Any journalists in future wanting examples of it need only read those
archives and the dispute-resolution threads that failed to deal with it
(which one of us ought to compile at some point).
An interesting idea. What would such a compilation look like? (Spoken as
someone who used to write the
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 6:36 AM, Neotarf neot...@gmail.com wrote:
Any journalists in future wanting examples of it need only read those
archives and the dispute-resolution threads that failed to deal with it
(which one of us ought to compile at some point).
An interesting idea. What would
You could just start over. Open a collab space in someone's userspace,
redirect WP:GGTF to that spot, and invite a few people to come collaborate.
Having it in userspace is probably the best (if still minimal) protection
against trolls and ne'er-do-wells.
Is it simply impossible to start a Wikipedia project that's open to women,
or people who identify as women? (I'm sorry if I don't use the correct
terms, but I haven't kept up with them in recent years.)
I mean if we did it... what would the consequences be?
Lightbreather
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014
Could you please clarify, Lightbreather? Do you mean a wikiproject that is
*only* open to women/those who identify as women? Because all wikiprojects
are open to all interested editors, generally speaking.
Would that not require editors to have to publicly self-identify? How
would that be
Well, I'm brainstorming, but yes... a project that is only open to women or
those who identify as women. And yes, that would mean identifying (via
one's she edits preference - as I know of no other ways to identify,
right?) Hypothetically, is there anything to prevent us from doing it?
(I just
I joined the Systers mailing list - women only - administered by the Anita
Borg Institute some months ago, and it basically involved swearing that you
are female. There are a few moderators who manages the list.
Lightbreather
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Ahh. I am not certain how public that particular preference is; I'm
fairly certain there's no public list. The preference was installed on all
WMF wikis at the request of projects where there is a different term for
user depending on the self-identified gender of the user. (For example,
the user
Well, how would you limit participation to just those people? There's no
page-protection option for check person's gender, then allow edits only if
'female', and Wikipedia doesn't currently have any policies that would
allow, like, topic bans from a Wikiproject based on gender rather than
I know you can use the they template to see if a user prefer he, she,
or they. It seems like that could be queried to find out who identifies
as she and send out an invitation to join the women-only project... if
such a thing were created. In addition, a notice could go up saying that
women
I can imagine the complaints and hurdles. The discussion is it possible?
Could it work?
To your specific questions, if there's no page-protection option, can there
be? If it's absolutely impossible, then the moderators would have to keep
an eye on those things. Also, I think there would be parts
On 31 December 2014 at 11:18, LB lightbreath...@gmail.com wrote:
I can imagine the complaints and hurdles. The discussion is it possible?
Could it work?
To your specific questions, if there's no page-protection option, can
there be? If it's absolutely impossible, then the moderators would
I've started two separate mailing list topics today - Women of GGTF and
WP:WOMEN - but they haven't posted. You do send to
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org, right? I think that's what I've used before.
Lightbreather
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31
As I'm imagining this right now, it would be public. It would be open to
those who've identified as women to edit, and to others to read. I suppose
it might touch upon content issues, but those would more likely go to the
project and article talk pages for specific subjects and topics.
What its
On 31 December 2014 at 11:38, LB lightbreath...@gmail.com wrote:
I've started two separate mailing list topics today - Women of GGTF and
WP:WOMEN - but they haven't posted. You do send to
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org, right? I think that's what I've used
before.
Lightbreather
They've
Some thoughts...some ok some negative about a project for women.
Spaces that promote sisterhood and women only that are public generally
have overwhelming woman. participation and men often play the role of
observers.
That's why I created the WikiWomens Collab. While men like it, it's
extremely
A women's project might be a nice complement to the collaborative and the
teahouse. The collaborative is a great choice for women who like to use
Facebook and Twitter, but some don't. The teahouse is OK (and I'd like to
offer myself as a mentor for women editors there), but even there the
Yes, I just suggest that you find as much research as you can to prove why
this type of thing would work.
