Re: [Gendergap] Emails to friends, lists to encourage participation

[Pete Forsyth]

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 9:32 PM, carolmoor...@verizon.net wrote:

 One thing we can all do is send letters of encouragement to women to
 join wikipedia. I don't know if there is a form letter  already used
 that we can merge ideas like the below into.  This is includes and
 expands on points I sent out to a couple of political women friends and
 womens lists - about 150 women total - as a personal encouragement.
 Underwhelming two responses so far: good idea and I'm too busy. So I
 know that the letter needs work! Maybe we could have a couple versions
 linked from http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_Gap


I like this idea; and I want to point to some possibly relevant research.
The paper Socialization tactics in Wikipedia and their effects by Robert
Kraut et. al.[1] [2] studies various efforts at welcoming newcomers.

In that research, the finding is that the most effective techniques are
those that reflect an engagement with the content that the user has added;
in other words, if your welcome message is a genuine response to what they
did (for example, Thank you for adding information about so-and-so's
history with such-and-such; are you aware of these other similar articles
that need expansion?) More generic welcome messages were generally
ineffective at getting people to stick around.

It may be that a call to action message like you suggest is effective; I
guess that's not something this group specifically studied. But for anybody
taking this on, I'd suggest that you personalize each one a little, based on
the contributor's recent edits, or the info they've put on their user page!

-Pete


[1] PDF file:
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/groups/connect/cscw_10/docs/p107.pdf
[2] Abstract on web:
http://acawiki.org/Socialization_tactics_in_Wikipedia_and_their_effects
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Emails to friends, lists to encourage participation

[Pete Forsyth]

Whoops. I just re-read Carol's message -- I had misunderstood at first. If
this is an effort to recruit *brand new* contributors (as opposed to
retaining those who have dabbled), the research I cited above doesn't really
apply :)

But, I do think the findings of the Wikipedia Public Policy Initiative would
be informative;[1] Carol, I'm not sure if you've had contact with this
program or not.

But in general, it ties in with what Sue brought up: people brand new to
Wikipedia often need a *lot* of support and advice before they start to get
their legs. So directing them to educational resources, and establishing a
cafe type space to ask questions and build a sense of community, would
certainly be helpful in keeping with what we've learned from our outreach
efforts.

And personalizing the message a little bit, tailoring it to the specific
woman's interests by suggesting articles she may want to edit, couldn't hurt
either!

-Pete
(formerly Public Outreach Officer at WMF)

[1] http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_Initiative
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Emails to friends, lists to encourage participation

[Pete Forsyth]

On Feb 22, 2011, at 7:38 PM, Birgitte SB wrote:

 People need to be sent to work on their passions with their personal 
 strengths, not just told in a blanket fashion to write some articles.
 
 Birgitte SB

This all sounds like a pretty sound approach to me. I like it.

Another worthwhile thing, if somebody is really entertaining the idea of taking 
on this work, would be to contact the Wikipedia Ambassadors group, which has 
formed in support of the Public Policy Initiative. This includes both 
experienced Wikipedians, and college students and librarians were initially new 
to Wikipedia, but put some effort into getting to know it in order to support 
students working on articles. The best place to contact them is probably 
through the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Ambassadors

Oh, and one other thing -- from what little evidence I have, Birgitte, I'd say 
you're a pretty good writer :)

-Pete

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Helping get a female sport article to GA article status

[Pete Forsyth]

Good observation, Kath.

I've been wondering whether to point out this detail -- the phrase good 
article review has been used a little inaccurately in this discussion. 
A good article assessment is what Laura is currently going through, as 
distinct from a good article review (what Kath has just pointed out) 
which is essentially an appeal of an assessment that is believed to be 
problematic.


Good Article Review is an option *after* the assessment and related 
discussion is complete. It's sort of like appealing a court decision; 
you identify the specific thing that you think was done wrong, and 
somebody will take that into consideration.


While the assessment's still underway though, I think the approach Laura 
is taking (seeking out additional perspectives) is the right way to go 
about it.


-Pete


On 3/11/11 6:54 PM, Kath O'Donnell wrote:
I don't really know how this all works, but I noticed in the 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball_in_the_Cook_Islands/GA1 page 
you linked it mentioned this:
If you feel that this assessment was in error, you may take it to 
WP:GAR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GAR. 


is that an option? do/could they have another person review it who 
might have more ideas to help you get it to GA? (or if not this link 
is there another)




Back to my reviewer, I'd rather he had failed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball/GA1 the article like the
reviewer failed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Netball_in_the_Cook_Islands/GA1
because while the Cook Islands one was a quick fail, the reviewer
offered clear examples, good feedback than can be worked towards
improving based on the examples, didn't drag it out and followed
the procedure.

It would be of great assistance if you could actually step in to
that discussion, examine what we said and actually help improve
the article to get it to good status based on the criteria that
the reviewer provided.


___
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] Advice for BLP situation (possibly off-topic)

[Pete Forsyth]

Hi Deanna,

This is a great question, and something that comes up a lot. There's lots that 
can be said, but I think the best piece of advice is this: it is NOT prohibited 
for her to edit her own biography. The conflict of interest guideline is just 
that..a guideline, not policy.

Of course it's a delicate area, and the way she comports herself will have a 
lot to do with how influential she is. It would probably be a good idea for her 
to explore Wikipedia editing elsewhere a little before tackling stuff on her 
own page, to get a feel for how things go.

But if anybody tells her she simply *can't* edit the page, they're flat-out 
wrong. I would highly recommend she clearly disclose who she is, and put her 
energy more into removing poorly sourced information (rather than writing 
original material). Writing original material is not entirely off-limits 
either, but it's more likely to run into resistance.

Hope this helps. I've done a lot of work in this area, with both people who 
were successful and others who were not; so please feel free to contact me on- 
or off-list if you want to discuss further.

-Pete


On May 11, 2011, at 9:58 AM, Deanna Zandt wrote:

 
 Hey all,
 
 Apologies if this isn't the appropriate list/discussion to post to; I learned 
 a lot by following the last BLP discussion, so I'm hoping to get some advice 
 here. It's a question that as a technology consultant I'm asked a lot, and I 
 don't have the greatest answer...
 
 I have a friend  colleague, a popular young NYC feminist, who's got a 
 Wikipedia page. She's often been the subject of multiple 
 troll/flame/stalking/etc wars, online and off, for many years now-- she was a 
 favorite target of Anon and 4chan/b/ at one time, to give you an idea. Her 
 page is rather sparse, but often people swing by and add inflammatory and 
 other negative material to it. Since she's not *that* well known, her page 
 isn't watched/edited by enough people to keep that in check, and she's often 
 left frustrated that this material figures so prominently in her profile.
 
 I told her the best thing for her to do is find people in her community who 
 can add more biographical information and really flesh out her page, so that 
 anything negative has at least more balance to it. Since her community is 
 mostly women, we butt up against the gendergap issue... there just aren't 
 that many women (esp feminists) who are into this work. She's asked on 
 multiple occasions if I or other consultants can be paid edit the page for 
 her, but I advised that this not kosher in the community.
 
 So, she's feeling extremely stuck. She's not supposed to edit her own page, 
 she doesn't have a strong enough community to maintain her page, and she 
 can't pay anyone to do it. What to do? I understand, and she understands, 
 that negativity is just part of the Wikipedia world; but having it be so 
 prominent, and most of it being inflammatory, is just... ugh. So much of her 
 work has been extremely positive and productive, I just hate to see her being 
 recorded in history this way.
 
 Any advice is greatly appreciated.
 
 
 
 dz
 
 -=-=-=-=-
 Deanna Zandt
 dea...@deannazandt.com
 Site: http://www.deannazandt.com/
 Twitter: http://twitter.com/randomdeanna
 Facebook: Public: http://facebook.com/deannazandt
 Facebook: Personal: http://facebook.com/deannaz
 
 Author: Share This! How You Will Change the World with Social Networking, 
 Berrett-Koehler, June 2010
 http://www.sharethischange.com/
 
 Be yourself; everyone else is already taken. -- Oscar Wilde
 
 
 
 
 
 ___
 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] [Commons-l] Fwd: Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

[Pete Forsyth]

In my opinion there's a large and pervasive problem behind today's controversy: 
in striking contrast to our core value of openness, it is very difficult to 
even *perceive* how important decisions like this are made. Both the technical 
and the editorial processes are pretty opaque to the average main page visitor.

I suspect there are ways the Commons pages relating to Picture of the Day could 
be improved to make it clearer to the reader how decisions are made, and how to 
meaningfully participate in those processes.

For instance, main page content could have a link named something like how did 
this get here? that would permit the reader to view the discussion that led to 
its inclusion on the main page. (This is just an off-the-cuff idea, to 
illustrate the general kind of usability changes I would like to explore.)

To put it another way, the issue behind today's controversy that interests me 
most is access. Increasing the ability of a large and diverse group to 
participate in important decisions (like what gets featured on the main Commons 
page) is something that would both honor the basic values of our project, and 
(I believe) support better content decisions in the future.

Anybody interested in tackling this issue?
-Pete


___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] [Commons-l] Fwd: Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

[Pete Forsyth]

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Sarah Stierch sa...@sarahstierch.comwrote:

  On 5/16/2011 11:49 AM, Pete Forsyth wrote:

 Anybody interested in tackling this issue?
 -Pete

 I'm working on diving into the HOW-TO this summer for Wiki. I do want to
 see all of these topics covered - and I'll contribute in anyway I can. Where
 do we start? ;-)


Hi Sarah,

I'd be really happy to work on this with you! (And anyone else).

My sense is that there's a lot of work to do in identifying the problem --
or rather, evaluating the collection of interrelated issues, and determining
where it's best to focus. The things that seem significant to me are:

(1) Picture of the Day on Commons often seems to be the source of
unnecessary strife (moreso than, say, PotD on English Wikipedia);
(2) It appears that there is not a clearly identified set of editorial
values around what DOES constitute a worthwhile PotD on Commons;
(3) The technical and social processes for setting a PotD are difficult to
understand and poorly documented.

How about if we collaborate a bit on documenting how things currently work?
I think that process will point the way toward recommending a solution.

I've set up a page for this project, if you're game!
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Peteforsyth/PotD

-Pete
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] Interesting article about online anonymity and gender

[Pete Forsyth]

Hi list,I thought this article might be of interest-Pete


http://www.fastcompany.com/1769217/there-are-no-secrets-from-twitter

You Can't Keep Your Secrets From TwitterBY DAVID
ZAXhttp://www.fastcompany.com/user/253232Tue
Jul 26, 2011
On the Internet, no one knows you're secretly a man (or woman), right? Think
again. Just by examining patterns in tweets, you can infer a Twitter user's
gender. A look at the words (Etsy, Jeep, redneck...) that make men and women
give themselves away.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Question for the Foundation about photographs of women

[Pete Forsyth]

On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 9:22 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:


  I would like to throw this back in a positive direction.  The task of
 deleting poor quality photographs (and metadata/provenance/paperwork
 is part of quality) is made much easier if we have good quality
 photographs of the same topic.  Nobody cares about deletions of bad
 photographs when those photographs are no longer used.  They do care
 when it is the only photo of its kind, because it is a precious
 resource.


An excellent point, John.

I wonder if there are organizations that (1) are concerned about gender
issues on Wikipedia, and (2) have the ability to generate a substantial
collection of high quality images to illustrate this sort of thing to the
commons. If so, there might be a great partnership/project opportunity
there.

-Pete
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] [wmau:members] Re: Wikipedia: Biography of Living People guide (focusing on sport)

[Pete Forsyth]

Just so it doesn't get lost as we look at the details (which is important
work, of course) -- I want to jump up and cheer! This is a really good
resource, as good and in some respects better than the outreach materials we
developed as part of the original Booshelf project:
http://bookshelf.wikimedia.org

Through the magic of our IRC chat channel, I've been able to see how
incredibly quickly you put this together, Laura -- and having worked on
similar materials, I'm super impressed. It's not easy work, but it's very
valuable. I hope to see more of this stuff coming out of your work in the
Australian sports world.

-Pete
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Question for the Foundation about photographs of women

[Pete Forsyth]

Update, and a request:

The discussion thread John started has been very active, with I think about
30 posts from a wide variety of customer service (OTRS) volunteers.

Summary:
* Many people agree that there is an important concern about readers who
find personal/traumatic content about themselves, and have reservations
about contacting an unknown email support team.
* Philosophical questions have been raised about addressing this with a
women-only support team
* There are also practical concerns about how that could be implemented

So, in consultation with several of the people on this list, I've made an
alternative proposal, which would not shake the foundations of the OTRS
team. Basically, that we should improve our public descriptions of Wikimedia
customer service, and encourage people to *ask* for what they want --
whether it's a woman to work with them privately, or any other kind of
special request. Along with a brief observation that such a request might
delay action a bit due to limited volunteer resources.

Please take a look at what I've written up here, and share your thoughts:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Peteforsyth/Customer_service

-Pete



On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 2:45 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  It seems like we have strong consensus that a separate customer support
 queue, run by and for women, would be a good idea. I certainly think so!
 
  Who here is active on OTRS? I'm on it, and on the email list, but I'm not
 active there. It might be best for somebody float the idea over there, see
 how it's received, and if there's agreement, figure out the steps to get it
 up and running. (I'm sure that having a small corps of female volunteers
 willing to staff it will be an essential element!)

 I'm not very active, .. :/
 I've initiated a discussion thread on the private otrs wiki, copying
 your email text and linking to this thread.

 http://otrs-wiki.wikimedia.org/wiki/Café#queue_for_verified_females

 --
 John Vandenberg

 ___
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] OFFLIST Re: Incentive programs and wikicups: Effectiveness?

[Pete Forsyth]

Hey Laura, I've been meaning to ask you this -- have you talked to Siska 
Doviana in Indonesia? She's run a couple university contests, and reported on 
them. I'm not sure if there's been formal research, but she is full of 
information. I could introduce you if you haven't met her.
-Pete

On Sep 23, 2011, at 2:30 AM, Laura Hale wrote:

 Has anyone done any research or know of any research that has looked into the 
 effectiveness of incentive programs like British Museum at 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Featured_Article_prize ?  Or 
 into the effectiveness of wikicups like Bacon at 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bacon/Bacon_WikiCup/2012 ? 
  Do they spur collaboration?  Do they engage new audiences that may not 
 otherwise have worked on content or similar content?  
 
 -- 
 twitter: purplepopple
 blog: ozziesport.com
 
 ___
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Pete Forsyth
petefors...@gmail.com
503-383-9454 mobile

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Gender neutrality template

[Pete Forsyth]

Andreas, my preference would be to stick with the NPOV banner we have (which is 
pretty sufficient for all manner of non-neutrality issues), and instead 
encourage people who use it to actually open a discussion on the talk page when 
applying the template.

It is all too common that someone will slap the banner on the top of an 
article, and move on without even mentioning what the problem is. Sometimes the 
banner remains for months or years without any discussion. I don't think that 
is particularly helpful; I would love to see people concerned with gender 
issues (along with many other issues) simply work on asserting their concerns 
in a clear and productive manner on the discussion page.

Also, this might make a great discussion on-wiki discussion topic, for instance 
at: http://enwp.org/WT:FEMINISM

-Pete



On Sep 30, 2011, at 8:30 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:

 What do you think about creating a {{gendergap}} or {{GNPOV}} (gender-neutral 
 point of view) template in en:WP? This could have a format similar to 
 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:NPOV
 
 and could use an image like 
 
 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Igualtat_de_sexes.svg
 
 The text could say something like: 
 
 The gender neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion 
 on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is 
 resolved.
 
 Note that templates of this sort come with associated categories such as
 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:NPOV_disputes_from_September_2011
 
 These categories can help identify articles with active disputes.
 
 Thoughts? 
 
 Do we already have a template like that that I am unaware of?  
 
