general value of the Signpost. -Pete On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community > takes all of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of > profanity in a positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia > calls a female editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye. > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Risker wrote: > >> Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by >> Keilana, would it have been published as is? >> >> Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite the >> one some think it would be. >> >> Risker/Anne >> >> On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf wrote: >> >>> Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting double >>> standard about profanity in the comment section. >>> >>> >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed >>> >>> ___ >>> Gendergap mailing list >>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, >>> please visit: >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >> >> >> ___ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, >> please visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> > > > ___ > Gendergap 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] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)
One reason why I try not to use expletives on wiki is that things can be misinterpreted; I've seen examples of people using a rhetorical example only to find others take it personally. Another is that not everyone gets the difference between a swear word used against a specific person and one used against a situation; in particular I'm conscious that many people on English Wikipedia are not using their native language and might not spot the sometimes subtle distinction between unacceptable and arguable uses of such words. Lastly there is an argument for not having a privileged status for "vested contributors" whether admins, functionaries, or editor with vociferous fans; there are times when in just a few sentences you can explain why one use of a swear word is a personal attack and another is a rhetorical statement. But people don't necessarily believe you, especially if it looks to them that you are defending a fellow insider. Regards Jonathan / WereSpielChequers > On 21 Feb 2016, at 21:54, Ryan Kaldariwrote: > > The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community takes all > of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of profanity in a > positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia calls a female > editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye. > >> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Risker wrote: >> Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by Keilana, would >> it have been published as is? >> >> Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite the one >> some think it would be. >> >> Risker/Anne >> >>> On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf wrote: >>> Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting double >>> standard about profanity in the comment section. >>> >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed >>> >>> ___ >>> Gendergap mailing list >>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please >>> visit: >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> >> >> ___ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please >> visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > ___ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please > visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)
On 21 February 2016 at 23:19, Ryan Kaldariwrote: >>"Badass" isn't a compliment. > > And "cunt" is a friendly term of camaraderie in British English. Apparently > I just don't have a good command of the English language. Could you keep the unwelcome locker-room language to Jimmy Wales' talk page where it appears welcomed with high-fives, rather than forcing everywhere else where we might sometimes manage meaningful discussions down to the same level? Thanks Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Riskerwrote: > Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by Keilana, > would it have been published as is? > I'm curious what you mean by this exactly. Do you mean you think I published it because I know Emily personally and would not have published it as a submission from an unknown author? Or are you saying I might not have published a similar article by a male author? (For what it's worth, I re-published an article by a male academic in the Signpost last year that had the phrase "asshole consensus" in the title. ) ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Riskerwrote: > Unless my vision has completely eroded, I do not see the word "cunt" > anywhere in that article, Ryan. Nobody on this list has ever said that > calling someone a cunt is a good thing. > I was referring to the common defense of that term on English Wikipedia (which I imagine you are familiar with). It's hard to notice the outcry against Keilana's Op-ed and the acceptance of other editors' use of the C-word (sorry, Fae)[1] without feeling like there is some kind of double-standard. What I do not understand is why anyone on this list would think that > calling someone a "badass" is a good thing. > According to Wiktionary it means "Having extreme appearance, attitude, or behavior that is considered admirable." Synonyms are listed as "cool" and "awesome".[2] It's obviously slang, but still sounds like a compliment to me. 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_female 2. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/badass#Adjective ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Robert Fernandezwrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Risker wrote: >> >> Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by Keilana, >> would it have been published as is? > > > I'm curious what you mean by this exactly. Do you mean you think I > published it because I know Emily personally and would not have published it > as a submission from an unknown author? Or are you saying I might not have > published a similar article by a male author? > > (For what it's worth, I re-published an article by a male academic in the > Signpost last year that had the phrase "asshole consensus" in the title. ) I would appreciate seeing that article for comparison, as I am a little taken back by the use of swear words in the titles. Would you find it please? -- John Vandenberg ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)
