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

[J Hayes]

risker:
i'm kinda with you about defining deviancy down

it's just that things are so bad can't go lower
article subjects are already dismayed by the opaque unfriendly culture
they periodically ask for article deletion
librarians are advised about the "cultural buzzsaw"
having a safe environment on line is a lost cause
but we can have a grim determination with much cursing

cheers

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Risker  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  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  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 
>>> 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 
 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  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  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
>>
>
>
> 

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

[Carol Moore dc]

I agree that is innocent enough. Both men and women refer to cute asses, 
and not just on humans!  :-)


On 2/21/2016 7:58 PM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Ryan Kaldari  wrote:

Compare the reaction that Keilana's Op-ed got with the reaction that the
Signpost article "Wikipedia's cute ass" got:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-12-17/Featured_content

Notice any differences?


Yes, it was a headline which did not swear; it only appeared to.  Not
a good counter example :/
It danced around 'the line' a little, intelligently, which is very
common for light hearted sections of even very serious publications.
It gets a few smiles, and people are not 'offended' - they just move
on if they didnt like it, provided it isnt over-done.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
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)

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Ryan Kaldari  wrote:
> Compare the reaction that Keilana's Op-ed got with the reaction that the
> Signpost article "Wikipedia's cute ass" got:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-12-17/Featured_content
>
> Notice any differences?

Yes, it was a headline which did not swear; it only appeared to.  Not
a good counter example :/
It danced around 'the line' a little, intelligently, which is very
common for light hearted sections of even very serious publications.
It gets a few smiles, and people are not 'offended' - they just move
on if they didnt like it, provided it isnt over-done.

-- 
John Vandenberg

___
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  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  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  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 
>>> 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 
 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  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  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:

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

[Ryan Kaldari]

Compare the reaction that Keilana's Op-ed got with the reaction that the
Signpost article "Wikipedia's cute ass" got:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-12-17/Featured_content

Notice any differences?

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Pete Forsyth  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  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  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 
>>> 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  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  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:
>> 

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

[Risker]

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  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  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  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 
>>> 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  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  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
>>>
>>
>>
>> 

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  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  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 
>> 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  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  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)

[Risker]

I dunno, Ryan. The last time someone called me a badass, it was very
definitely meant as an insult cloaked as a compliment. I would not subject
any article subject to such an adjective.

RIsker/Anne

On 21 February 2016 at 19:12, Ryan Kaldari  wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Risker  wrote:
>
>> Unless my vision has completely eroded, I do not see the word "cunt"
>> anywhere in that article, Ryan.  Nobody on this list has ever said that
>> calling someone a cunt is a good thing.
>>
>
> I was referring to the common defense of that term on English Wikipedia
> (which I imagine you are familiar with). It's hard to notice the outcry
> against Keilana's Op-ed and the acceptance of other editors' use of the
> C-word (sorry, Fae)[1] without feeling like there is some kind of
> double-standard.
>
> What I do not understand is why anyone on this list would think that
>> calling someone a "badass" is a good thing.
>>
>
> According to Wiktionary it means "Having extreme appearance, attitude, or
> behavior that is considered admirable." Synonyms are listed as "cool" and
> "awesome".[2] It's obviously slang, but still sounds like a compliment to
> me.
>
> 1.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_female
> 2. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/badass#Adjective
>
> ___
> 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)

[Andreas Kolbe]

It's here, John:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-08-19/Op-ed

Andreas

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:17 AM, John Mark Vandenberg 
wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Robert Fernandez
>  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Risker  wrote:
> >>
> >> Is it a double standard?  If that page hadn't been written by Keilana,
> >> would it have been published as is?
> >
> >
> > I'm curious what you mean by this exactly.  Do you mean you think I
> > published it because I know Emily personally and would not have
> published it
> > as a submission from an unknown author?  Or are you saying I might not
> have
> > published a similar article by a male author?
> >
> > (For what it's worth, I re-published an article by a male academic in the
> > Signpost last year that had the phrase "asshole consensus" in the title.
> )
>
> I would appreciate seeing that article for comparison, as I am a
> little taken back by the use of swear words in the titles.
> Would you find it please?
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> 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)

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Robert Fernandez
 wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Risker  wrote:
>>
>> Is it a double standard?  If that page hadn't been written by Keilana,
>> would it have been published as is?
>
>
> I'm curious what you mean by this exactly.  Do you mean you think I
> published it because I know Emily personally and would not have published it
> as a submission from an unknown author?  Or are you saying I might not have
> published a similar article by a male author?
>
> (For what it's worth, I re-published an article by a male academic in the
> Signpost last year that had the phrase "asshole consensus" in the title. )

I would appreciate seeing that article for comparison, as I am a
little taken back by the use of swear words in the titles.
Would you find it please?