 Best,
 Andreas
 ___
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Pete Forsyth
petefors...@gmail.com
503-383-9454 mobile

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] Canvassing

[Pete Forsyth]

On Oct 1, 2011, at 6:55 AM, Maggie wrote:

 Wikipedia is set up so that only people who look for these articles/pictures 
 will know about voting procedures. So of course if there is a vote, the 
 majority would probably be overall positive unless serious canvassing went on 
 to let people who care about the other side know about it so it evens out. 
 Canvassing is set up to prevent this--I believe it's actually a way of 
 biasing the community to serve only the community, and not the readers. 
 Because the readers are--the world. Telling people about the topic is just 
 like how any election goes. I guess unless you are in some sort of fake 
 election where people are led to believe that their votes actually count.

Maggie, I can relate to the frustration you're expressing. But I'd like to draw 
a distinction between the Canvassing guideline itself (which I consider a 
helpful and insightful document, that illuminates important collaborative 
practices) and the way accusations of Canvassing may be made in certain 
contexts.

The Canvassing guideline is an important part of our world. If you haven't read 
it recently, I highly recommend it: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CANVASS

It is often quoted by people who, I think, *haven't* read it closely, and used 
to criticize behavior that is actually constructive. That is a problem, but 
it's not a problem with the guideline itself.

-Pete___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] Civility

[Pete Forsyth]

Maggie, Beria, and all:

I've read through the discussion of Sue's blog post with a mixture of interest 
(in the substance of the various things that have been said) and concern (about 
the tenor). I want to address the second of those, the way we choose to 
communicate with each other.

There are two statements that stand out to me -- things that I feel simply 
should not be said among people convened around collaboration and equality.

Maggie, you said:

I'm not clear what point you are trying to prove, other than the 9% of 
girls' voices don't matter.

I can't begin to imagine which of Beria's words made you think that. She didn't 
say it. But it's the very first sentence of your response to her.

Beria, in a very brief message, you said:

… the lies Sue told in the post…

Lie is a very strong word. If you're going to make such an accusation (as 
opposed to I disagree or she is mistaken), I believe civility demands that 
you state VERY clearly and concisely, in the same message, precisely what you 
think the lie is. I did follow your link, and I think I understand your 
position; but for such a strong statement, I don't believe it's appropriate to 
expect your readers to go digging for the meaning.

If both of you feel your words above are appropriate to this list, I disagree. 
Honesty and the validity of women's views are core values that we all share 
here. Accusations to the contrary are not productive.

-Pete___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Canvassing

[Pete Forsyth]

On Oct 1, 2011, at 10:55 AM, Maggie wrote:

 I actually *have* read it very closely due to that situation. But thanks for 
 assuming that I am not capable of doing so.

Maggie -- sorry to give that impression. When I said if you haven't read it I 
had in mind the broad audience -- I'm confident there are people on this list 
who have not read it. (I had not looked at it for a long time myself before 
this discussion.) I made no assumption about your having read it or not. I 
could have stated it more clearly though, sorry about that.

-Pete


___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 9, Issue 5

[Pete Forsyth]

On Oct 1, 2011, at 1:25 PM, Theo10011 wrote:

 Wonderful, now I can finally sleep in peace knowing that it made sense to you.

Theo..please calm down. Plenty of us read and understand Sarah's posts, plenty 
of us read and understand your posts. This is not us vs. them. If you're 
feeling worked up about this, it might not be the best time to post to the 
list. Heavy sarcasm on a public list is rarely helpful.

-Pete


___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] washington dc

[Pete Forsyth]

 
 
 
 ___
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
 
 
 ___
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
 
 ___
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
 
 
 ___
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Pete Forsyth
petefors...@gmail.com
503-383-9454 mobile

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] Women, collective intelligence, and Wikipedia

[Pete Forsyth]

Hi all,

Eugene Kim, the consultant who facilitated Wikimedia's amazing five-year 
strategic planning process, has just posted an interesting blog post (with his 
new consulting agency, Groupaya).

http://groupaya.net/blog/2011/10/do-women-make-groups-smarter/

An excerpt:

 Tom Malone is the director of MIT’s Center for Collective Intelligence. A few 
 months ago, he published research with Carnegie Mellon’s Anita Woolley 
 suggesting that groups with more women exhibited greater collective 
 intelligence. It’s not that women have higher IQs than men. (Individual IQ 
 had little correlation with collective intelligence.) It’s that women tend to 
 exhibit more social sensitivity than men, and social sensitivity is a much 
 stronger contributing factor to group intelligence.

Kim goes on to discuss the implications for Wikipedia, a project that is highly 
collaborative and mostly male. He concludes with the idea that, in the interest 
of pursuing more effective collaboration, Wikipedia would benefit from more 
participation by women.

A good read, I recommend it.
-Pete
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] the state of civility on en.wiki

[Pete Forsyth]

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 7:19 AM, ChaoticFluffy chaoticflu...@gmail.comwrote:

Pete Forsyth's strategy looks good on paper, but my feeling is that for this
 particular *type* of uncivil editor (as opposed to your garden-variety
 editor who happens to have lost his temper), an approach of something like
 you know, you're talking to real people, and your words can come across
 somewhat hurtful to those people is usually met with I'm polite to people
 I respect, and I don't respect those people, which is simply no solution at
 all. Editors who see the right to not be yelled at or name-called as a
 privilege someone has to earn, rather than as a default right, are, in my
 opinion, not well-suited to wikipedia.

 -Fluffernutter


Yes, maybe there is a mismatch here between the kind of situation Ryan
describes and the experience I was reporting. Sorry if this comment was a
distraction; I absolutely agree that there are cases where a stronger
response is called for.

I think one of the big challenges is that strategies for coping with
incivility on a day-to-day basis are often at odds with broader strategies
to effect systemic change. Sometimes, the only way to get through a specific
situation with one's sanity and dignity intact involves a bit of appeasing
or lenience; but in the long run, appeasing and lenience make civility
issues more difficult to solve. I don't think there's an easy answer to this
tension, but I do think that talking about the various relevant experiences
we've had will be useful; so I'm glad this discussion is taking place.

I agree completely, by the way, that the I have earned the right to respect
or disrespect whomever I please meme should be stamped out and burned with
fire.

-Pete
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Please remove my comments including this one

[Pete Forsyth]

 Along this line, Risker, which form of posting is preferred in the Lists;
 posting below the person you are responding to (as I am doing here); or
 posting above it? I've seen it done both ways.

 Marc


Marc,

This could get fun -- more virtual ink has been spilled on the top-post
vs. bottom-post debate about mailing lists than on most topics :)

In my opinion, both are useful tools. For a detail-oriented discussion,
especially if several people are participating, putting your comments below
the prior post -- or weaving individual points in where they belong -- can
be the easiest to follow. In other cases, if what you're seeking to do is
reply broadly to the overall message(s) sent before, top-posting may work
better. (But if a certain approach has already taken hold within a
discussion, it's often less confusing if you follow the example of those
before you.)

Above all, I try to keep in mind how it will appear to the reader, and make
sure I'm presenting myself as clearly as possible. So I'd say,
case-by-case, and, as Risker says, trim stuff that is not essential to your
point.

Hope that helps!
-Pete
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Civility and the new Terms of Use

[Pete Forsyth]

Kaldari, I think you and I are very much of the same mind on the importance
of civility in general. However, I am skeptical about inserting a civility
requirement into the Terms of Use.

I think it's important to keep in mind that the primary purpose of this
document is to establish bright lines [1] that would define where the
*Wikimedia Foundation* (as distinct from the community) can or should take
action. Just because something is not present in the TOU does not mean it
is unimportant. Geoff Brigham (the WMF general counsel, who is leading the
TOU rewrite process) said one of the key goals of the TOU is to reduce
potential litigation costs by establishing a clear framework that makes it
possible to settle disputes out of court, rather than going to trial.

Civility is perhaps the most important ground rule of a collaborative
project, but I don't think it belongs in the TOU. To quote from the TOU
draft, The community undertakes the critical function of creating and
enforcing policies on Projects. I think that's the right way to go about
it: the TOU should create and support an expectation that the community is
the entity empowered to guide the projects, not the WMF.

I think that section 10 covers extreme cases pretty nicely: In an unusual
case, the need may arise or the community may ask us to address an
especially problematic user because of significant Project disturbance or
dangerous behavior. It establishes that this is the exception, not the
rule; it sets disturbance or danger as the bar that will invoke WMF
intervention, not mere incivility.

I think civility is one of the main things we should be working to improve,
but am skeptical about the TOU (or the threat of WMF intervention) as the
appropriate tool to do so.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]] on English Wikipedia etc.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bright-line_rule

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.orgwrote:

 There is a discussion at the talk page for the new Terms of Use about
 removing mention of civility:


 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terms_of_use#Civility_and_related_minefields

 As I believe that civility is an important issue for retaining new
 editors, I'm interested in what others on this list think of the idea.

 Ryan Kaldari

 ___
 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] Bothersome? (Re: Pimp)

[Pete Forsyth]

Hi Beria,

Yes, that is why I'm here as well. And I confess that right now, I do not
have a grand theory of how to fix it all; but I'm glad to talk about, or
work on, little ideas while the big ideas percolate.

Beria, you and I have both been here for a long time, both on the Gender
Gap list and on Wikimedia projects generally. And unless I'm missing
something, I don't think either of us have offered up a plan of how to
explore or reduce the gender gap. I agree with you that posts like Sarah's
are probably not getting to the core of the gender gap issue (and I suspect
she would agree) -- but personally, I don't think they do any harm, and I
do think they help people on this list find opportunities to work together
and begin to develop working relationships.

But..that's beside the point. How about if you and I both make an effort to
suggest issues this list could take on that would be useful? I would be
very interested to hear how you would like to approach things, and I could
probably manage to string together my thoughts in a useful way as well.
What do you think? Let's propose some alternative, or additional,
directions the discussion here might take.

-Pete


On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Béria Lima beria.l...@wikimedia.ptwrote:

 *I'm looking forward to hearing what Caroline would like to discuss, or
 Beria.*


 Well Peter, when I come here (the day the list was created) the idea was
 to create a list to discuss HOW TO REDUCE GENDER GAP (in caps to make it
 more clear), that was the propose and that was the one I accepted.

 So far, I saw lots of discussions about en.wiki articles and images, and
 very little about the main objective of this list. I'm asking too much that
 we actually start discuss what we came here to discuss? I don't think so.
 _
 *Béria Lima*
 Wikimedia Portugal http://wikimedia.pt
 (351) 963 953 042

 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
 livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
 construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*



 On 25 December 2011 19:41, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:

 Agreed. On Christmas (or any other day), I am thankful this list helps
 move things forward in a variety of ways, for a variety of different
 people. I'm looking forward to hearing what Caroline would like to discuss,
 or Beria. But glad to know your thoughts on pimp and madam sarah, and
 to see a suggested path to improving wikipedia content. I do enjoy that
 stuff the most. Collabotative encyclopedia writing is fucking awesome, and
 I love how everybody goes about it a little differently.

 Pete
 On Dec 25, 2011 11:25 AM, Ole Palnatoke Andersen palnat...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 7:41 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 ...
  It's a shame that my posts have been so bothersome for the list, I
 never
  knew that I was only making things worse, or not helping at all.

 I, for one, do not find your posts bothersome.
 I find no problem with having one gender-neutral article for barbers
 and hairdressers or for pimps and madams, but I do find it better to
 have *two* good articles on the respective subjects.


 Regards,
 Ole

 --
 http://palnatoke.org * @palnatoke * +4522934588

 ___
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap


 ___
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap



 ___
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap


___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Bothersome? (Re: Pimp)

[Pete Forsyth]

Beria,

It looks like we misunderstood each other pretty badly -- sorry if I didn't
express myself clearly. I'm genuinely interested in the kind of strategy
people on this list believe would improve gender-related issues. That
includes you.

Thanks for the reminder about the conference you're planning. I'm aware of
it, and am glad it's happening. My question (which was meant as an
invitation, not a challenge) is about your general thinking around the
conference. What is your theory about how to improve gender-related issues
in the Wikimedia world? (and how will things like this conference fit into
that thinking?) I'm not saying that I know the right theory (though I
suppose I have some ideas); when you reacted strongly against a specific
approach earlier in this thread, it made me wonder what your general
thinking is, and what kinds of tactics you *would* like to see. If you'd
like to share that, please consider this an invitation.

I'm not sure where the part about Wikimedia staff comes in. I'm not a WMF
employee, and haven't been for nearly a year; but even if I were, I don't
think it has anything to do with who gets to talk about what. As far as I'm
concerned, this list is not a WMF-specific space.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]] on English Wikipedia etc.


On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Béria Lima beria.l...@wikimedia.pt wrote:

 Is kinda funny that you ask what I'm doing, Peter. Sounds like unless I'm
 being paid for WMF to deal with Gender Gap I shouldn't have a voice, and
 shut the f*** up. But anyway

 You wanna know what I'm doing? I tell you: I'm organizing not one, but 2
 conferences with focus in the women in this movement.  The first one is the
 - already announced here - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWomenCamp
 and the second (1 day after this one) is a Gender Gap specify conference
 who will happens in the same place and city (more about this one soon). I
 also already made a presentation about Gender Gap to an event in India:
 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gender_Gap_in_Wikimedia_projects.pdf

 Now I'm qualified to talk?
 _
 *Béria Lima*
 Wikimedia Portugal http://wikimedia.pt
 (351) 963 953 042

 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
 livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
 construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*


 On 25 December 2011 20:04, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi Beria,

 Yes, that is why I'm here as well. And I confess that right now, I do not
 have a grand theory of how to fix it all; but I'm glad to talk about, or
 work on, little ideas while the big ideas percolate.

 Beria, you and I have both been here for a long time, both on the Gender
 Gap list and on Wikimedia projects generally. And unless I'm missing
 something, I don't think either of us have offered up a plan of how to
 explore or reduce the gender gap. I agree with you that posts like Sarah's
 are probably not getting to the core of the gender gap issue (and I suspect
 she would agree) -- but personally, I don't think they do any harm, and I
 do think they help people on this list find opportunities to work together
 and begin to develop working relationships.

 But..that's beside the point. How about if you and I both make an effort
 to suggest issues this list could take on that would be useful? I would be
 very interested to hear how you would like to approach things, and I could
 probably manage to string together my thoughts in a useful way as well.
 What do you think? Let's propose some alternative, or additional,
 directions the discussion here might take.

 -Pete


 On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Béria Lima beria.l...@wikimedia.ptwrote:

 *I'm looking forward to hearing what Caroline would like to discuss, or
 Beria.*


 Well Peter, when I come here (the day the list was created) the idea was
 to create a list to discuss HOW TO REDUCE GENDER GAP (in caps to make it
 more clear), that was the propose and that was the one I accepted.

 So far, I saw lots of discussions about en.wiki articles and images, and
 very little about the main objective of this list. I'm asking too much that
 we actually start discuss what we came here to discuss? I don't think so.
 _
 *Béria Lima*
 Wikimedia Portugal http://wikimedia.pt
 (351) 963 953 042

 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
 livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
 construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*



 On 25 December 2011 19:41, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:

 Agreed. On Christmas (or any other day), I am thankful this list helps
 move things forward in a variety of ways, for a variety of different
 people. I'm looking forward to hearing what Caroline would like to discuss,
 or Beria. But glad to know your thoughts on pimp and madam sarah, and
 to see a suggested path to improving wikipedia content. I do enjoy that
 stuff the most. Collabotative

Re: [Gendergap] A Spanish book from 1845...

[Pete Forsyth]

Hi Emijrp,

Looks like a great find!

It seems to me that transcribing these volumes onto Wikisource would be a
great step toward getting them used as sources for Wikipedia articles. In
case you (or somebody else on the list) are not familiar with Wikisource,
it's basically a place where you can:
* start with scanned books (like those you linked below)
* transcribe them (using a combination of Optical Character Recognition and
manual transcription)
* match up the transcribed pages with the scanned images (for an example,
see:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page%3AEnglish_Caricaturists_and_Graphic_Humourists_of_the_nineteenth_century.djvu/56)

The advantages are many, but here are a few:
* Once a book is transcribed, it's easy to use a tool like
translate.google.com to get a rough translation into another language
* It's possible to use wikilinks to Wikipedia articles, Wiktionary
definitioins, etc. to add context
* It's possible to make small readability/usability improvements on the
original, like neatly aligned bullet lists, linkable footnotes, etc.