It's here, John: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-08-19/Op-ed Andreas On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:17 AM, John Mark Vandenbergwrote: > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Robert Fernandez > wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Risker wrote: > >> > >> Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by Keilana, > >> would it have been published as is? > > > > > > I'm curious what you mean by this exactly. Do you mean you think I > > published it because I know Emily personally and would not have > published it > > as a submission from an unknown author? Or are you saying I might not > have > > published a similar article by a male author? > > > > (For what it's worth, I re-published an article by a male academic in the > > Signpost last year that had the phrase "asshole consensus" in the title. > ) > > I would appreciate seeing that article for comparison, as I am a > little taken back by the use of swear words in the titles. > Would you find it please? > > -- > John Vandenberg > > ___ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please > visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)
I dunno, Ryan. The last time someone called me a badass, it was very definitely meant as an insult cloaked as a compliment. I would not subject any article subject to such an adjective. RIsker/Anne On 21 February 2016 at 19:12, Ryan Kaldariwrote: > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Risker wrote: > >> Unless my vision has completely eroded, I do not see the word "cunt" >> anywhere in that article, Ryan. Nobody on this list has ever said that >> calling someone a cunt is a good thing. >> > > I was referring to the common defense of that term on English Wikipedia > (which I imagine you are familiar with). It's hard to notice the outcry > against Keilana's Op-ed and the acceptance of other editors' use of the > C-word (sorry, Fae)[1] without feeling like there is some kind of > double-standard. > > What I do not understand is why anyone on this list would think that >> calling someone a "badass" is a good thing. >> > > According to Wiktionary it means "Having extreme appearance, attitude, or > behavior that is considered admirable." Synonyms are listed as "cool" and > "awesome".[2] It's obviously slang, but still sounds like a compliment to > me. > > 1. > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_female > 2. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/badass#Adjective > > ___ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please > visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)
Risker, I want to be clear: It's not that I don't see a problem. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to your view; but I think your point has been made very strongly already, and the important audience is the Signpost editorial staff. I am confident they have heard the message, and I don't see how further discussion moves us in a better direction. The past can't be changed. I suppose the Signpost could retract the op-ed, but I rather doubt you're seeking something so extreme...or am I wrong? -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Riskerwrote: > I feel very sad that you fellows don't see the problem in using this kind > of language to describe women. "Badass" isn't a compliment. After the first > two descriptions, I was fully expecting to see "brilliant motherf***er" to > describe the third one. I'm surprised it wasn't used, in fact. > > The subjects of our articles deserve to be treated much better than this. > > Further, I'm incredibly disappointed that this got published in The > Signpost. On Emily's own page...well, okay. But instead of drawing > attention to the women who are the subjects of the articles, almost all of > the discussion is about the language used to describe themand pointing > out that several of them already had articles about them that were > improved, rather than that they'd not been written about at all. > > All in all, it impressed me as an island of lovely flowers in a garden > with a winter's worth of St. Bernard droppings. > > Risker > > On 21 February 2016 at 17:13, Pete Forsyth wrote: > >> +1 Ryan. >> >> This was one article, and no Wikipedians, readers, or article subjects >> were injured as a result of its publication. I don't really have a strong >> opinion one way or the other about whether using language in this way is >> OK. But the main lesson to me is how much the English Wikipedia community >> has come to value the Signpost as an institution. It's hard to imagine such >> any Signpost column inspiring so much passion, say, five years ago. Above >> all, I think this constitutes a strong endorsement of the general value of >> the Signpost. >> >> -Pete >> >> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari >> wrote: >> >>> The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community takes >>> all of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of profanity >>> in a positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia calls a >>> female editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye. >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Risker wrote: >>> Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by Keilana, would it have been published as is? Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite the one some think it would be. Risker/Anne On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf wrote: > Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting double > standard about profanity in the comment section. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed > > ___ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, > please visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> Gendergap mailing list >>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please >>> visit: >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >> >> >> ___ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please >> visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> > > > ___ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please > visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)