-- 
John Vandenberg

___
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)

[Ryan Kaldari]

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Risker  wrote:

> Unless my vision has completely eroded, I do not see the word "cunt"
> anywhere in that article, Ryan.  Nobody on this list has ever said that
> calling someone a cunt is a good thing.
>

I was referring to the common defense of that term on English Wikipedia
(which I imagine you are familiar with). It's hard to notice the outcry
against Keilana's Op-ed and the acceptance of other editors' use of the
C-word (sorry, Fae)[1] without feeling like there is some kind of
double-standard.

What I do not understand is why anyone on this list would think that
> calling someone a "badass" is a good thing.
>

According to Wiktionary it means "Having extreme appearance, attitude, or
behavior that is considered admirable." Synonyms are listed as "cool" and
"awesome".[2] It's obviously slang, but still sounds like a compliment to
me.

1.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_female
2. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/badass#Adjective
___
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)

[Robert Fernandez]

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Risker  wrote:

> Is it a double standard?  If that page hadn't been written by Keilana,
> would it have been published as is?
>

I'm curious what you mean by this exactly.  Do you mean you think I
published it because I know Emily personally and would not have published
it as a submission from an unknown author?  Or are you saying I might not
have published a similar article by a male author?

(For what it's worth, I re-published an article by a male academic in the
Signpost last year that had the phrase "asshole consensus" in the title. )
___
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)

[Fæ]

On 21 February 2016 at 23:19, Ryan Kaldari  wrote:
>>"Badass" isn't a compliment.
>
> And "cunt" is a friendly term of camaraderie in British English. Apparently
> I just don't have a good command of the English language.

Could you keep the unwelcome locker-room language to Jimmy Wales' talk
page where it appears welcomed with high-fives, rather than forcing
everywhere else where we might sometimes manage meaningful discussions
down to the same level?

Thanks
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

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

[WereSpielChequers]

One reason why I try not to use expletives on wiki is that things can be 
misinterpreted; I've seen examples of people using a rhetorical example only to 
find others take it personally. 

Another is that not everyone gets the difference between a swear word used 
against a specific person and one used against a situation; in particular I'm 
conscious that many people on English Wikipedia are not using their native 
language and might not spot the sometimes subtle distinction between 
unacceptable and arguable uses of such words. 

Lastly there is an argument for not having a privileged status for "vested 
contributors" whether admins, functionaries, or editor with vociferous fans; 
there are times when in just a few sentences you can explain why one use of a 
swear word is a personal attack and another is a rhetorical statement. But 
people don't necessarily believe you, especially if it looks to them that you 
are defending a fellow insider.


Regards

Jonathan / WereSpielChequers 


> On 21 Feb 2016, at 21:54, Ryan Kaldari  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  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  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

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

[SarahSV]

I'm not sure that "badass" is a bad thing to call someone nowadays. It has
been appropriated by feminists, according to the Atlantic. [1]

They describe it as "a term of acclamation and aspiration, both for women
and for a culture that is finally giving them their due. It’s a recognition
that women can 'radiate confidence in everything they do' just as readily
as men can."

Sarah

[1]
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/11/how-badass-became-feminist/417096/



On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Risker  wrote:

> Unless my vision has completely eroded, I do not see the word "cunt"
> anywhere in that article, Ryan.  Nobody on this list has ever said that
> calling someone a cunt is a good thing.  What I do not understand is why
> anyone on this list would think that calling someone a "badass" is a good
> thing.
>
> Risker
>
>
> On 21 February 2016 at 18:19, Ryan Kaldari  wrote:
>
>> >"Badass" isn't a compliment.
>>
>> And "cunt" is a friendly term of camaraderie in British English.
>> Apparently I just don't have a good command of the English language.
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Risker  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 
>>> 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 
 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  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  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 

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

[Risker]

Unless my vision has completely eroded, I do not see the word "cunt"
anywhere in that article, Ryan.  Nobody on this list has ever said that
calling someone a cunt is a good thing.  What I do not understand is why
anyone on this list would think that calling someone a "badass" is a good
thing.

Risker

On 21 February 2016 at 18:19, Ryan Kaldari  wrote:

> >"Badass" isn't a compliment.
>
> And "cunt" is a friendly term of camaraderie in British English.
> Apparently I just don't have a good command of the English language.
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Risker  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  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 
>>> 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  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  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)

[Ryan Kaldari]

>"Badass" isn't a compliment.

And "cunt" is a friendly term of camaraderie in British English. Apparently
I just don't have a good command of the English language.

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Risker  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  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 
>> 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  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  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)

[Ryan Kaldari]

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  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  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

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

[Risker]

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  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] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)

[Neotarf]

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