So, it might be interesting to start transcribing one of these volumes to
Wikisource as a first step toward using them in Wikipedia. There are some
very sophisticated tools that automate a lot of the process; I'm not a
great expert myself, but if you'd like, I could see if there's a Spanish
speaker who could guide you through the process of uploading these to
Spanish Wikisource.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]] on English Wikipedia, Wikisource, etc.


On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 5:39 AM, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote:

 ...with biographies about females, 3 volumes:

- Volume 1: http://books.google.es/books?id=zhxCuOr0gRECpg=PR3hl=es
- Volume 2:

 http://books.google.es/books?id=VBZt5xlN4L0Cprintsec=frontcoverhl=essource=gbs_ge_summary_rcad=0
- Volume 3:

 http://books.google.es/books?id=ETgBQAAJprintsec=frontcoverhl=essource=gbs_ge_summary_rcad=0

 Perhaps it deserves an entry here
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MISSING

 ___
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap


___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] Sarah Stierch on Huffington Post! On why women should care about SOPA and PIPA.

[Pete Forsyth]

Subject line says it all. That's right, on the day that the most
widely-read original content site on the Internet went black in protest of
the SOPA and PIPA bills, Sarah went to the *second* most widely-read
original content site [1] to talk about it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarah-stierch/sopa-blackout_b_1213149.html

Great post, Sarah!

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]


[1] Fact-check that, please?
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] [wmau:members] Australian women's national water polo team

[Pete Forsyth]

Agreed -- excellent work, Laura and Bidgee!

On case studies -- one person who has self-documented extensively on
gaining access to public figures for photos is David Shankbone. But he's
blogged about tons of things, so it will take a little work to dig through
and find the best reflective posts on that subject.

Here's a 2009 article about his work:
http://www.cjr.org/on_the_job/the_wikinews_ace.php?page=all

His blog is at http://shankbone.org

It would be awesome to explore the kinds of techniques various people have
used to get this kind of access! A good project for the GLAM portal or
other outreach pages.

-Pete


On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote:

  Great photos Laura! It's super cool that Bigbee is volunteeering their
 time and skill to help out with the project.

 Even cooler that the water polo folks gave you guys such great access.
 It'd be cool to see some case studies developed on gaining access to
 subjects.

 -Sarah


 On 2/24/12 3:57 PM, Laura Hale wrote:



 On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 1:06 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:

 Great work Laura and Bidgee!

 I noticed a problem with the first image page I clicked on.  Maybe
 others have the same problem.


 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ANicola_Zagame.jpgdiff=67465143oldid=67443407


  Fixed.  I think all of them have been fixed anyway.  Not sure about the
 descriptions and if they really should have more as it might be nice to try
 to take one or two to featured pictured: The people: sports category lacks
 women. :(  I've mentioned it in signpost suggestions at
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#First_time_for_national_team_picturesand
  would be awesome to get a mention. :)

  Bidgee upload the pictures of the Brits.  These are pretty awesome too.
 :D

  
 File:Great_Britain_water_polo_coach_at_AIS_Aquatic_Centre.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Great_Britain_water_polo_coach_at_AIS_Aquatic_Centre.jpg
 File:Great_Britain_water_polo_player_at_AIS_Aquatic_Centre_(1).jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Great_Britain_water_polo_player_at_AIS_Aquatic_Centre_%281%29.jpg
 File:Great_Britain_water_polo_player_at_AIS_Aquatic_Centre.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Great_Britain_water_polo_player_at_AIS_Aquatic_Centre.jpg
 File:Great_Britain_water_polo_players_and_coach_at_AIS_Aquatic_Centre.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Great_Britain_water_polo_players_and_coach_at_AIS_Aquatic_Centre.jpg
 File:Great_Britain_water_polo_players_at_AIS_Aquatic_Centre.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Great_Britain_water_polo_players_at_AIS_Aquatic_Centre.jpg

  I think the pictures do a good job at showing frustration at a losing
 game.  I really need to learn to use Wikinews to write more about this
 stuff.  Would be great to see more women's topics and Australian topics
 covered on the project, and more people to get accredited as reporters. :)

  --
 twitter: purplepopple
 blog: ozziesport.com



 ___
 Gendergap mailing 
 listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap



 --
 *Sarah Stierch*
 *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
 Support the sharing of free knowledge around the world: donate 
 todayhttps://donate.wikimedia.org/
 

 ___
 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] WikiWomen's History Month outcomes

[Pete Forsyth]

Women's History Month lives on!!

On April 21, Selena Deckelmann and I will be hosting an edit-a-thon in 
Portland, Oregon, based largely on our experiences at the one in San Francisco. 
We're making women and technology one of two suggested topic areas (the other 
being Portland/Oregon history).

The meetup page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland

-Pete


On Apr 4, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:

 Hi everyone,
 
 I am in the process of developing a wrap-up about WikiWomen's History Month! 
 If you created, improved on, uploaded, etc. any content in honor of women's 
 history month it'd be fabulous if you could add your outcomes to this page:
 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiWomen%27s_History_Month/Outcomes
 
 Thanks! Any off-list feedback about events you attended or your feelings 
 about the event are welcome as well. 
 
 -Sarah
 
 -- 
 Sarah Stierch
 Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow
 Support the sharing of free knowledge around the world: donate today
 ___
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Pete Forsyth
petefors...@gmail.com
503-383-9454 mobile

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Article Cumshot in English and German Wikipedia

[Pete Forsyth]

I agree with what Beria says here. And I think it's a very important 
distinction, especially when comparing to Sue's blog post. Sue's post was about 
the article pregnancy -- not an article about pornography.

On a personal level, I happen to agree with you that there's lots of 
pornographic material on Wikipedia that doesn't really advance its status as an 
encyclopedia. If I had the luxury of designing Wikipedia myself, it probably 
wouldn't have an article on cumshot. But our personal opinions are not really 
the point.

What you're proposing, to delete such an image, goes pretty strongly against 
long-standing ideas about what Wikipedia is. I wouldn't suggest taking on an 
effort to make such a change without a great deal of effort to absorb the 
related discussions over the years, and thinking carefully about what new ideas 
you might have to bring to the discussion that hasn't been discussed before.

-Pete


On Apr 27, 2012, at 10:50 AM, Béria Lima wrote:

 Katrin, I hate to be captain obvious here, but: Do you know that cun shot 
 is a porn related term right? Only used in Porn related articles (see related 
 articles)? And that what is in the article isn't a picture, but a 
 illustration?
 
 I do agreed when people complained about the naked gardening article and pic, 
 because isn't a sex related article. But this IS a sex related article, not 
 only, this one is a PORN related article. Is not like someone will fall there 
 accidentally by looking for Jesus or Santa. Therefore, I don't see the reason 
 to censor the article.
  
 Béria Lima
 
 Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre 
 acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse 
 sonho.
 
 
 On 27 April 2012 08:51, Katrin Rönicke kat...@yahoo.de wrote:
 Hey everybody,
 
 a friend of mine sent me a notice: the Wikipedia article Cumshot has a 
 picture which in my humble opinion is nothing else than pornography. once 
 again.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumshot
 
 I already tried to delete it from the German Wikipedia - but its being 
 restored immediately ... 
 there has already been a great discussion about it in the German Wikipedia 
 (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Cumshot) and its the usual thing: 
 moralty, a narrowed mind and everything is being used against critics of the 
 picture...
 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Cumshot 
 its almost the same in the English Wikipedia: 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cum_shot arguing you need to have it, 
 because it's an encyclopedia - to me seems really bizarre. 
 
 I really doubt, that there is ANY need for a picture in articles like this 
 one.
 I really doubt if there is ANY need of the article... but I would be able to 
 get along with it. accept it. especially if it has - like the English one 
 has, the German one not - a more deeper view of the intellectual discussion, 
 like the critique of Dworkin und the answer of Moore. (And I really like to 
 have this in the German Wikipedia too - when i find the time, I'm going to 
 edit it).
 
 So what do you think could be done, that articles like this are not seen as 
 an invitation and perfect explanation for using pornographic pictures... ?
 
 Maybe we can come back to some points Sue Gardner made several Months ago 
 (talking about the picture of the naked woman in the pregnancy article): What 
 are the quality-rules we want to have for Wikipedia, to make it an 
 encyclopedia? what kind of picturing does a good encyclopedia need - which 
 not?
 
 Maybe the best way of discussing such issues really is from a neutral point 
 of view and generally discussed for all kinds of pictures - not only those 
 few pornographic examples. 
 
 Katrin
 
 ---
 mailto:kat...@fraulila.de
 Frau Lila - Feministische Initiative
 Katrin-Roenicke.de
 Meine Kolumne beim Freitag
 
 Hilfskraft am Lehrstuhl für Politische Theorie
 
 ___
 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

Pete Forsyth
petefors...@gmail.com
503-383-9454 mobile

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] The Dell Summit

[Pete Forsyth]

On May 13, 2012 5:40 PM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:

 Have we any sources other than the blog post?

Yes -- the cnet column, among others. But isn't this the sort of discussion
that belongs on article talk pages, and maybe a wikiproject talk page?

Don't get me wrong -- I'm glad this was posted to the list, and very
interested in people's perspectives on how it relates to general gender and
tech issues, and what kind of action it might warrant.

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Should gender gappers really pay attention?

[Pete Forsyth]

On May 30, 2012, at 11:37 AM, Laura Hale wrote:

 On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:28 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:
 I believe issues relating to pornography are germane to a list discussing the 
 gender gap, and I'm happy to be informed about them (as with Andreas' initial 
 post) on this list. It's one of the reasons I subscribe to this list.
 
 Laura, if there was consensus around a different point of view at your 
 conference, that's fine; but it's not binding on anybody who wasn't part of 
 that consensus.
 
 In the mean time, please stop dismissing us and discounting our opinions.

Laura, I think you're hearing things I didn't say. I'm not dismissing anybody's 
opinions; I am very interested, in fact, in what was discussed and what the 
outcomes were from the WikiWomenCamp.

My point is this, and this only: I think if members of this list feel there are 
issues worth bringing up, relating to pornography on Wikipedia, that it's 
within the remit of the list. It's the sort of thing I'm here to hear about.

I don't know that it's a primary reason; and I don't think Andreas said it is. 
I don't believe it has to be a primary reason to be worthy of mention.

That's all I have to say about it -- I don't have anything to add to what 
Andreas said, or to what you said. I just want to assert that in my opinion, 
it's reasonable for Andreas to bring up this topic on this list.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] gendergap research

[Pete Forsyth]

On May 31, 2012, at 11:40 AM, Michael J. Lowrey wrote:

 On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
 Please consider the likelihood that there may be a correlation between the
 let-it-all-hang-out attitude towards porn, and the problem you describe as
 sexualized behavior – sexist comments and bad manners.
 
 The let-it-all-hang-out approach towards porn is likely
 
 – to attract people who engage in sexualized behavior – sexist comments and
 bad manners, and
 – to repel the type of people who would be allies within the community to
 shoot down behaviour like that (civility!).
 
 A more responsible and mainstream approach, on the other hand, is apt to
 repel the first and attract the second type of contributor.
 
 {{citation needed}}
 
 Unquestioned premises almost inevitably lead to false conclusions. In
 this case, the unquestioned premise is that those who oppose
 censorship are people who engage in (or at least tolerate) sexist
 comments and bad manners, as opposed to the possibility that those who
 people oppose censorship believe in opposing censorship as a matter of
 principle. You are unilaterally defining opponents of censorship as
 irresponsible, out of the mainstream, and unwilling to support
 civility: again I say, {{citation needed}}!

Too commonly on Wikimedia projects, the following two positions are conflated:

(1) Concern about the ratio of content (e.g. the number of one kind of photo 
vs. another kind of photo) or the social dynamics around editing
(2) Willingness to engage in censorship

The two are simply not the same. To have a concern (like 1) is not to endorse 
one specific course of action (like 2). Offhand, I can't think of any actively 
engaged Wikipedian who has ever seriously endorsed censorship in our projects.

In general, within our projects and mailing lists, I'd like to see less 
inflammatory rhetoric based on this kind of conflation. I don't think it 
advances the discussion to label people as supporting censorship, when they 
have done no such thing.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] positive action Re: Nastiness

[Pete Forsyth]

I'm not so sure. As soon as the incident was noted, the article was
semi-protected, which solved the problem.

Perhaps you are suggesting flagged revisions for *all* biographies of
living persons (BLPs), by default?

-Pete


On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
 This case presents a good argument for flagged revisions. Given that the
 people who made these edits weren't logged in, none of their additions and
 changes would have been visible to the public.

 Andreas


 On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:04 AM, koltzenb...@w4w.net wrote:

 Hi Gillian,

 thank you for this information

 do you have any suggesting as a positive action that members of this list
 might take, in this case as well as
 generally?

 open for suggestions,
 Claudia

 On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:33:38 +1000, Gillian White wrote
  Hi All,
  The Community is aware of this and is discussing it. However, it's
  worthwhile bringing to the attention of this list that one woman's
  efforts
  at studying gender stereotyping (reported in The New
 
  Statesmanhttp://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/internet/2012/06/dear-internet-
  why-you-cant-have-anything-nice) have resulted in massive and nasty
  vandalism of Anita Sarkeesian's page on Wikipedia
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian.
  Gillian


 thanks  cheers,
 Claudia
 koltzenb...@w4w.net


 ___
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap



 ___
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap


___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] On Ms. Sarkeesian - tropes - and notability

[Pete Forsyth]

Just thought I'd point out -- it's not just this list that is taking a
stronger interest in Anita since she started blogging about her experience.
Check out the number of page views the bio had in May vs. June (so far):

May 2012: 648 views
June 2012: 32,754 views

http://stats.grok.se/en/201206/Anita%20Sarkeesian

-Pete
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Holly Graf

[Pete Forsyth]

On Jun 18, 2012 4:38 PM, Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com wrote:
 your efforts and the efforts of other men like Andreas are probably
better spent improving the article about her to remove this material.

Are there efforts you would recommend for women that are different, Laura?

Pete

[[User:peteforsyth]]
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] WikiWomen's Luncheon at Wikimania

[Pete Forsyth]

Good question. I wonder if this sort of survey has been done more generally for 
conferences? I would imagine all the factors mentioned here would apply to 
conference attendance generally, not specific to Wikimania. Which might speak 
to how effective we could reasonably expect conferences to be in addressing the 
gender gap.

-Pete


On Jul 5, 2012, at 8:18 AM, Karen Sue Rolph wrote:

 Dear colleagues,
 
 I hope someone with survey design experience will be at this event and 
 collect data on how many mothers manage to attend this event.  We need to 
 know whether women have adult or young children, and whether they are single 
 parents, their ethnicity, and professional training.  This will provide truly 
 useful data, if done scientifically.  I can help write an instrument if 
 called upon to do so.  Let us not overlook single parent fathers and 
 alternative parents.  My hypothesis is that there will be extremely few of 
 any of these.  Dads (in some ethnicities) get a social 'bonus' for being 
 parents (increased social status), unlike mothers, so its important to 
 distinguish clearly who is supporting and raising children, not just having 
 parented and kids exist in the world kinds of data.
 
 KSRolph
 ___
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Pete Forsyth
petefors...@gmail.com
503-383-9454 mobile

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] uk chairman band

[Pete Forsyth]

In my opinion, it's very much within the remit of this list to share
anything that creates an environment that is not welcoming to new
contributors. It doesn't need to be proven every time, as far as I'm
concerned, that women are disproportionately affected, for a topic to be
germane to this list.

In this case, I consider it highly relevant information, considering that
someone in a position of trust in our community (chair of the UK board) was
found by English Wikipedia's highest authority:

* (unanimously) to have violated important policies meant to protect the
health of the community (failing to disclose information about his past
accounts that he was required to disclose)
* (by a slim majority) to have made unacceptable personal attacks
* (unanimously) to have made ad hominem attacks to discredit others
* to have attempted to deceive the community on more than one count
* was banned (indefinitely, with opportunity for appeal starting in 1 year)
from editing the encyclopedia

I am aware that this person has made a number of high quality contributions
to our site, and is well respected for much of his work, and do not
discount that in any way. But the fact that he would continue in a position
of trust, as chair of the Board of the UK Wikimedia chapter, in light of
these findings, is distressing to me. It seems to me that he, and the board
that is supporting him (I'm unclear whether it's the UK or WMF board) is
choosing to place his personal status above the interests of the movement,
and choosing to accept the consequences of a story like this, which in my
view will surely tend to discourage people from participating in the
Wikimedia movement.