I think I've made myself clear, Pete. I don't think that anything I say will make a difference, any more than anything I have ever said has changed the sub-optimal behaviour of any editor who thinks it's acceptable professional behaviour to cuss all over the place. I'm just really disappointed that people who used to be in the "let's make this a more pleasant and positive place to do our work" have gone over to the other side. Risker On 21 February 2016 at 19:38, Pete Forsythwrote: > Risker, I want to be clear: > > It's not that I don't see a problem. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to > your view; but I think your point has been made very strongly already, and > the important audience is the Signpost editorial staff. I am confident they > have heard the message, and I don't see how further discussion moves us in > a better direction. The past can't be changed. I suppose the Signpost could > retract the op-ed, but I rather doubt you're seeking something so > extreme...or am I wrong? > > -Pete > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Risker wrote: > >> I feel very sad that you fellows don't see the problem in using this kind >> of language to describe women. "Badass" isn't a compliment. After the first >> two descriptions, I was fully expecting to see "brilliant motherf***er" to >> describe the third one. I'm surprised it wasn't used, in fact. >> >> The subjects of our articles deserve to be treated much better than >> this. >> >> Further, I'm incredibly disappointed that this got published in The >> Signpost. On Emily's own page...well, okay. But instead of drawing >> attention to the women who are the subjects of the articles, almost all of >> the discussion is about the language used to describe themand pointing >> out that several of them already had articles about them that were >> improved, rather than that they'd not been written about at all. >> >> All in all, it impressed me as an island of lovely flowers in a garden >> with a winter's worth of St. Bernard droppings. >> >> Risker >> >> On 21 February 2016 at 17:13, Pete Forsyth wrote: >> >>> +1 Ryan. >>> >>> This was one article, and no Wikipedians, readers, or article subjects >>> were injured as a result of its publication. I don't really have a strong >>> opinion one way or the other about whether using language in this way is >>> OK. But the main lesson to me is how much the English Wikipedia community >>> has come to value the Signpost as an institution. It's hard to imagine such >>> any Signpost column inspiring so much passion, say, five years ago. Above >>> all, I think this constitutes a strong endorsement of the general value of >>> the Signpost. >>> >>> -Pete >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari >>> wrote: >>> The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community takes all of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of profanity in a positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia calls a female editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye. On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Risker wrote: > Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by Keilana, > would it have been published as is? > > Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite the > one some think it would be. > > Risker/Anne > > On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf wrote: > >> Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting double >> standard about profanity in the comment section. >> >> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed >> >> ___ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, >> please visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> > > > ___ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, > please visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> Gendergap mailing list >>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please >>> visit: >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >> >> >>
Re: [Gendergap] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)
Compare the reaction that Keilana's Op-ed got with the reaction that the Signpost article "Wikipedia's cute ass" got: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-12-17/Featured_content Notice any differences? On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Pete Forsythwrote: > Risker, I want to be clear: > > It's not that I don't see a problem. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to > your view; but I think your point has been made very strongly already, and > the important audience is the Signpost editorial staff. I am confident they > have heard the message, and I don't see how further discussion moves us in > a better direction. The past can't be changed. I suppose the Signpost could > retract the op-ed, but I rather doubt you're seeking something so > extreme...or am I wrong? > > -Pete > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Risker wrote: > >> I feel very sad that you fellows don't see the problem in using this kind >> of language to describe women. "Badass" isn't a compliment. After the first >> two descriptions, I was fully expecting to see "brilliant motherf***er" to >> describe the third one. I'm surprised it wasn't used, in fact. >> >> The subjects of our articles deserve to be treated much better than >> this. >> >> Further, I'm incredibly disappointed that this got published in The >> Signpost. On Emily's own page...well, okay. But instead of drawing >> attention to the women who are the subjects of the articles, almost all of >> the discussion is about the language used to describe themand pointing >> out that several of them already had articles about them that were >> improved, rather than that they'd not been written about at all. >> >> All in all, it impressed me as an island of