But, perhaps I'm just paranoid. I have had almost every project I have ever
started nominated for deletion. SoI'm paranoid :)
Why does Wikipedia need a woman-centric space for people who
Ms. Stierch's comments are exactly on target.
Do the GGTF-type organizing off wiki, not on-wiki. That's not the place for
it.
Start your own message board akin to Wikipediocracy. Organize (and vent)
there.
Use Facebook, etc.
Concentrate on developing new feminist editors, helping them through
As long as (mostly male) Wikipedia editors are allowed to insult and
harass editors whose edits they oppose for whatever reason Wikipedia
cannot retain women, no matter how much they follow the suggestions
below. (Unless of course they focus on shaming the WMF until it uses
its terms of
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Carollet's just deconstruct what you're saying here.
If we were to take the words female and male and women and men out
of it entirely, would it sum up one of the major issues in editor
retention? I'm going to be
Carollet's just deconstruct what you're saying here.
If we were to take the words female and male and women and men out
of it entirely, would it sum up one of the major issues in editor
retention? I'm going to be honest, I've read a genuinely disproportionate
number of insulting edits made
That's what I have been doing. That's what Adrianne and I practice(d) and
it's worked well so far.
Now it's a global movement devoid of the drama that happens here. I am
proud of that.
Sarah
On Dec 30, 2014 5:30 AM, Tim Davenport shoehu...@gmail.com wrote:
Ms. Stierch's comments are exactly on
Honestly, I'm leery about participating on this list a lot of the time
because I don't know who everyone is - that is the name they use on this
list doesn't match their name on Wikipedia. There is one I've figured out,
and he is one of the ones who has said some very bad things about me on
talk
In my experience, except for alleged women coming to GGTF talk age and
arbitration page, and a transwoman in Austrian economics, I only ran
into one woman who was particularly insulting. And that was on the
highly sensitive Death of Caylee Anthony article where tempers sometimes
ran high. So
I think there is very little that Carol and I would agree on when it comes
to subjects and article topics, and we definitely have different editing
styles, but I absolutely agree with her on one thing, and that is the
hostility on Wikipedia is a turn-off to a lot of women and men. I would
much
I suggest that an environment made up of *mostly* men is going to behave in
a way that is *mostly* male.
The Argument Culture
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/DAED_a_00211?journalCode=daed#.VKLQgF4AA
by Deborah Tannen PhD
Lightbreather
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Risker
On 12/30/2014 11:17 AM, LB wrote:
I think there is very little that Carol and I would agree on when it
comes to subjects and article topics, and we definitely have different
editing styles, but I absolutely agree with her on one thing, and that
is the hostility on Wikipedia is a turn-off to a
07:56:24 -0800
From: sarah.stie...@gmail.com
To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] GGTF talk page
That's what I have been doing. That's what Adrianne and I practice(d) and it's
worked well so far.
Now it's a global movement devoid of the drama that happens here. I am proud
I've just read through the last few weeks of discussion on that talkpage,
and I can't blame anyone for abandoning it. Holy cow! What a mess. The last
thing I would ever recommend someone do is bring an article or discussion
there for feedback, support, assistance, etc. let alone any idea about the
On 12/29/2014 12:31 PM, Marie Earley wrote:
Is it possible to post some of the stuff that has been mentioned on
here on the GGTF talk page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force
It feels like the two have nothing in common at
yep,
let's study some more, not all men, let's recruit more pipeline...
i tend to edit in article space.
talk space and even project talk are dysfunctional (waste of time)
people seeking to disrupt, can only on wiki.
i tend to organize on facebook, twitter, meetup etc.
where there is adult
Very interesting thoughts. Myself, I avoid Facebook and Twitter like the
plague, but I realise I'm very much in the minority there. I don't object
to their existence, don't get me wrong, and I know some people find it
useful.
Having said that - it's interesting to read what another woman has
33 matches
Mail list logo