I don't carry any ill will toward this person, or wish to deny his efforts
to continue to contribute to our projects. But it does distress me that he
would continue to carry a Wikimedia business card, and represent our
movement in a high-profile position of trust, in light of these findings.

And I'm glad to have information about something like this posted on a list
dedicated to the removal of barriers to participation.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]


On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com wrote:



 On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:

 I have to be honest here, I'm not really certain what this thread has to
 do with the gender gap. It just feels more like gossip than anything,
 particularly as a significant portion of the reporting either (a) has
 nothing to do with the purported subject of the articles and/or (b) is
 inaccurate.

 Risker/Anne


 This.  No one has provided any solid evidence of a connection between the
 limited presence of a few pornographic pictures on Wikipedia and the
 gendergap.  At best, the gender gap story here would be: This sort of story
 discourages women from becoming involved.

 --
 twitter: purplepopple
 blog: ozziesport.com


 ___
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap


___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Wikimania Feedback Comment on luncheon

[Pete Forsyth]

I've been following this thread with great interest -- this is a subject
that fascinates me, and that I've put a lot of thought into. In particular,
I looked into a variety of ways to approach introductions when working with
Sarah and Lori Byrd Phillips to plan GLAMcamp DC.

The consistent theme here, I think, is a desire to balance two things: (1)
a desire for everyone to be introduced to everyone else, and (2) a desire
to create a space for more intimate and participatory connections, that go
beyond a sentence or two.

At GLAMcamp DC, with some solid advice from Eugene Eric Kim (CC'd here), I
ended up choosing:

(1) a general BRIEF introduction, paired with:

(2) a more structured activity that allowed people to go into more depth in
smaller groups.

I know that adding this kind of structure to an event can feel cheesy and
forced, but I think it's worth considering anyway, if it helps you to
achieve objectives that are in tension. Without a bit of structure, and
with 100+ people (or even 30) in a short period of time, a less-planned
everyone listens to everyone else format means that everybody in the room
is spending A LOT more time listening than talking.

I blogged about how I came to this particular format here:
http://wikistrategies.net/glamcamp-dc-plan/

But the more useful links, probably, are the ones on the specific formats
Eugene suggested to me (any of which might be worth considering for the
WikiWomen's Lunch as well):

   - World Café http://www.theworldcafe.com/method.html: Small groups
   converse, in several rounds, mixing up groups between rounds, and taking
   notes to report back.
   - Fish Bowl 
Dialoguehttp://www.unconference.net/unconference-methods-fish-bowl-dialogue/:
   A few people start a conversation in the middle of the room. The rest
   listen. An empty seat invites anyone to join the discussion at any time;
   but when one person joins, another must leave.
   - Merging 
introductionshttp://groupaya.wikispaces.com/Pair%2C+quad%2C+octet:
   This is the method I chose. People pair up for a few minutes, then the
   pairs combine, and then the groups of four combine. During the process,
   participants move from introducing themselves to exploring concrete ideas.
   Then, each group of eight reports back to the whole group.

I hope these ideas are useful -- and am very interested in any other
formats people might have experience with, or comments/questions on these
ones.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]


On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Valerie Aurora
vale...@adainitiative.orgwrote:

 I do really like having these kinds of introductions - I am always
 amazed by the breadth and variety of interests that people have and it
 is a good lesson for me about my stereotypes and assumptions about
 women I haven't overcome yet.  It's also a great way to find people
 you want to meet.

 But I agree it took too long.  That introduction format worked really
 well at AdaCamp DC - for a variety of reasons that didn't apply at
 that lunch and I wasn't even aware of during the AdaCamp intros.  You
 can get through 125 introductions of that form very quickly if you
 have:

 * Good models to start the introductions off by adhering strictly to
 the (very short) format
 * Strict reinforcement of the format whenever people start to get wordy
 * Two microphones so you don't have mike-passing time in between intros

 I first saw this style of introduction at FOOCamp, which has it down
 to a science, but it's harder than it looks, as we found. :)

 My two cents is that the lunch should be longer!  I like to schedule
 at least an hour and half. :) Overall, I was thrilled with the whole
 lunch.

 -VAL

 On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Gillian White whiteghost@gmail.com
 wrote:
  I agree that 125 introductions is not a productive or fun way to use a
 short
  amount of time. In this instance, the process halted all conversation and
  created a no-win situation for members of the audience - either try to
  concentrate on an impossible-to-remember roll-call, or ignore the
 speakers.
  Neither is good and leaving the room would be even more impolite.
 However,
  it is good to have a problem that results from success!
 
  A solution depends on what the purpose of the meeting is. If the purpose
  changes from a lunch meeting, different approaches could be used but
  multiple meetings or more scheduled talks should probably become strands
 of
  the conference. The trick is to balance structure and lack of structure
 in
  line with the principles and purpose.
 
  Assuming the meeting continues to be a lunch meeting, I think the
 principles
  that need to be remembered for such an event involving such a number of
  people are:
  - there is not much time and that time has to allow for eating (IMHO that
  does not mean wandering around trying to hold food and talk at the same
  time);
  - anything repetitive is bound to be tedious;
  - since there is a major conference in session, anything formal, other
 than
  a 

Re: [Gendergap] Maya Angelou

[Pete Forsyth]

On Aug 1, 2012 11:09 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote:
 Miss Angelou

Sorry to be a nitpicker, but while in high school I had the privilege of
meeting DOCTOR Angelou (through a Facing History and Ourselves program),
and it was impressed on us early and often (and effectively, it seems)
before that meeting that DOCTOR Angelou's name is DOCTOR Angelou, not Maya,
Miss Angelou, etc :)

Kudos, from me too, on the FA!
Pete
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Reminder of Feminism Article Alerts

[Pete Forsyth]

On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Carol Moore DC carolmoor...@verizon.netwrote:

  Questionable just means one has questions.


I disagree. I think questionable is a highly charged word that's usually
understood to be rhetorical (whether or not it was intended that way).

For instance, if I say I find the circumstances around Barack Obama's
birth certificate questionable, I think it's pretty clear that would be a
political point -- not idle curiosity about the technicalities of what
happened. (Please note the IF :)

I haven't looked at these AfDs, so I don't really have any opinion about
whether or not their motives are questionable, beyond the starting point of
assuming good faith. But if something is going to be called out as
questionable, I think it's reasonable to expect that those whose motives
are being questioned would be affronted, and that they deserve an
explanation about why their motives are being publicly called into question.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Reminder of Feminism Article Alerts

[Pete Forsyth]

On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.comwrote:

 I haven't looked at these AfDs


Whoops -- correction, I actually did !vote in one of these AfDs (Todd Akin
rape and pregnancy controversy), just didn't realize it was one of those
being called out. Sorry -- no deception intended.

And in this case, I frankly don't see any reason for departing from AGF and
questioning the motive of the nominator. It seems like a pretty
straightforward question of whether it's better to have a separate article
or whether to keep the content merged. We have these discussions all the
time, on all kinds of subjects; I'm puzzled about how such a question could
be pro or anti woman, it's a simple question of content structure, with
plenty of good faith Wikipedians supporting both positions.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Explosion in listings... Re: Category: Female Wikipedians

[Pete Forsyth]

To me it seems beneficial to have a broadly accessible opportunity to formulate 
and answer questions about self-identified women on Wikipedia. The benefit is 
in empowering researchers and our community to pursue interesting questions -- 
but by definition, we don't know what the questions are yet :)

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Sep 24, 2012, at 3:39 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:

 On 9/24/12 3:37 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:
 So. The implications of this. Good, bad, or does it really achieve anything?
 
 From,
 Emily
 
 I'm not sure if there really is any good or bad implication, so to say. All 
 it shows is that, in theory, there are approximately 1700 people in English 
 Wikipedia who may identify as a female. 
 
 I wonder how many of these editors are active. 
 
 -Sarah
 
 -- 
 Sarah Stierch
 ___
 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] Explosion in listings... Re: Category: Female Wikipedians

[Pete Forsyth]

Yeah, I agree with John, those sorts of question becomes easier to answer when 
there's more immediate information available (even if the information isn't 
perfect or complete).

In addition, I can imagine that exploring the category and looking at user 
pages might inspire the formulation of more detailed questions.

As an analogy, today I was reading a biography of political analyst Nate 
Silver, famous for being the first to call the 2008 U.S. presidential election. 
One of his earlier claims to fame, as a baseball statistician, was extending 
the work of Bill James, a famous baseball statistician. He looked for patterns 
in pitching performance that took into account physical characteristics -- 
e.g., height and weight.

I would guess that Silver's inspiration to start that project originated with 
the greater accessibility of data in his era (the 2000s) than James' era (the 
1980s).

In other words: if you remove obstacles, surprising things can happen.

In one case, you can end up with a huge and fascinating encyclopedia.
Perhaps in another, you can end up with useful research about gender and 
Wikipedia.

Removing barriers isn't a measurable benefit in itself, but it can support the 
emergence of things that are beneficial.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Sep 24, 2012, at 4:02 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:

 Well, I am a GED graduate on disability, if that helps.
 
 From,
 Emily
 
 
 On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 6:01 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Emily Monroe emilymonro...@gmail.com wrote:
  So, what are the questions?
 
 Why do women start?  Why do women quit?  Is it different from reasons men 
 quit?
 
 Is there a sector where outreach has a higher conversion rate into
 Wikipedian Women?
 
 Is there an age bracket where outreach has a higher conversion rate
 into Wikipedian Women?
 
 (e.g.)  I suspect that our women typically come from glam  education,
 whereas our men typically come from IT  law.
 
 --
 John Vandenberg
 
 ___
 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

Pete Forsyth
petefors...@gmail.com
503-383-9454 mobile

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Binders full of women

[Pete Forsyth]

Amusingly enough…I did a Wikipedia presentation Thursday at the Open Education 
conference, and as I often do, asked for a suggestion of a current issue. 
Binders full of women was the topic suggested, so we found exactly that 
deletion debate and discussed it. And lo and behold, that screen capture became 
the image shown on the YouTube preview for the video. Not exactly what I would 
have picked…so yeah, another big laugh, for me at least :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QeIiv-BYTsfeature=plcp

Here's hoping Romney refers those binders full of women to Wikipedia!

-Pete


On Oct 22, 2012, at 10:11 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:

 If you're familiar with recent Romney comment about having Binders full of 
 women you'll get a big laugh out of this:
 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Binders_full_of_women
 
 -Sarah
 
 -- 
 Sarah Stierch
 Museumist and open culture advocate
 Visit sarahstierch.com
 ___
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Pete Forsyth
petefors...@gmail.com
503-383-9454 mobile

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Binders full of women

[Pete Forsyth]

I just checked on this thread out of curiosity, and found it has been closed in 
about as sensible and articulate a way as I've seen. I think the closing 
comments are a model of consensus assessment, and well worth a look:

The result was no consensus. The argument that it passes WP:N are hard to 
overcome. NOTNEWS is much trickier - how can one evaluate the long-term 
significance of a event that happened a week ago? I can't see the case that 
it's routine news reporting the way baseball games, horroscopes, or traffic 
reports are - one would need to make a compelling case, which isn't done here. 
There is, I think, a sufficient consensus that the phrase and subsequent meme 
should be mentioned either in an article, or in an article about the second 
debate (which appears to be merged into an article about all the debates at the 
moment). I can't tell which from this discussion, because both positions rely 
strongly on guessing what may come, partisan assertions. The argument that it's 
POV to merely have an article on the topic would need a compelling argument, 
not just a straightforward assertion, given that the sources come from across 
the political spectrum. If it was only far left sources repeating it, I would 
be inclined to give that position serious weight - not so much when it's the 
Globe  Mail. As with every article, merger remains an editorial possibility if 
a local consensus agrees to it (since people often ask this be stated 
explicitly). I wasn't able to detect a trend that way in the discussion - but 
it's tricky, because the sources kept appearing as the discussion continued, 
which may have changed the calculus is a way that a discussion like this, with 
much heat but little light, didn't illuminate. WilyD 12:37 am, Yesterday (UTC−7)

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]


On Oct 23, 2012, at 7:10 AM, Jane Darnell wrote:

 Very funny to read those delete and keep reasons, thanks!
 
 2012/10/23 Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com
 Amusingly enough…I did a Wikipedia presentation Thursday at the Open 
 Education conference, and as I often do, asked for a suggestion of a current 
 issue. Binders full of women was the topic suggested, so we found exactly 
 that deletion debate and discussed it. And lo and behold, that screen capture 
 became the image shown on the YouTube preview for the video. Not exactly what 
 I would have picked…so yeah, another big laugh, for me at least :)
 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QeIiv-BYTsfeature=plcp
 
 Here's hoping Romney refers those binders full of women to Wikipedia!
 
 -Pete
 
 
 On Oct 22, 2012, at 10:11 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
 
 If you're familiar with recent Romney comment about having Binders full of 
 women you'll get a big laugh out of this:
 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Binders_full_of_women
 
 -Sarah
 
 -- 
 Sarah Stierch
 Museumist and open culture advocate
 Visit sarahstierch.com
 ___
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
 
 Pete Forsyth
 petefors...@gmail.com
 503-383-9454 mobile
 
 
 ___
 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

Pete Forsyth
petefors...@gmail.com
503-383-9454 mobile

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Fwd: [Wikimedia-l] 2012 Editor survey launched

[Pete Forsyth]

On Nov 1, 2012, at 8:07 PM, Sue Gardner wrote:

 On 1 November 2012 18:47, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
 Are we supposed to be seeing this invitation, or has it not been posted yet?
 
 I saw it today, on either meta or Commons (I forget which).

Showed up for me on ENWP.

-Pete
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

[Pete Forsyth]

As possibly the only person in this discussion who's been to Bagby, I'd
hasten to point out that arguably, including nudity in the article would be
the most accurate way to depict it. I've seen more naked people there than
clothed people.

But yes, I agree with Sarah -- having images of naked people on Commons is
a very different thing than having naked people used to illustrate an
encyclopedia article. And this particular example is one of many, many
thousands of images of nudity on Commons, some of which are far more
problematic. I would urge anyone wanting to take this issue on to spend
some time processing maybe 20 or 30 of the dozens of deletion requests that
come through Commons on a daily basis. It's a good way to get a sense of
the scope of the issues involved, and the thinking around what does and
doesn't get kept.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]


On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote:

 Just to follow up - the English Wikipedia article about the Babgy Hot
 Springs does not depict any nudity in the images:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagby_Hot_Springs

 At this point, I'm so over fretting about porny stuff on Commons - I'm
 more concerned about personality rights - but, if it doesn't end up on
 Wikipedia - which is the most used of all of our websites, then I'm not
 really losing sleep over it unless personality rights are involved.
 (Meaning naked photo of woman/man who doesn't know their naked photo is on
 Commons under a free license.)

 -Sarah


 On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Nepenthe topazbutter...@gmail.com wrote:

 The more I look into it, the more it seems like it's a pointless
 endeavor. From the deletion discussions I've looked at (
 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Save_the_Redwoods.jpg),
 a photo of two nude young women in a tree considered in scope. After all,
 it's been categorized! (Is that really all it takes? Absurd.) And it could
 be used to illustrate the article on Bagby Hot Springs!

 Of the seven images Commons proposes to have illustrate encyclopedic
 articles on Bagby Hot Springs, 3 are of nude women.

 It's female nudes all the way down.

 Nepenthe


 --
 --
 *Sarah Stierch*
 *Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian*
 *www.sarahstierch.com*

 ___
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap


___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

[Pete Forsyth]

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Russavia 
 russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote:

 Would you like the board to adopt and amend a resolution based purely
 upon the opinions of editors who are members of this mailing list, or
 do you intend to open it up to discussion for the wider, including the
 Commons, community?


 Most definitely the former. Board resolutions are not meant to reflect
 community consensus, but guide it.


