Re: [Gendergap] contents of Gendergap Digest, Vol 62, Issue 10

Hi all, Just wanted to let you know that we are aware of the anomaly in Regina, and are working to figure out want happened. We will include our findings in our final report on meta wiki. Best, Siân + Jackie + Michael Art+Feminism lead co-organizers Sent from  > On Mar 13, 2016, at 8:00

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

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

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

It was mostly a passing impulse that I was worried about, and decided to express, just in case. But since I'm currently semi-wikibonked, and you're actually participating in the discussions (thanks!), you probably know more than I do. From, Emily On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Pete Forsyth

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

No, from what I've seen there were more difficulties in locations that didn't use the draft template (we implemented the draft template pretty last-minute, so it wasn't everywhere). But I'm biased, because I helped to design the template :) Thanks, Pharos On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Emily

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

Do you think the draft templates were the issue? Maybe I'm overly cynical, perhaps they advertised the fact that they were created by arts and feminism to sexist wikipedians. From, Emily On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Pharos wrote: > This is actually the 3rd

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

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