Came across this kerfuffle today. I'd love to see what more
gendergap-focused people think about the following progression of events
(note: the image is NSFW, but each of the links I'm providing are SFW if
you don't click through to the image/article):
-
Yeah, the sheer domination by numbers of masculine voices - even when
they're not *trying *to argue from a particularly masculine perspective,
can just be draining in situations like this. *Especially* when they're not
trying to argue from a particularly masculine perspective, frankly, because
for your good work !!
Anna Jonsson
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 08:29:40 -0700
From: sarah.stie...@gmail.com
To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention on Commons and use on enwp
Sorry if this gets a little off topic from the actual focus of the subjects. I
It is impossible not to get upset. In my memory we worked to honor Alice
Paul. She never saw the ERA pass. (and neither have I)
It's is so soon in the history of the world that women have been able to
vote.It has not even been 100 years in the U.S.
Of course they are scared. of course they are
I definitely agree that women actively don't want to participate on
Commons, from what I've seen, heard, and felt myself.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote:
It's been so long since I've had a chance to vent on this list about
this!
On 4/29/13 8:43
You can see it here:
http://dhpoco.org/2013/04/29/report-on-the-global-women-write-in-gwwi-friday-april-26/
And of course improve upon the content they wrote!
-Sarah
--
*Sarah Stierch*
*/Museumist and open culture advocate/*
Visit sarahstierch.com http://sarahstierch.com
Came across this kerfuffle today. I'd love to see what more gendergap-focused
people think about the following progression of events (note: the image is
NSFW, but each of the links I'm providing are SFW if you don't click through
to the image/article):
a..
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Kathleen McCook klmcc...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course they are scared. of course they are mean. equality is terrifying
to them. so they do these kinds of things over and over and we fight back
little by little...but each day another woman steps up on
your
Hi Ryan,
On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 17:49:58 -0700
Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
If people are concerned about sexism in Wikipedia categories they should
be drawing attention to edits like this:
On 4/29/13 12:20 PM, Sarah wrote:
I was reverted when I tried to remove them all, so I started an RfC on
the talk page, and alerted WikiProject Feminism. In turn, the editor
who added them (who uses a woman's name) alerted WikiProject
Pornography, so it seems likely that some at least will
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote:
On 4/29/13 12:20 PM, Sarah wrote:
I was reverted when I tried to remove them all, so I started an RfC on
the talk page, and alerted WikiProject Feminism. In turn, the editor who
added them (who uses a woman's
Sparked by the recent...situation..
http://reagle.org/joseph/pelican/social/wikipedia-and-gendered-categories.html
Sar
--
*Sarah Stierch*
*/Museumist and open culture advocate/*
Visit sarahstierch.com http://sarahstierch.com
___
Gendergap mailing
Gender gap's WikiProject Feminism's own Kaldari is interviewed here:
http://www.npr.org/2013/04/29/179850435/what-s-in-a-category-women-novelists-spark-wiki-controversy
and User:Qworty in a not so pleasant light here:
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/29/wikipedias_shame/
O_o
--
*Sarah
Interesting commentary as far as it went. I wish he'd delved a little
further into what he was saying.
Perception is important. I think people can act in good faith (for
instance to reduce the size of a massive category) without realizing
the effect of how the result looks. It may not be meant in
On 04/29/2013 10:03 PM, Lady of Shalott wrote:
Interesting commentary as far as it went. I wish he'd delved a little
further into what he was saying.
...
Just thinking out loud here...
I'm actually on this list :) and was just thinking out loud as well to
see if I could understand the
Thanks for your reply, Joseph - fair enough! :) I agree with you - I
think there have been some major lapses of assumption of good faith
from both (all?) sides.
(Ouch looking back at my post, I'm wishing I could hit edit. The edit
summary would be something along the lines of typo fixing.)
On
Michael, I have to say that I find your comment offensive. NOBODY expects
to be denigrated on Wikipedia, and being privileged is no excuse for
doing so. This is EXACTLY the kind of behaviour this list was created to
try to modify.
Risker/Anne
On 29 April 2013 22:35, Michael J. Lowrey
I agree with Risker. O_o - it's the whole asking for it mentality.
-Sarah
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Michael, I have to say that I find your comment offensive. NOBODY expects
to be denigrated on Wikipedia, and being privileged is no excuse for
doing
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Michael, I have to say that I find your comment offensive. NOBODY expects
to be denigrated on Wikipedia, and being privileged is no excuse for
doing so. This is EXACTLY the kind of behaviour this list was created to
try to
On 29 April 2013 23:34, Michael J. Lowrey orangem...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Michael, I have to say that I find your comment offensive. NOBODY
expects to be denigrated on Wikipedia, and being privileged is no excuse
for doing so.
This system keeps the categories more straightforward, and pretty well avoids
the sort of subtle bias Wikipedia has been caught with here. Defining the
precise intersection of interest is up to the user.
But the corresponding weakness is that it depends on the editors hitting all
the right
Sigh. Of course they only took my two quotes about how there's sexism on
Wikipedia, and not a word of my explanation about how categorization on
Wikipedia works and how half of what Ms. Filipacchi wrote was
misleading. I also talked extensively about the real sexist problems
on Wikipedia
22 matches
Mail list logo