It's not that clear-cut. Again, I think the TOU rewrite is a good example
of how the community and the board can make progress together effectively.
A great deal of wisdom and passion resides in the global community that has
brought Wikimedia to the point it is at today, alongside more frustrating
elements. But in this case, I would say something initiated on this list
(by one part of the community) and improved upon by others, in other
venues, would be a great way to draft a proposed resolution for the board's
consideration.


 On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
  Pete,
 
  Please suggest a revised wording that you feel would be clearer. Then
 we can
  request that the board adopt it and amend the resolution accordingly.
 
  Andreas


If there's some desire to pursue this, I will gladly participate. I agree,
this would be an excellent project, and I'd be proud to be part of it.
Crafting the right language to avoid undesirable consequences will take
work, and I don't know enough to do it by myself. But I do think that
encompassing more than merely identifiable subjects is an important
factor to keep in mind, in addition to more specificity around what the
model is expected to consent to.

-Pete
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

[Pete Forsyth]

I think it's easier to discuss the challenges associated with the board
resolution in question, if we can leave aside the question of nudity for a
moment. Here is a simple example of an ordinary portrait taken in a
(presumably) private setting in a library:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Karen_Stollznow_2.jpg

The subject of the photo (as far as we know) explicitly stated she did
*not* give consent. But the closing administrator didn't consider that
compelling enough.

What would be a good outcome in this case?

And, more generally, how can resolution language be structured in a way
that best achieves desirable outcomes, and doesn't have undesirable ones?
That's the core question here, and the way this discussion is heading isn't
getting us closer to an answer.

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

[Pete Forsyth]

Well said, Fluff. I actually don't think the verification is necessary in a
case like this; there's no compelling reason to suspect the person is lying
about her identity. And given the scale of how many files are proposed for
deletion in a day, I don't think we can afford to set the bar so high that
it requires OTRS in a straightforward case like this.

It seems to me the board resolution covers this case, but was disregarded.
I'm curious to hear other perspectives.

-Pete


On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Katherine Casey 
fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com wrote:

 From a common-sense perspective, Pete, I'd say that if the image was taken
 in a private place, shows an identifiable person, and that person does not
 give permission for us to be using their likeness, it should be a
 no-brainer that we don't have the right (ethically, at least, in light of
 the board resolution) to continue using their photo in defiance of that. So
 a good outcome to my mind would have been asking the person to verify
 that they are who they say they are, and if that checks out, deleting the
 image. In scope, which is the content of the actual close there, is
 pretty much a non-sequitur (and is yet another example of why Commons
 adminning is sometimes viewed as completely...shall we say tone deaf?...to
 actual concerns about images), as it fails to address that issue.

 Or, to tl;dr it: As far as I'm concerned, if the person had an expectation
 of privacy and didn't consent to public distribution of their image, it
 doesn't matter whether it's their breasts or just their face that's
 featured - we should not be hosting it.

 -Fluff


 On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.comwrote:

 I think it's easier to discuss the challenges associated with the board
 resolution in question, if we can leave aside the question of nudity for a
 moment. Here is a simple example of an ordinary portrait taken in a
 (presumably) private setting in a library:


 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Karen_Stollznow_2.jpg

 The subject of the photo (as far as we know) explicitly stated she did
 *not* give consent. But the closing administrator didn't consider that
 compelling enough.

 What would be a good outcome in this case?

 And, more generally, how can resolution language be structured in a way
 that best achieves desirable outcomes, and doesn't have undesirable ones?
 That's the core question here, and the way this discussion is heading isn't
 getting us closer to an answer.

 Pete
 [[User:Peteforsyth]]

 ___
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap



 ___
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap


___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Some nice news

[Pete Forsyth]

Thanks for the updates Sumana, and I agree with Siko -- item #3 is
especially awesome!
Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]


On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Siko Bouterse sboute...@wikimedia.orgwrote:

 Yay :-)  And congratulations to you and your team, Sumana, on the OPWGSoC
 boost - it is really exciting to see the work pay off!


 On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Sumana Harihareswara 
 suma...@wikimedia.org wrote:


 https://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions_sorted_by_number_of_interested_attendees
 - some of the most-wanted talks are Towards bridging the gender gap in
 Indian Wikimedia community and Recruiting Librarians and Archivists to
 Help Close the Wikipedia Gender Gap with Bridging the Gender Gap with
 Women Scientists a little further behind.


 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ombudsman_commission#Gender_neutrality
 has several people speaking up in favor of a more gender-neutral name.
 (Feel free to pipe up there.)

 The Wikimedia engineering department's participation in Outreach Program
 for Women internships
 https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Outreach_Program_for_Women#Round_6 led to
 far more women and genderfluid people applying for the Google Summer of
 Code internships than we'd ever recruited before.  Previous years: 0-2
 non-spammy applications.  This year: ~10.  Practicing affirmative
 outreach and explicitly welcoming women really works.  One applicant
 told me that #mediawiki is one of the few open source-related IRC
 channels she's felt comfortable and welcomed in.

 Various Wikimedian women are going to be speaking at Open Source Bridge
 next month
 http://opensourcebridge.org/blog/2013/05/2013-speakers-list-is-here/ ,
 including Sucheta Ghoshal, me, Alolita Sharma, and Valerie Aurora.

 So, we have a lot to do, but I just wanted to take a moment to say yay.

 --
 Sumana Harihareswara
 Engineering Community Manager
 Wikimedia Foundation

 ___
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap




 --
 Siko Bouterse
 Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

 sboute...@wikimedia.org

 *Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
 the sum of all knowledge. *
 *Donate https://donate.wikimedia.org or click the edit button today,
 and help us make it a reality!*

 ___
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap


___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

[Pete Forsyth]

Tom, I agree with your concern. But if the principle is that we should
enforce the board resolution anywhere it applies, we should simply delete
this photo without needing OTRS, right? It's an issue of who's obligated to
do what. The board resolution clearly states that if there is no
demonstration of consent, the file must be deleted. So the subject
shouldn't even need to assert her dissent for the deletion to go through,
if we're to be true to the resolution.

This gets problematic pretty quickly, though, when you think about the huge
number of innocuous and useful images of people in private places on
Wikipedia and other projects. For instance, when the Wikimedia Foundation
published a photo of me on its site, of course they consulted me before
publishing it, and I gave my consent; but that is not reflected in the
Commons file, there's no way for the viewer to know whether I consented or
not. So going by the letter of the resolution, this (and most other
Wikimedia Foundation staff photos) would have to be deleted:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Pete_Forsyth.jpg

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

p.s. I just noticed there is more of a history to the Karen Stollznow file
than I remembered. Looks like it was uploaded more than once:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Karen_Stollznow_1.jpg


On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:

 On Friday, 10 May 2013 at 15:23, Pete Forsyth wrote:
  I think it's easier to discuss the challenges associated with the board
 resolution in question, if we can leave aside the question of nudity for a
 moment. Here is a simple example of an ordinary portrait taken in a
 (presumably) private setting in a library:
 
 
 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Karen_Stollznow_2.jpg
 
  The subject of the photo (as far as we know) explicitly stated she did
 *not* give consent. But the closing administrator didn't consider that
 compelling enough.
 
  What would be a good outcome in this case?

 The only problem I have in this situation is that anyone could come on,
 register a username on Commons and say Hi, I'm XYZ, I didn't consent to my
 image being taken and used on Wikipedia, please delete.

 Ideally, we'd do this through OTRS rather than on-wiki so we can confirm
 that the people requesting deletion are who they say they are.

 Until we have enough people to handle these issues, we should err on the
 side of caution - in this case, probably deleting.

 --
 Tom Morris
 http://tommorris.org/



 ___
 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] Topless image retention -don't give up

[Pete Forsyth]

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:


 It'd be nice if we had OTRS agents more active in Commons who could
 proactively deal with these kinds of things.

 (They might be made to feel as welcome as Christians in lion enclosures,
 but that's another matter...)


I really don't think so Tom. I'm fairly active in these discussions, and
feel my views are generally given appropriate weight. (I've done very
little on OTRS for some time, but so I might not exactly fit the
description, but I consider our OTRS team kindred spirits!)

Sometimes a case is closed counter to my vote; in some of those cases, I
learn something I didn't know. The Stollzow case is a very rare exception
where I feel the wrong decision was made; I don't think it's fair to
generalize from fringe cases like this. It can be a pretty congenial place
to work, and dissenting views are in my experience given fair
consideration. (Care and clarity in expressing one's views is always a
consideration, because of the huge linguistic and philosophical diversity
among Commons contributors.)

-Pete
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

[Pete Forsyth]

I have to say I share Russavia's bafflement around this issue.

The accomplishments people have made on the platform of Wikimedia Commons
are, in my view, staggering. Just this morning, a couple Wikipedian friends
told me about the photography of JJ Harrison, somebody who has uploaded an
extraordinary collection of bird photos, among many others. It's worth a
look.[1]

The collection of freely licensed photos and other files at Commons is
enormous, diverse, and useful. It is fairly well organized. Tons of useless
junk gets weeded out. Hundreds of Wikimedia projects are supported in their
various missions.

All this happens in spite of there being a firehose of junk and copyright
violations pointed at Commons every single day.[2] In spite of the fact
that native speakers of many, many languages have to find ways to work
together. In spite of the fact that people bring astonishingly varied
projects and dreams and hopes and expectations to their work on Commons.

What is the thing that makes all this possible? The dedication of the
volunteers. The people who sit down at their computers day after day to
pitch in whatever way they see fit. Sorting through deletion nominations,
filling requests to rename files, considering policy changes, and -- my
personal favorite -- gradually amassing probably the best compendium of
knowledge about certain aspects of international intellectual property law
ever assembled in human history.

When I hear people refer to this community as broken, I am amazed how out
of touch they are with the reality and exquisite beauty of what Commons is.
I can only assume they are overly influenced by a small number of edge
cases that have come to their attention god knows how, and have generalized
on those experiences to draw a fallacious conclusion.

With all that said, of course, there's a tremendous amount of stuff that
could and should be done to make Commons work better, to make it a more
inviting and respectful environment, to make it more effective at advancing
the Wikimedia mission.

But one thing I am damn sure is not part of that solution is offhand
insults directed at the community of dedicated volunteers who sustain and
nurture Commons. Even if there are unhealthy social dynamics in the way the
site functions (and there certainly are), I can't begin to imagine what
theory of progress would rely on calling them out as a reflection of the
overall health of the project.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

[1]
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/JJ_Harrison
[2] For instance, one recent day saw 48 nominations for deletion:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2013/05/04




On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote:

 And of course I love how you skirted the issue of your statement that
 Commons produces nothing beyond photos of genitals.

 I'll be waiting for your numbers of how many genitals files are on
 Commons, out of the 17 million files in total we have. I'm having a
 guess here; perhaps 3,000? Maybe 5,000.

 But I do know that
 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Uncircumcised_human_penis
 and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Circumcised_human_penis
 basically pales in comparison to

 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:All_Nippon_Airways_aircraft_at_Tokyo_International_Airport

 And yet we have a problem on the amount of cock pics on Commons? Seriously?

 Any time you feel like reasonable discussion on things Ironholds, feel
 free to chime in; because your comments were nothing more than
 ill-informed opinion.

 Cheers,

 Russavia


 On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Oliver Keyes ironho...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 
  Quite honestly, is it any wonder when people make such statements that
  editors from Commons basically ignore them, and don't bother
  responding -- much like the weekly Commons is broken threads we see
  elsewhere...you know the ones I am talking about.
 
  I would suggest that if you have a weekly your project is broken thread
  something is going terribly wrong.
 
 
  ___
  Gendergap mailing list
  Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
 

 ___
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

[Pete Forsyth]

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:

 Pete,

 snip



 Yet now, faced with those horrible things that happen on our site all
 the time, and which come up time and again in gender gap discussions, you
 want to send us bird-watching and tell us about all the great things
 Commons does.

 Shame on you.


Andreas, although I have no *personal* obligation to do so, I fully intend
to continue working on these complex problems, much as I have been for a
couple of years. The first step, in my view, is to develop a thorough
understanding of how things are, while resisting the urge to resort to
sweeping generalizations and finger-pointing. I invite you to join me.


 Oliver said a very stupid thing.


If it appears my previous message was addressed to any one specific person
-- it was not. It was intended to address the oft-repeated claim that
Commons is broken, (or variants on that which cast a negative light on
volunteer contributors to Commons) which a number of different people have
said here and in other conversations.

Your seizing on it to deflect from the fact that the spirit and letter of
 the board resolution are routinely ignored in Commons looks like a devious
 gambit that presents us with a wonderful opportunity to distinguish those
 who pay mere lip service to the idea of putting those horrible things
 right from those who actually want to.


My position on the board resolution is basically that it was
well-intentioned but not useful. I do not know whether or not this was the
intent, but the phrasing of the resolution has nothing to say about nudity
or anything related. If the board's intent was to have portraits of authors
sitting at their desks, and the like, deleted in the absence of an explicit
consent form of some kind, then the resolution is probably fine; but I sort
of hope that's not what they meant to do. Drawing these lines is a thorny
problem that, frustrating though it is, does not have an obvious solution I
can see. As I have said before, I am happy to work with you or anyone on
drafting a better policy. (I realize you offered a two word edit, but in my
view this is not a substantive effort to engage with the problem, so it
doesn't merit much pursuit. Still, I appreciate your making that effort.)

As for the greatness of Commons' expertise in intellectual property law,

snip

tl;dr


 So much for Commons' intellectual property expertise. Yes, Commons may
 have lots of information on freedom of panorama in countries all around the
 world, most of which may be accurate, but what good does it do if the site
 is riddled with copyright violations.


You know what other sites are riddled with copyright violations? YouTube,
Flickr, Facebook. None of those sites have a community of people working to
keep copyright violations off; Commons does. They're not perfect, but they
are an asset.

Meanwhile, I have worked toward the deletion of, I'd guess, about 20
possible copyright violations on Commons in the last week or so. Just one
of many examples:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mary-williams.jpg
How
many have you reviewed?


 Keep watching the birds. They're beautiful.


Indeed, aren't they? Try clicking the Random file button in the lefthand
nav, and see how long it takes you to get to some kind of nudity or
sexuality etc. I've done so hundreds of times in the last year or two, and
have yet to find a file that struck me as potentially offensive.

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

[Pete Forsyth]

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:


 To me the wording of the board resolution is clear as is stands. Erik has
 further clarified it. However, present practice in Commons does not follow
 it. So if these three words help make the intended meaning clearer, then
 they will help to bring Commons practice in line with the intent of the
 board resolution. That is all for the good, is it not?


No. In my view no version of the board resolution that remains such a blunt
instrument that it requires the deletion of all normal portraits taken in a
private place, vastly exceeding the standards of sites like Flickr,
Facebook, Google Plus, etc. is worth preserving.

The resolution as worded requires that any photo of a person in a private
place, or with an expectation of privacy, carry a declaration of consent.
It does not specify consent to what, and there is no broadly agreed model
of what that consent form might look like. So images like this one would
have to be deleted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michelle_and_Barack_Obama_paint_at_a_Habitat_for_Humanity_site.jpg

In my view that is not acceptable, and if we're going to write a proposed
replacement/refinement/update, the most important thing to do is to address
that point.


 YouTube and Flickr would strongly disagree with that assertion. (They have
 staff.)


Unless I'm badly mistaken, their staff is not especially proactive, but
instead respond to user flags and DMCA filings. Commons volunteers are
proactive. Perhaps not up to your standard of perfection, but to a very
high degree.

-Pete
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

[Pete Forsyth]

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:


 The resolution as worded requires that any photo of a person in a private
 place, or with an expectation of privacy, carry a declaration of consent.
 It does not specify consent to what, and there is no broadly agreed model
 of what that consent form might look like. So images like this one would
 have to be deleted:


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michelle_and_Barack_Obama_paint_at_a_Habitat_for_Humanity_site.jpg

 In my view that is not acceptable, and if we're going to write a proposed
 replacement/refinement/update, the most important thing to do is to address
 that point.



 Pete, that photograph is from The Official White House Photostream. This
 rather implies that the subjects or their representatives waived their
 reasonable expectation of privacy.