lovely flowers in a garden >> with a winter's worth of St. Bernard droppings. >> >> Risker >> >> On 21 February 2016 at 17:13, Pete Forsyth wrote: >> >>> +1 Ryan. >>> >>> This was one article, and no Wikipedians, readers, or article subjects >>> were injured as a result of its publication. I don't really have a strong >>> opinion one way or the other about whether using language in this way is >>> OK. But the main lesson to me is how much the English Wikipedia community >>> has come to value the Signpost as an institution. It's hard to imagine such >>> any Signpost column inspiring so much passion, say, five years ago. Above >>> all, I think this constitutes a strong endorsement of the general value of >>> the Signpost. >>> >>> -Pete >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari >>> wrote: >>> The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community takes all of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of profanity in a positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia calls a female editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye. On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Risker wrote: > Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by Keilana, > would it have been published as is? > > Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite the > one some think it would be. > > Risker/Anne > > On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf wrote: > >> Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting double >> standard about profanity in the comment section. >> >> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed >> >> ___ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, >> please visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> > > > ___ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, > please visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > ___ Gendergap 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: >>
Re: [Gendergap] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)
Risker, can we just put that to the test, since at least one Signpost editor is a subscriber to this list, and has spoken up on this topic on-Wiki? Rob, could you give us an indication of whether the commentary about the language in Emily's post (from Risker and others) has impacted your thinking on the topic, and whether you think you've learned anything from it? (Details welcome of course, but all I'm seeking is a quick/general comment.) -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Riskerwrote: > I think I've made myself clear, Pete. I don't think that anything I say > will make a difference, any more than anything I have ever said has changed > the sub-optimal behaviour of any editor who thinks it's acceptable > professional behaviour to cuss all over the place. I'm just really > disappointed that people who used to be in the "let's make this a more > pleasant and positive place to do our work" have gone over to the other > side. > > Risker > > On 21 February 2016 at 19:38, Pete Forsyth wrote: > >> Risker, I want to be clear: >> >> It's not that I don't see a problem. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to >> your view; but I think your point has been made very strongly already, and >> the important audience is the Signpost editorial staff. I am confident they >> have heard the message, and I don't see how further discussion moves us in >> a better direction. The past can't be changed. I suppose the Signpost could >> retract the op-ed, but I rather doubt you're seeking something so >> extreme...or am I wrong? >> >> -Pete >> [[User:Peteforsyth]] >> >> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Risker wrote: >> >>> I feel very sad that you fellows don't see the problem in using this >>> kind of language to describe women. "Badass" isn't a compliment. After the >>> first two descriptions, I was fully expecting to see "brilliant >>> motherf***er" to describe the third one. I'm surprised it wasn't used, in >>> fact. >>> >>> The subjects of our articles deserve to be treated much better than >>> this. >>> >>> Further, I'm incredibly disappointed that this got published in The >>> Signpost. On Emily's own page...well, okay. But instead of drawing >>> attention to the women who are the subjects of the articles, almost all of >>> the discussion is about the language used to describe themand pointing >>> out that several of them already had articles about them that were >>> improved, rather than that they'd not been written about at all. >>> >>> All in all, it impressed me as an island of lovely flowers in a garden >>> with a winter's worth of St. Bernard droppings. >>> >>> Risker >>> >>> On 21 February 2016 at 17:13, Pete Forsyth >>> wrote: >>> +1 Ryan. This was one article, and no Wikipedians, readers, or article subjects were injured as a result of its publication. I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other about whether using language in this way is OK. But the main lesson to me is how much the English Wikipedia community has come to value the Signpost as an institution. It's hard to imagine such any Signpost column inspiring so much passion, say, five years ago. Above all, I think this constitutes a strong endorsement of the general value of the Signpost. -Pete On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community > takes all of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of > profanity in a positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia > calls a female editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye. > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Risker wrote: > >> Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by >> Keilana, would it have been published as is? >> >> Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite the >> one some think it would be. >> >> Risker/Anne >> >> On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf wrote: >> >>> Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting double >>> standard about profanity in the comment section. >>> >>> >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed >>> >>> ___ >>> Gendergap mailing list >>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, >>> please visit: >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >> >> >> ___ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, >> please visit:
Re: [Gendergap] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Ryan Kaldariwrote: > Compare the reaction that Keilana's Op-ed got with the reaction that the > Signpost article "Wikipedia's cute ass" got: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-12-17/Featured_content > > Notice any differences? Yes, it was a headline which did not swear; it only appeared to. Not a good counter example :/ It danced around 'the line' a little, intelligently, which is very common for light hearted sections of even very serious publications. It gets a few smiles, and people are not 'offended' - they just move on if they didnt like it, provided it isnt over-done. -- John Vandenberg ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)
I agree that is innocent enough. Both men and women refer to cute asses, and not just on humans! :-) On 2/21/2016 7:58 PM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote: On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Ryan Kaldariwrote: Compare the reaction that Keilana's Op-ed got with the reaction that the Signpost article "Wikipedia's cute ass" got: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-12-17/Featured_content Notice any differences? Yes, it was a headline which did not swear; it only appeared to. Not a good counter example :/ It danced around 'the line' a little, intelligently, which is very common for light hearted sections of even very serious publications. It gets a few smiles, and people are not 'offended' - they just move on if they didnt like it, provided it isnt over-done. --- 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
Re: [Gendergap] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)
risker: i'm kinda with you about defining deviancy down it's just that things are so bad can't go lower article subjects are already dismayed by the opaque unfriendly culture they periodically ask for article deletion librarians are advised about the "cultural buzzsaw" having a safe environment on line is a lost cause but we can have a grim determination with much cursing cheers On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Riskerwrote: > I think I've made myself clear, Pete. I don't think that anything I say > will make a difference, any more than anything I have ever said has changed > the sub-optimal behaviour of any editor who thinks it's acceptable > professional behaviour to cuss all over the place. I'm just really > disappointed that people who used to be in the "let's make this a more > pleasant and positive place to do our work" have gone over to the other > side. > > Risker > > On 21 February 2016 at 19:38, Pete Forsyth wrote: > >> Risker, I want to be clear: >> >> It's not that I don't see a problem. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to >> your view; but I think your point has been made very strongly already, and >> the important audience is the Signpost editorial staff. I am confident they >> have heard the message, and I don't see how further discussion moves us in >> a better direction. The past can't be changed. I suppose the Signpost could >> retract the op-ed, but I rather doubt you're seeking something so >> extreme...or am I wrong? >> >> -Pete >> [[User:Peteforsyth]] >> >> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Risker wrote: >> >>> I feel very sad that you fellows don't see the problem in using this >>> kind of language to describe women. "Badass" isn't a compliment. After the >>> first two descriptions, I was fully expecting to see "brilliant >>> motherf***er" to describe the third one. I'm surprised it wasn't used, in >>> fact. >>> >>> The subjects of our articles deserve to be treated much better than >>> this. >>> >>> Further, I'm incredibly disappointed that this got published in The >>> Signpost. On Emily's own page...well, okay. But instead of drawing >>> attention to the women who are the subjects of the articles, almost all of >>> the discussion is about the language used to describe themand pointing >>> out that several of them already had articles about them that were >>> improved, rather than that they'd not been written about at all. >>> >>> All in all, it impressed me as an island of lovely flowers in a garden >>> with a winter's worth of St. Bernard droppings. >>> >>> Risker >>> >>> On 21 February 2016 at 17:13, Pete Forsyth >>> wrote: >>> +1 Ryan. This was one article, and no Wikipedians, readers, or article subjects were injured as a result of its publication. I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other about whether using language in this way is OK. But the main lesson to me is how much the English Wikipedia community has come to value the Signpost as an institution. It's hard to imagine such any Signpost column inspiring so much passion, say, five years ago. Above all, I think this constitutes a strong endorsement of the general value of the Signpost. -Pete On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community > takes all of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of > profanity in a positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia > calls a female editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye. > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Risker wrote: > >> Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by >> Keilana, would it have been published as is? >> >> Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite the >> one some think it would be. >> >> Risker/Anne >> >> On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf wrote: >> >>> Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting double >>> standard about profanity in the comment section. >>> >>> >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed >>> >>> ___ >>> Gendergap mailing list >>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, >>> please visit: >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >> >> >> ___ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, >> please visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> > > >