...@gmail.com
To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap
Message-ID:
CAP9+R94g4Tj6bTOOXPMK6JkJ=lqxx4zv4dgfmiim9ebtzp4...@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Sylvia Ventura sylvia.vent...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi Theo, thank you for documenting my experience on meta, clearly a
rookie mistake on my part, I hadn't revisited that page since and just
now saw Sarah S note. I'm not giving up but I'm still figuring out the
best
So your suggestion is that to prevent abuse, we only require abusers to
identify with the Foundation? Otherwise wewhat, exactly?
A phrase involving the illegalising of catapults and the subsequent shift
in owner demographics comes to mind, here.
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 6:13 AM, Carol Moore
Reading what people have said on this and the previous thread and bearing
in mind Sarah’s request for actionable ideas about the Commons problem that
sparked these threads, I make a suggestion below about what this
organisation could do to have an impact.
This is bigger than Gender Gap - as
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Oliver Keyes ironho...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Two good posts.
Bear in mind though that there is also a half-way house solution, whereby
contributors would identify to the Foundation, but
It would also be a massive resourcing challenge, particularly to get
identification working across all projects. What is ideal is not always
what is feasible.
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Oliver Keyes
Hi Sylvia
It seems the crux of your argument is against the nature of the Internet
itself, rather than anything specific to Wikipedia. There is nothing unique
about anonymity on Wikipedia. In fact, it could be argued that internet
itself promotes anonymity - Internet protocol don't require any
Andreas wrote:
At the moment, I believe the only editors required to identify are arbitrators
and chapter members.
For the first, no, all functionaries (I had to provide proof of identity when I
got the oversight bit) as well as arbs have to identify to the Foundation.
Chapter members ... do
@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap
Message-ID:
cap9+r94miyuwuuqe_6cfk-ucn6xz73cfuzanqzvzwmtd8zg...@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Hi Sylvia
It seems the crux of your argument is against the nature of the Internet
itself
-
Message: 6
Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 02:23:53 +0530
From: Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com
To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap
Message-ID:
cap9
A coupe of thoughts on the comment that internet itself promotes
anonymity that might have been the case in the early days, but as more of
our 'real lives' activity migrates online and replaces the physical world;
internet has become the 'repository' of knowledge, but also goods and
services,
Hi Sylvia
I share some of your concerns and agree with your insightful observations.
My comments are inline-
On Sat, May 11, 2013, Sylvia Ventura sylvia.vent...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Theo, thank you for the thorough response. You bring up very valid
points, specially around privacy standards
On 5/9/2013 4:35 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Bear in mind though that there is also a half-way house solution,
whereby contributors would identify to the Foundation, but remain at
liberty to use a pseudonymous user name.
Identification might then be a prerequisite for certain community
roles
Two good posts.
Bear in mind though that there is also a half-way house solution, whereby
contributors would identify to the Foundation, but remain at liberty to use
a pseudonymous user name.
Identification might then be a prerequisite for certain community roles (as
indeed it is today).
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Two good posts.
Bear in mind though that there is also a half-way house solution, whereby
contributors would identify to the Foundation, but remain at liberty to use
a pseudonymous user name.
This would involve
(changing the topic back)
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Sylvia Ventura slvent...@gmail.com wrote:
Anne, you're absolutely right on the 'high profile'. The broader the
reach, impact, exposure, the more likely you are to become the target of
good and bad 'attention'. The question is, much
One of the things I talked to one of the female admins about is figuring
out how to better support them in the stuff they have to deal with, and
it's on my radar. That's just an FYI.
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:57 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
(changing the topic back)
On Thu,
I'm glad to hear that Gayle.
But please remember - female admins get it bad, but, the attention I got,
wasn't upped when I became an admin. Yes, i'm a bit more of a known
person than perhaps other women in the community (right now) but...I know
women (Cristamuse, Slim Virgin, just to name two)
I know women (Cristamuse, Slim Virgin, just to name two) who deal with plenty
of crap and *ARE NOT* admins.
Actually, Sara, Slim Virgin is an admin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:UserRights/SlimVirgin
And are you sure you’ve got the other username right?
Presumably Sarah means Cindamusehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cindamuse
.
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:12 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case
danc...@frontiernet.net wrote:
I know women (Cristamuse, Slim Virgin, just to name two) who deal with
plenty of crap and *ARE NOT* admins.
Actually,
20 matches
Mail list logo