The board resolution requires that a photo taken in a private place carry
affirmation of consent. Please note the word OR -- not the word AND. It
doesn't matter if the people in the photo waived an expectation of privacy,
if they are in a private place. Affirmation of consent (to something poorly
defined) is still required.

Pete
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

[Pete Forsyth]

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.orgwrote:

  On 5/13/13 2:58 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:

 there is no broadly agreed model of what that consent form might look
 like.

 Actually there is: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Consent


That looks better than I had remembered -- thanks, and sorry for not
mentioning it.


  So images like this one would have to be deleted:


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michelle_and_Barack_Obama_paint_at_a_Habitat_for_Humanity_site.jpg


 That image should be tagged with {{consent|published}}, which states the
 following:
  This media was copied from the source indicated, which adheres to
 professional editorial standards, allowing the status of consent to be
 reasonably inferred.
 Thus there is no reason it should be deleted. There are several such
 options available with the consent template.


This certainly seems like an improvement to me (in terms of due diligence
and providing the reader with useful information) -- but how does it
address the image's compatibility with the board resolution? It remains
true that all 5 people were in a private setting, and did not (to our
knowledge) express their consent to be published on Wikimedia Commons. (Or
perhaps mere consent to be published is what the board meant - ?)

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

[Pete Forsyth]

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote:

 It merely states (paraphrasing) images of people in a private setting


 OR 


 with an expectation of privacy.


The OR inserted above is important to the paraphrase -- it's one of the
things that often gets missed in this discussion.

-Pete
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] can the Commons images thread move?

[Pete Forsyth]

Sumana,

Yes, gladly. I feel that thread has served a good purpose, but it's true,
it's been at the expense of flooding the list with a lot of noise, and I've
contributed some of it. I do think that after a prolonged long dip into
less productive discussion, in the last exchange we have arrived at a point
where there is some consensus about what the problems are and how to attack
them, and hopefully we can leverage that into some policy reform that moves
the project forward. But you're right, it would be better at this point to
move that activity onto a wiki. (Probably worthwhile to point out one
avenue for that, a Commons discussion mentioned a couple times in the email
thread, in which a number of people are trying to hash out a workable
approach to swiftly dealing with extreme cases where illegal content gets
uploaded, and how volunteers and paid staff can work together most
effectively:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Making_it_easier_for_problematic_files_to_be_brought_to_our_attention)

Thank you for mentioning my class (starting in under 24 hours!) as the kind
of thing you'd like to be hearing about on this list. I really appreciate
that! It honestly hadn't occurred to me to announce it here; but since you
have, it occurs to me that our most productive and active students in the
first round were overwhelmingly female; also my co-instructor is a woman.
So I suppose we are actually taking a little stab at the gender gap in that
class. If anybody knows people looking to take a six week class to learn a
bit about Wikipedia editing, please do point them our way!

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Carol Moore DC carolmoor...@verizon.netwrote:

 I second your proposal.


 On 5/13/2013 9:36 PM, Sumana Harihareswara wrote:

 http://lists.wikimedia.org/**pipermail/gendergap/2013-May/**thread.htmlhttp://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2013-May/thread.html
 shows me that Topless image retention -don't give up has stretched on
 pretty long, and it seems to me like it might be better suited to onwiki
 discussion instead.  Maybe the posters who are very interested in
 engaging in that conversation could hash this out on Commons or Meta and
 send this list an update when you have a solid proposal or conclusion?

 A few things I'd love to see more of on the gendergap list: sharing
 useful or inspiring blog posts and best practice documentation,
 promoting the School of Open's Wikipedia-editing course
 https://blog.wikimedia.org/**2013/05/10/school-of-open-**
 offers-free-wikipedia-course/https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/05/10/school-of-open-offers-free-wikipedia-course/
 and similar courses to women, and learning from case studies of
 Wikimedia projects (or other free culture/free software communities)
 that have improved gender equity.

 -Sumana

 __



 __**_
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/gendergaphttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

[Pete Forsyth]

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:

 snip Erik said,

 ---o0o---

 Even if they are uploaded in good faith (I put them on Flickr with
 permission and now I'm uploading them to Commons), *it's still desirable
 to ask for evidence of consent specifically for uploading to Commons*,
 because publishing a photo of a person in the nude in Flickr's NSFW ghetto
 is quite different from having that same photograph on Commons and
 potentially used on Wikipedia.

 ---o0o---

 snip Erik's interpretation, which I believe reflects the intent of the
 board resolution.


We need to be careful here. Does Erik's statement of what is *desirable* (the
word he used) truly read to you as an *interpretation* of the resolution? I
think not. In fact, Erik has used similar language (consent to be
photographed) on this very list. Speaking of what is desirable is a very
different thing than interpreting a resolution.

Meanwhile, we still have the issue that the resolution does not address
what is being consented to. It's plain English, and it's simply not stated.
Trying to interpret something that is simply not there doesn't seem like a
good use of our time.

But pushing to develop and pass a more helpfully-worded resolution does.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

[Pete Forsyth]

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.comwrote:

 snip Erik said,

 ---o0o---

 Even if they are uploaded in good faith (I put them on Flickr with
 permission and now I'm uploading them to Commons), *it's still
 desirable to ask for evidence of consent specifically for uploading to
 Commons*, because publishing a photo of a person in the nude in
 Flickr's NSFW ghetto is quite different from having that same photograph on
 Commons and potentially used on Wikipedia.

 ---o0o---

 snip Erik's interpretation, which I believe reflects the intent of the
 board resolution.


 We need to be careful here. Does Erik's statement of what is *desirable* (the
 word he used) truly read to you as an *interpretation* of the
 resolution? I think not. In fact, Erik has used similar language (consent
 to be photographed) on this very list. Speaking of what is desirable is a
 very different thing than interpreting a resolution.

 Meanwhile, we still have the issue that the resolution does not address
 what is being consented to. It's plain English, and it's simply not stated.
 Trying to interpret something that is simply not there doesn't seem like a
 good use of our time.

 But pushing to develop and pass a more helpfully-worded resolution does.
 -Pete
 [[User:Peteforsyth]]

 Hi Pete, COM:IDENT makes clear that consent to be photographed isn't
 enough:


 Consent to have one's photograph taken does not permit the photographer
 to do what they like with the image. ... The photographer and uploader must
 satisfy themselves that, when it is required, the consent given is
 appropriate for uploading to Commons.

 That's the current guideline. If this were enforced, it would cut down on
 a large percentage of the cases we're seeing, where there's no evidence of
 consent to a release of the kind needed for Commons.

 Sarah


Yes, I agree with everything you say.

I would only hasten to say: it seems that you are taking it as a given that
it is NOT enforced. But it is. Perhaps not everywhere, but in some cases
(as we deal with a firehose of images) it is enforced. Those tend to be the
case in which (like in your recent one) somebody takes the time to write up
a good deletion nomination.

But basically, I agree that the Commons policy offers (somewhat) useful
language. I think this offers a good contrast to Board resolution.

These problems are solvable; but the more we approach them by pointing
fingers, the further we get from a solution.
-Pete
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

[Pete Forsyth]

Hi SJ,

On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:

 Dear Pete,

 On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  To me the wording of the board resolution is clear as is stands.
 
  No. In my view no version of the board resolution that remains such a
 blunt
  instrument that it requires the deletion of all normal portraits taken
 in a
  private place, vastly exceeding the standards of sites like Flickr,
  Facebook, Google Plus, etc. is worth preserving.

 H'm?  The resolution does not specify deletion.  Nor does it specify
 what the Commons guideline should look like - it specifically does not
 link to a historical revision.

 It urges that the current Commons guideline extend to specifying when
 an explicit affirmation of consent is required by the uploader.  And
 that this then be enforced.  As with the no fair use shift, I would
 expect first this would only apply to new media, then uncertain-status
 media would be phased out, then years later the uncertain-status
 orphans might be mothballed.


I'm pretty sure that's something we all agree would be worthwhile, and if
that was your intent in the resolution, excellent. If there is will to move
forward, it's hardly worth quibbling over the language of something passed
several years ago.

The current Commons guideline and template do define consent: to be
 published on the Internet.  The photographer and uploader must
 satisfy themselves that, when it is required, the consent given is
 appropriate for uploading to Commons.  The Commons policy already
 addresses the nuances around public figures, news of public interest,
 c.


Yes, exactly. It does, but it could do so better. I think it's interesting
that the very file used to illustrate the central Commons policy,
[[COM:IDENT]], contains only a statement that the subject consented to
having her image published; not published on the Internet or published on
Commons, but merely published. I don't see any indication that anybody has
given a thought to what is required by the policy. Clearly, we have some
work to do in establishing a clear shared understanding.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Actress_Anna_Unterberger-2.jpg

Most identifiable photos of non-public-figures published on Flickr,
 Facebook, Google +, c do *not* in fact have subject consent.  We can
 and should do better than this: as with awkward copyright status,
 images with uncertain consent should be replcaed with those with clear
 consent wherever possible.


Yes, this is exactly my point. Wikimedia Commons is not any more broken
by this measure than any other top upload site; I'd say it's much *less*
broken by this measure.


  there is no broadly agreed model of what that consent form might look
 like.

 tada
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Consent
 /tada


As I acknowledged before, this template is more thoroughly developed than I
had remembered, and something I think we should use. I misspoke. Still,
it's worth pointing out that this template is in use on about 600 files on
Commons -- a tiny sliver of a tiny fraction of where it could be applied.
It probably should be applied to every file in [[Template:Personality
rights]], or if it can't be applied, those files should be considered for
deletion. I think one of the best things we could all do to move things
forward would be to start adding the consent template wherever we can, and
encouraging our photographer friends to do so as well. It would be
fantastic -- really fantastic -- if cultural organizations advised by a
Wikipedian in Residence, and organizations within the Wikimedia sphere,
could start doing so by default, to set a strong example. I'm going to
start with the photos of me.

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

[Pete Forsyth]

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.comwrote:

 I think one of the best things we could all do to move things forward
 would be to start adding the consent template wherever we can, and
 encouraging our photographer friends to do so as well. It would be
 fantastic -- really fantastic -- if cultural organizations advised by a
 Wikipedian in Residence, and organizations within the Wikimedia sphere,
 could start doing so by default, to set a strong example. I'm going to
 start with the photos of me.


Ack…I forgot, every time I try to do employ this template, I find that it
doesn't quite fit. It really does need some fine tuning! I've outlined the
main things that jump out to me. Maybe some others from the list will join
me there?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Consent#Rethinking_parameters

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

[Pete Forsyth]

For anybody interested: I've nominated the photo I mentioned a while back,
a portrait of Karen Stollznow, for deletion. To me this seems like a clear
case of a file that Commons policy requires be deleted, but that was not.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Karen_Stollznow_2.jpg

Pete
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology

[Pete Forsyth]

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Joseph Reagle joseph.2...@reagle.orgwrote:

 On 05/23/2013 02:58 PM, Jane Darnell wrote:

 How strange that people take the trouble to upload those!


 I've been wondering about this myself. Why do people port collections of
 images from Flickr CC to Commons in the first place? If someone really
 needed a weird nude picture for an article, they could still find it at
 Flickr and import it then. (This might be part of my bias that WC is
 supposed to support other projects and not be an inclusive repo of all CC
 content in the world.) Indeed, I wonder what percentage of WC resources is
 not used by an affiliated project?


Joseph, I'm curious to probe your stated bias a little. What do you think
of a project like the Archives of American Art, which has uploaded a
tremendous number of images to Commons, the vast majority of which are not
used in any Wikimedia project? See:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_the_Archives_of_American_Art
Is
that a worthwhile project, or is it putting Commons to a use that you'd
rather not see?

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Learn to code events in California subject to regulation?

[Pete Forsyth]

Leigh,

Thanks for this. I looked at the agency's site, without much luck -- but
Ben Kovitz did find something encouraging, in item (f) of exempt
institutions in the 2009 Act: http://www.bppe.ca.gov/lawsregs/index.shtml

So, unless there are active efforts to offer courses that charge over
$2500, you're probably right -- my concern may have misplaced.

Still, I think this sort of thing is worth keeping our eye on, for a few
reasons:
(1) Like some others in the Wikipedia world, I present a variety of things
designed to teach people about Wikipedia, ranging from one-off edit-a-thons
to event series to a full-fledged 6 week online course. These are generally
offered for free (see above), but it's worthwhile to have some awareness of
what might catch regulators' attention. I see these various kinds of events
as related - so my interest is in more than just one-off edit-a-thons.
(2) I didn't mention before why I sent to this list -- but in general, I've
found that most of my events attract more women than men. That's also the
experience of the Wikipedia Education Program (or at least it was in the
first year or so). This is meant as nothing more than anecdotal, but I
think it's worthwhile to consider increasingly formal education programs as
a viable tool for addressing the gender gap. (The article also noted the
targeted code academy programs' efforts toward gender balance.)
(3) It also might be worth considering stuff like this as an opportunity,
rather than a threat. To the extent there is regulation around teaching
computer/online skills, perhaps it's worth thinking about whether diversity
is something that should be on the radar of an agency like this, and what
might be done to encourage that.

For anybody interested in this topic, I also posted to the Wikimedia-SFbay
email list, and there have been some worthwhile replies there as well:
* http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-sf/2014-January/thread.html

And I first heard about it on the Sudo Room email list, where there's also
lilely to be some discussion:
* https://lists.sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/2014-January/005300.html

-Pete




On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Leigh Honeywell le...@hypatia.ca wrote:

 I really don't see this applying to hackathons/editathons, there's not
 much schoolish about those. The regulators are going after the
 learn to code in 12 weeks style programs that are springing up. You
 can read more about what compliance entails here:
 http://www.bppe.ca.gov , but just going from their mission I don't see
 any way they'd care about *athons:

 The Bureau exists to promote and protect the interests of students
 and consumers: (i) through the effective and efficient oversight of
 California's private postsecondary educational institutions, (ii)
 through the promotion of competition that rewards educational quality
 and employment outcomes, (iii) through proactively combating
 unlicensed activity, and (iv) by resolving student complaints in a
 manner that benefits both the complaining student and future
 students.

 -Leigh

 ___
 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] Help: Research on whether we have made any difference?

[Pete Forsyth]

Lennart,

You should look at the Education Program, which after the first year
appeared to have a strong impact (i.e. more participation from women than
men).

It's also been my experience (anecdotal but strong) that the Writing
Wikipedia Articles course I teach has attracted and retained more women
than men. (This would not impact the general numbers in a signiificant way,
but might offer insights into what kinds of activity *would* impact the
numbers.)

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
www.wikistrategies.net


On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:

 I do not think it will be possible to accurately assess any impact of
 specific actions, for multiple reasons.  The most relevant one, however, is
 the fact that the WMF itself has not done any broad-scale editor surveys in
 a very long time, nor have individual communities to the best of my
 knowledge.

 Risker/Anne


 On 26 February 2014 05:37, Lennart Guldbrandsson 
 l_guldbrands...@hotmail.com wrote:

 Hello,

 I am writing a short (1500 word) text for the journal of current cultural
 research, Culture Unbound (http://www.cultureunbound.ep.liu.se/index.html),
 to be published in April. The topic touches quite heavily on the gendergap
 issue. I have tried to find any numbers on whether the initiatives -
 editathons, Teahouse, etc - have made any dent in the numbers. Are there
 any such numbers or have I simply fantasized about it?

 Since they want the text soon, please respond soon. Any assistance is
 greatly appreciated.

 Best wishes,

 Lennart Guldbrandsson

 070 - 207 80 05
 http://www.elementx.se - arbete
 http://www.mrchapel.wordpress.com - personlig blogg
 Presentation http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anv%c3%83%c2%a4ndare:Hannibal
 @aliasHannibal http://twitter.com/AliasHannibal - på Twitter

 *Tänk dig en värld där varje människa på den här planeten får fri
 tillgång till **världens samlade 
 kunskap*http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Huvudsida*.
 Det är vårt mål.*
 Jimmy Wales

 ___
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap



 ___
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap


___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Karen DeCrow has died

[Pete Forsyth]

Hi Kathleen,

Sad news.

In a case like this, there are three possibilities for adding a photo on
English Wikipedia:

   1. Find a suitably licensed (or public domain) photo. I have done a
   quick search on Google
   
https://www.google.com/search?q=Karen+DeCrowespv=2source=lnmstbm=ischsa=Xei=IECTU8bEKOr48AGNhoCQDAved=0CAYQ_AUoAQbiw=1280bih=693#q=Karen+DeCrowtbm=ischtbs=sur:fmc
   and Flickr
   
https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Karen+DeCrowl=commderivss=2ct=0mt=allw=alladv=1,
   which both offer (hooray!) an easy way to search for freely licensed
   material (in their search tools and advanced search menus,
   respectively.) Unfortunately, nothing useful seems to come up.
   2. Find a photo that is not suitably licensed, and request of the
   copyright holder that they release it under a suitable free license. This
   is something many of us have done, and there are some sample emails online
   (and in many of our sent messages folders) that could be used as a
   template. If you have a photo in mind and want to reach out, let me know if
   you want some help writing the note. (It's important to cover a number of
   details, but also do it in a friendly and approachable way...it can be a
   tricky balance.)
   3. Once someone is deceased, on the English language Wikipedia (unlike
   most Wikipedias), it is possible to include a low-resolution photo, even if
   it's covered by copyright, with a non-free use rationale
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline.
   If it's impossible to get a free photo, this may be the best approach. But
   I bet #2 could work with enough diligence.

Do you have a specific photo in mind? What kind of help would be most
useful?
Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]


On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Kathleen McCook klmcc...@gmail.com wrote:

 Karen DeCrow has died. I was sad to see how minimal her Wikipedia
 entry was given how much she has done. I have added an info box.

 I am having trouble adding a picture. Can anyone help? There does not
 seem to be one in WikiCommons.

 If any entry shows what a gender gap there is...Karen DeCrow shows it.

 Kmccook

 ___
 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] Addressing incivility (was: men on lists)

[Pete Forsyth]

Dear Val,

I've now read and reread your message (quoted below) several times, and
want to thank you for putting this important concept in such clear and
tangible terms.

I have just one thing to add:

It seems to me that this points to a broader issue that's deeply connected
with the social dynamics of collaborative communities that value public
communication, and is not restricted to gender-related topics. In the
Wikimedia world, we have lots of people who are willing, even eager, to
offer help and advise in a wide variety of areas, but that don't feel any
special *responsibility* to meet specific expectations for help and advice.
So frequently, we encounter frustrations when people seeking help
(analogous to your example of men with poor social skills -- but I'm trying
to look at it broadly, as people lacking XYZ skills) encounter some kind
of resistance on our projects, and assume that the people around them will
take the time to educate them.

This dynamic can lead to all kinds of discord, but in many cases, it isn't
really any one person's fault.

I think this is something worthy of some careful thought, and probably
research. It would be great if we could think through how expectations of
assistance play out throughout our projects; I suspect that we would start
to see some ways to improve not only the gender gap, but perhaps some other
general negative dynamics in the movement.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]


On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Valerie Aurora vale...@adainitiative.org
wrote:

 Hi Phoebe,

 Thanks for your thoughtful and carefully explained comment! The
 perspective I am coming from here is over 13 years of experience with
 spaces for supporting women in open tech/culture, starting with
 LinuxChix in 2002.

 A pattern that groups like this have found over and over again is that
 a spaces designed to support women in these areas inevitably attract
 men with poor social skills, who then ask the group for (unpaid) help
 improving their social skills. In most open tech/culture groups, such
 requests would be unthinkable, but we are often socialized to expect
 women to provide emotional support and help to others (especially men
 and children) on request, without consideration for the value of their
 time and energy.

 The result is that, without a strong awareness and guarding of the
 original purpose of the group, the group dedicates an ever-larger
 portion of its time to teaching men social skills. Many of the people
 who are interested in the original purpose of the group tend to lose
 interest and depart. This is exactly what happened to LinuxChix - our
 IRC channel became primarily about counseling various men who had
 found a welcoming and supportive environment, and our mailing lists
 were more enjoyable and fulfilling for men looking for emotional
 boosts than for women looking for a supportive environment where they
 could talk about Linux.

 In short, I agree with you that there is some potential benefit to
 providing free social skills counseling to men who are interested in
 supporting women in open tech/culture. In my experience, the cost is
 much greater: the time and emotional energy of many women that could
 be used much more effectively on other projects.

 -VAL

 --
 Valerie Aurora
 Executive Director

 You can help increase the participation of women in open technology and
 culture!
 Donate today at http://adainitiative.org/donate/

 ___
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Novel by Woman-Deletion

[Pete Forsyth]

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case 
danc...@frontiernet.net wrote:



 On what basis in Clive Cussler notable?

 That he’s a regular denizen of the bestseller lists in many countries
 who’s had works adapted into major motion pictures (To be honest, I think
 we should say that “all published works by authors who have their
 paperbacks displayed prominently in the racks near the front of bookstores
 at airports are notable [image: Smile]“).


Well, I don't know. I had never heard of Cussler before today (don't spend
a lot of time in airport bookshops), but I did look at a couple of his
novels' Wikipedia articles, and they didn't indicate significance any
better than the October article. (One of them had a single, ephemeral
reference; the other had 7 that seemed pretty thin.)

I can see how Kathleen would be frustrated by what surely appears from her
perspective to be a double standard.

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Sexualized environment on Commons

[Pete Forsyth]

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 sexual objectification here, so don't click if you don't want
to see that:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology

First, I agree with Ryan that in the (various) deletion discussions I've
seen around this and similar topics, there is often a toxic level of
childish and offensive comments. I think that's a significant problem, and
I don't know what can be done to improve it. Scolding people in those
discussions often a backfires, and serves only to amplify the offensive
commentary. But silence can imply tacit consent. How should one participate
in the discussion, promoting an outcome one believes in, without
contributing to or enabling the toxic nature of the discourse? I think I've
done a decent job of walking that line in similar discussions, but I'm sure
there's a lot of room for better approaches. I would love to hear what has
worked for others, here and/or privately.

Also, my initial reaction to these images is that they are inherently
offensive; my gut reaction is to keep them off Commons.

But after thinking it through and reading through a number of deletion
discussions, the conclusion I've come to (at least so far) is that the
decision to keep them (in spite of the childish and offensive commentary
along the way) is the right decision. These strike me as the important
points:
* We have a collection of more than 20 million images, intended to support
a wide diversity of educational projects. Among those 20 million files are
a great many that would be offensive to some audience. (For instance, if I
understand correctly, *all images portraying people* are offensive to at
least some devout Muslims.)
* Were these images originally intended to promote objectification of
women? To support insightful commentary on objectification of women?
Something else? I can't see into the minds of their creators, but I *can*
imagine them being put to all kinds of uses, some of which would be
worthwhile. The intent of the photographer and models, I've come to
believe, is not relevant to the decision. (apart from the basic issue of
consent in the next bullet point:)
* Unlike many images on Commons, I see no reason to doubt that these were
produced by consenting adults, and intended for public distribution.

If they are to be deleted, what is the principle under which we would
delete them? To me, that's the key question. If it's simply the fact that
we as individuals find them offensive, I don't think that's sufficient. If
it's out of a belief that they inherently cause more harm than good, I
think the reasons for that would need to be fleshed out before they could
be persuasive.

Art is often meant to be provocative, to challenge our assumptions and
sensibilities, to prompt discussion. We host a lot of art on Commons. On
what basis would we delete these, but keep other controversial works of
art? Of course it would be terrible to use these in, for instance, a
Wikipedia article about HTML syntax. But overall, does it cause harm to
simply have them exist in an image repository? My own conclusion with
regard to this photo series is that the net value of maintaining a large
and diverse collection of media, without endorsing its contents per se.,
outweighs other considerations.

(For anybody interested in the deletion process on Commons, the kinds of
things that are deliberated, and the way the discussions go, you might be
interested in my related blog post from a couple months ago:
http://wikistrategies.net/wikimedia-commons-is-far-from-ethically-broken/ )

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]



On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org
wrote:

 If anyone ever needs a good example of the locker-room environment on
 Wikimedia Commons, I just came across this old deletion discussion:

 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Radio_button_and_female_nude.jpg

 The last two keep votes are especially interesting. One need look no
 farther than the current Main Page talk page for more of the same (search
 for premature ejaculation).

 Kaldari

 ___
 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] Sexualized environment on Commons

[Pete Forsyth]

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org
wrote:

 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.


Totally reasonable, and I agree that would be a useful discussion. Not that
anybody needs my permission, but please feel free to disregard the parts of
my message that don't relate to this -- and sorry if it was an unwanted
distraction.

For the discussion you're suggesting, it might be worthwhile to review the
behavior-related policies and guidelines on Commons. It might be fruitful
to develop, seek consensus around, and begin enforcing one or more new
guidelines related to this stuff.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Commons_policies_and_guidelines
In my experience, I think it tends to be a small number of users who engage
in this sort of thing, and if the behavior can be clearly and
dispassionately described, it might be possible to chip away at the culture
that makes it seem acceptable.

A big project, but a worthy one.

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] [Spam] Re: Sexualized environment on Commons

[Pete Forsyth]

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

Re: [Gendergap] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)

[Pete Forsyth]

Regarding "swearing is not in itself uncivil" --

I agree strongly with that sentiment. However, in group communication it
can be valuable to have clear lines that must not be crossed, in order to
keep everybody on the same page. As an analogy, it seems to me that a clear
expectation of avoiding ALL CAPS in various Internet forums has been
positive. It's not that anybody thinks all caps is in itself uncivil or
disrespectful; but very often, they are used in ways that accompany
disrespectful communication. Establishing, and adhering to, a clear
expectation of avoiding that format tends to keep people cognizant of the
idea that their mode of expression matters.

I am not suggesting that the Signpost should rigidly adhere to a "no
swearing" rule. But I do think it would be good (as you have already
acknowledged) for varying expectations around swearing to be incorporated
more carefully into future decisions.

Also, Daniel raises a good point. I had forgotten that Emily had joined
ArbCom. I agree, that probably colors many people's reactions, whether or
not it's consciously acknowledged. Another analogy...a good friend of mine
is a judge, and also a big fan of rock music. I have always been impressed
with her courage in resisting the unwritten expectation that she would
steer clear of dive bars and house parties. But as I got to know her, I
realized that she put a great deal of thought into how she conducted
herself in such venues. You might find her at a table of people
pontificating about a local news story, but you wouldn't find her weighing
in. You might see her with a drink in her hand, but you wouldn't see her
drunk. And you might hear her expressing strong opinions (unrelated to what
she would hear in court), but you wouldn't hear her swearing. It's not that
she felt that strong opinions, getting drunk, or swearing were awful things
-- but given her position, they were things that could compromise her
relationship with the people she served. My takeaway -- I think there are
many good reasons for people (and perhaps publications) in a position of
trust observing rules of decorum that *exceed* expectations of civility
that they might apply to others, in order to earn and retain the respect of
their peers.

Rob, I very much appreciate your perspective on this as an experiment that
yields worthwhile lessons. I am glad that a diverse set of opinions have
emerged, and that you are engaging with them. I believe that in the long
run, the heightened emotions around this one will seem unnecessary...but of
course, the emotional responses are real, and I don't want to discount what
drives them. At any rate, I appreciate the candor everybody is bringing to
this conversation, and continue to read with interest.
Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Robert Fernandez 
wrote:

> A number of us who are concerned about civility on Wikipedia do not see
> swearing in and of itself as uncivil.  Many people may include
> professionalism and decorum under the umbrella of civility, but others do
> not, and they are not hypocritical because they do not.   The problem is
> not the words themselves, but when those words are used by editors to
> attack other editors.
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case <
> danc...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>> >In any case, it seems like it has long been settled that the general use
>> of profanity on Wikipedia is accepted but not celebrated. Only in >extreme
>> cases is it considered actionable when *actually directed at an
>> individual*. So it's hard to understand why many editors of long->tenure
>> have reacted in such a strongly negative manner to this op-ed; it may be
>> the unique nature of the Signpost, but like Gamaliel I >would be surprised
>> to learn that many users regard the Signpost in the same way devotees do
>> the New York Times. The most likely >conclusion is that profanity and
>> vulgar language are almost exclusively deployed by men on Wikipedia, and
>> the difference here is that >readers were shocked --shocked!-- to read it
>> from a woman.
>>
>> While I think this has something to do with it, I suspect some of the
>> commentators may have seen this as hypocritical: A member of the
>> Arbitration Committee, newly elected as one of several arbs committed to
>> restoring civility and mitigating our gender imbalance, writes a Signpost
>> op-ed using profanity in the headline, while some users (and, more
>> importantly, their supporters) who believe (whether reasonably or not does
>> not matter as the belief informs their actions either way) that last year’s
>> ArbCom results effectively painted a bullseye on their backs, know that use
>> of such language by them in discussions is routinely hauled out as evidence
>> against them in AN/I threads and (more importantly) at ArbCom.
>>
>> I don’t fault the Signpost for its editorial decision to run it. But I
>> wonder if someone should have talked to Emily about 

Re: [Gendergap] Lists of notable deaths of 2015

[Pete Forsyth]

Jim,

Sorry, I should have been clearer -- I didn't mean to take issue with the
original post (which raises a worthy point), merely to introduce another
dimension that I learned about only recently, which came as a surprise.
It's possible that the NY Times does a good job of maintaining a clear line
between editorial and paid content; but the Boston Globe, which is owned by
the NY Times, does not do that very well, and I suspect that is common of
"medium-large" papers.

Gender bias in obituaries is a worthy topic unto itself. Just wanted to
establish that not everything most people think of as an "obituary" is
actually an obituary.

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:32 PM, J Hayes <slowki...@gmail.com> wrote:

> pete,
> the article linked is listing NYTimes, WashPost, and LATimes.
> not the paid notices
> there seems to be no process to systematically incorporate these, even
> when they provide strong support for notability.
>
> cheers
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 9:15 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> At least in the USA, we have to be cautious about "what is an obituary."
>> Newspapers also run "death notices" which (both in print and online) look
>> much like obituaries, but are actually paid advertisements. I'm not even
>> certain that the terminology ("obituary"=editorial, "death notice"=paid ad)
>> is consistent across news outlets, I'm just reflecting what I learned from
>> the specific papers I dealt with after my dad died.
>>
>> Any "systemic bias" in death notices would therefore consider a much
>> bigger/more complex system than simply the editorial powers-that-be. You'd
>> have to also consider what drives families to pay for death notices for
>> some people more than others.
>>
>> -Pete
>> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:07 PM, J Hayes <slowki...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> some obits are not behind paywall.
>>> a reference to do list would make good work.
>>>
>>> maybe we could get Mietchen or Magnus to make an automated list article
>>> / category "list of people with obituaries"
>>>
>>> cheers
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 2:31 AM, Neotarf <neot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Links to lists in major news outlets (NYT, BBC, LA TImes, Toronto Star,
>>>> etc.) along with commentary on gender bias in obits:
>>>>
>>>> http://forward.com/sisterhood/330631/for-women-gender-bias-continues-even-in-death/
>>>>
>>>> The three women listed in the article do have WP articles.  It would
>>>> take some digging--paywalls, registration, etc,--to see if any of the other
>>>> women do not yet have articles.
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>> 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] Lists of notable deaths of 2015

[Pete Forsyth]

At least in the USA, we have to be cautious about "what is an obituary."
Newspapers also run "death notices" which (both in print and online) look
much like obituaries, but are actually paid advertisements. I'm not even
certain that the terminology ("obituary"=editorial, "death notice"=paid ad)
is consistent across news outlets, I'm just reflecting what I learned from
the specific papers I dealt with after my dad died.

Any "systemic bias" in death notices would therefore consider a much
bigger/more complex system than simply the editorial powers-that-be. You'd
have to also consider what drives families to pay for death notices for
some people more than others.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:07 PM, J Hayes  wrote:

> some obits are not behind paywall.
> a reference to do list would make good work.
>
> maybe we could get Mietchen or Magnus to make an automated list article /
> category "list of people with obituaries"
>
> cheers
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 2:31 AM, Neotarf  wrote:
>
>> Links to lists in major news outlets (NYT, BBC, LA TImes, Toronto Star,
>> etc.) along with commentary on gender bias in obits:
>>
>> http://forward.com/sisterhood/330631/for-women-gender-bias-continues-even-in-death/
>>
>> The three women listed in the article do have WP articles.  It would take
>> some digging--paywalls, registration, etc,--to see if any of the other
>> women do not yet have articles.
>>
>> ___
>> 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)

[Pete Forsyth]

Risker, I want to be clear:

It's not that I don't see a problem. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to
your view; but I think your point has been made very strongly already, and
the important audience is the Signpost editorial staff. I am confident they
have heard the message, and I don't see how further discussion moves us in
a better direction. The past can't be changed. I suppose the Signpost could
retract the op-ed, but I rather doubt you're seeking something so
extreme...or am I wrong?

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I feel very sad that you fellows don't see the problem in using this kind
> of language to describe women. "Badass" isn't a compliment. After the first
> two descriptions, I was fully expecting to see "brilliant motherf***er" to
> describe the third one.  I'm surprised it wasn't used, in fact.
>
> The subjects of our articles deserve to be treated much better than this.
>
> Further, I'm incredibly disappointed that this got published in The
> Signpost.  On Emily's own page...well, okay.  But instead of drawing
> attention to the women who are the subjects of the articles, almost all of
> the discussion is about the language used to describe themand pointing
> out that several of them already had articles about them that were
> improved, rather than that they'd not been written about at all.
>
> All in all, it impressed me as an island of lovely flowers in a garden
> with a winter's worth of St. Bernard droppings.
>
> Risker
>
> On 21 February 2016 at 17:13, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 Ryan.
>>
>> This was one article, and no Wikipedians, readers, or article subjects
>> were injured as a result of its publication. I don't really have a strong
>> opinion one way or the other about whether using language in this way is
>> OK. But the main lesson to me is how much the English Wikipedia community
>> has come to value the Signpost as an institution. It's hard to imagine such
>> any Signpost column inspiring so much passion, say, five years ago. Above
>> all, I think this constitutes a strong endorsement of the general value of
>> the Signpost.
>>
>> -Pete
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari <rkald...@wikimedia.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community takes
>>> all of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of profanity
>>> in a positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia calls a
>>> female editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is it a double standard?  If that page hadn't been written by Keilana,
>>>> would it have been published as is?
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard.  Just not quite the
>>>> one some think it would be.
>>>>
>>>> Risker/Anne
>>>>
>>>> On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf <neot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created.  Interesting double
>>>>> standard about profanity in the comment section.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed
>>>>>
>>>>> ___
>>>>> Gendergap mailing list
>>>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing,
>>>>> please visit:
>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/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)

[Pete Forsyth]

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, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think I've made myself clear, Pete. I don't think that anything I say
> will make a difference, any more than anything I have ever said has changed
> the sub-optimal behaviour of any editor who thinks it's acceptable
> professional behaviour to cuss all over the place.  I'm just really
> disappointed that people who used to be in the "let's make this a more
> pleasant and positive place to do our work" have gone over to the other
> side.
>
> Risker
>
> On 21 February 2016 at 19:38, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Risker, I want to be clear:
>>
>> It's not that I don't see a problem. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to
>> your view; but I think your point has been made very strongly already, and
>> the important audience is the Signpost editorial staff. I am confident they
>> have heard the message, and I don't see how further discussion moves us in
>> a better direction. The past can't be changed. I suppose the Signpost could
>> retract the op-ed, but I rather doubt you're seeking something so
>> extreme...or am I wrong?
>>
>> -Pete
>> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I feel very sad that you fellows don't see the problem in using this
>>> kind of language to describe women. "Badass" isn't a compliment. After the
>>> first two descriptions, I was fully expecting to see "brilliant
>>> motherf***er" to describe the third one.  I'm surprised it wasn't used, in
>>> fact.
>>>
>>> The subjects of our articles deserve to be treated much better than
>>> this.
>>>
>>> Further, I'm incredibly disappointed that this got published in The
>>> Signpost.  On Emily's own page...well, okay.  But instead of drawing
>>> attention to the women who are the subjects of the articles, almost all of
>>> the discussion is about the language used to describe themand pointing
>>> out that several of them already had articles about them that were
>>> improved, rather than that they'd not been written about at all.
>>>
>>> All in all, it impressed me as an island of lovely flowers in a garden
>>> with a winter's worth of St. Bernard droppings.
>>>
>>> Risker
>>>
>>> On 21 February 2016 at 17:13, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 Ryan.
>>>>
>>>> This was one article, and no Wikipedians, readers, or article subjects
>>>> were injured as a result of its publication. I don't really have a strong
>>>> opinion one way or the other about whether using language in this way is
>>>> OK. But the main lesson to me is how much the English Wikipedia community
>>>> has come to value the Signpost as an institution. It's hard to imagine such
>>>> any Signpost column inspiring so much passion, say, five years ago. Above
>>>> all, I think this constitutes a strong endorsement of the general value of
>>>> the Signpost.
>>>>
>>>> -Pete
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari <rkald...@wikimedia.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community
>>>>> takes all of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of
>>>>> profanity in a positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia
>>>>> calls a female editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it a double standard?  If that page hadn't been written by
>>>>>> Keilana, would it have been published as is?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard.  Just not quite the
>>>>>> one some think it would be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Risker/Anne
>>>>>>

Re: [Gendergap] Marfan syndrome image

[Pete Forsyth]

In many (most?) legal jurisdictions, no release is required if you're in a
place where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Aug 12, 2016 1:43 AM, "Neotarf"  wrote:

> Some comment on Lane Rasberry's "model release" question: first it seems
> from the supporting essays, the underlying purpose of a "model release" is
> legal protection for a photographer selling photographs, which wouldn't
> apply to Commons.  The "model" terminology is somehow not quite right for
> the open source movement either, it invokes fashion or "adult" industry
> terminology.   The definition of a "model" is someone who is paid to
> display merchandise. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/model
> Finally, if such a thing became available, how would it end up being
> used--to require Wikipedians to sign such a release as a precondition of
> attending events? We have already seen in the past the unfortunate effects
> of such photographs being used against Wikimedians, and disproportionately
> against women, by those who politically oppose the Wikimedia movement. I
> suspect such a thing would result in less, not more photographs uploaded.
>
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Alison Cassidy  wrote:
>
>> Please also bear in mind the ethical concerns around using images of
>> children, especially around medical conditions, and their own informed
>> consent. Children cannot consent to this, so obviously their
>> parents/guardians can, which makes it legal. However, if they’re
>> identifiable, they may well grow up to regret having their image associated
>> with a medical condition, and this may have ramifications for them in later
>> life. They, as children, had no say in the matter.
>>
>> Just putting that out there.
>>
>> — Allie
>>
>>
>> On Aug 9, 2016, at 5:48 PM, Emily Monroe  wrote:
>>
>> One way to obscure the face is, if you're not trying to illustrate facial
>> features of certain genetic conditions, to crop the face out entirely.
>>
>> Also, I think the concern is more "Are the parents of the kids aware that
>> the picture is on Wikipedia and are they okay with it?", and not copyright.
>> I know people with genetic syndromes, along with some doctors and a lot of
>> parents of kids with genetic syndromes, have issues with some of the
>> medical imagery used to portray genetic conditions.
>>
>> From,
>> Emily
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Nathan  wrote:
>>
>>> The image was removed by Doc James with the edit summary "Prior person
>>> had a lot more than marfans"
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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] U.S. government website for International Women of Courage Award is down

[Pete Forsyth]

It appears that the award has had its own web presence independent of the
State Department since March 2016:
http://web.archive.org/web/20160304031707/http://www.awiu.org/international-women-of-courage-celebrations/about-iwoc-celebration/

Perhaps in inquiry to the AIWU board of directors or personnel could
clarify the connection with the State Department, and unearth any
information that has been lost from the State Department web site?

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 10:11 PM, Ryan Kaldari 
wrote:

> It looks like the main page for the International Women of Courage Award
> has been moved to https://www.state.gov/s/gwi/iwoc/index.htm.
> Unfortunately, it seems to no longer have any actual information.
>
> I've never heard of a requirement for the U.S. government to archive all
> of its web pages, nor have I ever seen any official archives of federal
> government sites other than whitehouse.gov (which is archived by the
> National Archives as part of the official Presidential Record). This seems
> like a dubious claim to me, but I would be very happy to be wrong (as such
> archives would be incredibly useful to Wikipedia).
>
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 10:07 PM, Risker  wrote:
>
>> Please bear in mind that many US government websites are routinely
>> rebuilt at the time of a transition of the presidency and/or cabinet level
>> change.  This is not new or unusual, although the last time there was a
>> transition was 8 years ago and the websites weren't nearly as built-up.
>> They are, however, required, to archive all pages, so they should be
>> somewhere - not necessarily easy to find, but somewhere within the US
>> government sites.
>>
>>
>>
>> Risker/Anne
>>
>> (Who lives in Canada, which does not have the same applicable legislation
>> as exists in the US to require the federal government to retain
>> information)
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1 February 2017 at 12:31, J Hayes  wrote:
>>
>>> here is the archive .is page
>>> https://archive.is/1XJm
>>> internet archive not working
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Neotarf  wrote:
>>>
 The U.S. government website for the International Women of Courage
 Award is down. There are probably quite a few articles that link to this
 page, as it helps establish notability for many women in the Global South.

 The award was started by Condoleezza Rice in 2007 when she served as
 U.S. Secretary of State under Republican president George W. Bush.

 https://www.state.gov/s/gwi/programs/iwoc/


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

>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Gendergap mailing list
>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
>>> visit:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
>> visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Women's march speeches repeatedly put up for deletion

[Pete Forsyth]

Fae, I have been skeptical of your initial post here (it's hard for me 
to see a strong basis for believing those giving the speeches have 
relinquished rights), but I very strongly agree with the principle you 
articulate here -- it's very important to apply consistent standards.


Readers here might enjoy a more inspiring story on the same topic: our 
latest edition of the Signpost contains a nice, concise writeup by 
User:Samwalton9, about how effective the collaboration in the Women's 
March articles on English Wikipedia was. Highly recommended: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-06/Forum


-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
Editor in Chief, The Signpost


On 02/08/2017 11:47 AM, Fæ wrote:

I encourage participation at the RFC I have put forward:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/videos_of_speeches

With either outcome suggested, the implementation should be consistent
for all Commons videos, regardless of source, content or the person
making a speech.

Fae

On 30 January 2017 at 16:40, Natacha Rault  wrote:

Hi,
The problem I see is that the speeches possibly deleted will in this case 
concern women when we alleeady have a gender gap. I would, like Fae, advocate 
to start with men speeches.
Kind regards,

Nattes à chat



Le 30 janv. 2017 à 13:14, Fæ  a écrit :

Advocate for what exactly? There nothing ethically wrong in ensuring
we establish precedent using an equal sample space rather than cases
chosen because they are about a Women's march in the news. The most
common interpretation of that would be advocating for fairness in
approach.

Fae


On 30 January 2017 at 12:05, JJ Marr  wrote:
Two wrongs don't make a right and using this mailing list to advocate for
that crosses a line.


On Jan 30, 2017 05:11, "Fæ"  wrote:

Link:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Activist_Gloria_Steinem_Tells_Women%27s_March_Protesters_%27Put_Our_Bodies_Where_Our_Beliefs_Are%27.webm

I am concerned that amongst the many videos of talks and speeches
where people refer to their notes, it is these recent Women's march
videos that have been targeted to set an unusual precedent and are
being vigorously argued for deletion, along with some parallel
drama-mongering on Jimmy Wales' talk page. Perhaps it would be
healthier to put up an equal number of comparative videos of men
talking at WMF events, using the same arguments about prepared notes
needing to be published before the video can be considered correctly
released; or would that be too pointy?

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


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



--
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

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

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



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

Re: [Gendergap] Craigslist founder donates $500K to curb Wikipedia trolls - Email filters?

[Pete Forsyth]

On 02/12/2017 03:38 PM, Risker wrote:




On 12 February 2017 at 17:22, Jonathan Cardy 
> wrote:



Clearly not everyone would opt into it if there was an option to
do so. Do you object to the idea of developing an option to opt in
to email filtering?




Yes, I do, to be honest.  The other proposals included in this 
discussion would be far, far more effective in limiting unwanted or 
inappropriate emails, without requiring the need to recruit and screen 
a large number of volunteers to "screen out" inappropriate emails. 
Honestly, the idea that we'd want people to turn their volunteer time 
over to screening emails rather than doing everything else that needs 
to be done is kind of worrisome; current volunteers already have a 
plethora of activities to participate in, many of which can also 
assist in harassment reduction, and I'm not sure I'd like to know the 
psychological profile of people who would volunteer specifically to 
screen emails.  Hiring staff to do this would be outrageous, both from 
the optics perspective, and more importantly from the cost 
perspective; the $500,000 grant would probably not even cover a year's 
worth of salaries.


I agree, and I'd go a little further:

The very idea that separating things into "good guys" and "bad guys" is 
both unrealistic, and damaging to the objective of creating a healthier 
social environment. Anyone familiar with Wikimedia's history will 
recognize that some very damaging things have been said and done by 
Wikimedia staff and board -- not just by some 9% personae non grata. We 
might not all agree on the specifics, but I think we can agree that we 
don't have a cadre of virtuous individuals utterly beyond reproach to 
unleash on this problem. And even if we did, perhaps there would be 
better ways to put them to work.


It's not realistic to set the expectation that some parental figure is 
going to prevent harassment and bullying, and in practice, we don't have 
any guarantee that such intervention would always make things better, 
rather than worse.


There are some truly excellent ideas on how to manage email harassment 
already in this thread, most particularly those that center on the 
individual users selecting with whom they wish to correspond 
off-wiki.  I think these have a lot of potential to provide support to 
our volunteers.  Do keep in mind, though, that a disproportionate 
number of users who have been on the receiving end of email harassment 
are those who are expected to be available via email, and for whom 
much email would include confidential or private information relating 
to their volunteer tasks: oversighters, checkusers, Arbcom members, 
and in some cases administrators.  It would be inappropriate for them 
to use moderated email.


Wise words, important angles to consider.

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

[Gendergap] "Is Wikipedia Woke?"

[Pete Forsyth]

This feature article from Bloomberg BusinessWeek does, IMO, a great job of
exploring and contextualizing Wikipedia's diversity issues. The reporters
really did their homework on this one, taking the time to explore all
angles.

There are certainly a few factual errors, the most egregious are probably
the confusing between policy and guideline on paid editing, and the
conflation of Wikipedia and WMF in a couple places.

Thoughts?


Is Wikipedia Woke?
The ubiquitous reference site tries to expand its editor ranks beyond the
Comic Con set.
by Dimitra Kessenides and Max Chafkin
December 22, 2016

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-12-22/how-woke-is-wikipedia-s-editorial-pool

-Pete
--
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
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] "Is Wikipedia Woke?"

[Pete Forsyth]

If BBW failed to confirm that photos with nametags were OK with any of
those they depicted, yes, that would be a problem. I'm confident they would
want to know about that, and I'd be happy to pass that feedback along if it
hasn't already been delivered.

But is there any reason to believe that happened?
Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 9:39 AM, J Hayes <slowki...@gmail.com> wrote:

> yes and some time  dilation
> and taking pictures of people with user name tags on, so outing
>
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> This feature article from Bloomberg BusinessWeek does, IMO, a great job
>> of exploring and contextualizing Wikipedia's diversity issues. The
>> reporters really did their homework on this one, taking the time to explore
>> all angles.
>>
>> There are certainly a few factual errors, the most egregious are probably
>> the confusing between policy and guideline on paid editing, and the
>> conflation of Wikipedia and WMF in a couple places.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>> Is Wikipedia Woke?
>> The ubiquitous reference site tries to expand its editor ranks beyond the
>> Comic Con set.
>> by Dimitra Kessenides and Max Chafkin
>> December 22, 2016
>>
>> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-12-22/how-woke-
>> is-wikipedia-s-editorial-pool
>>
>> -Pete
>> --
>> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>>
>> ___
>> 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