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

Ryanno. I'm sorry, but there are very good reasons why I would not be supporting any such initiative from you. I think you are well aware of what they are. Frankly, some of the stuff I see being referred to as a personal attack should get the person calling it a personal attack blocked.

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

What I don't understand is if administrators like Risker and Mike Peel are so concerned about civility on Wikipedia that they object to Keliana's swearing, why aren't they the people that are making hard blocks against vested contributors who are unambiguously violating civility with personal

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

Regarding "swearing is not in itself uncivil" -- I agree strongly with that sentiment. However, in group communication it can be valuable to have clear lines that must not be crossed, in order to keep everybody on the same page. As an analogy, it seems to me that a clear expectation of avoiding

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

A number of us who are concerned about civility on Wikipedia do not see swearing in and of itself as uncivil. Many people may include professionalism and decorum under the umbrella of civility, but others do not, and they are not hypocritical because they do not. The problem is not the words

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

>In any case, it seems like it has long been settled that the general use of >profanity on Wikipedia is accepted but not celebrated. Only in >extreme cases >is it considered actionable when actually directed at an individual. So it's >hard to understand why many editors of long->tenure have

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

Context is everything. If a male editor who was previously contemptuous of women and the idea of addressing the gender gap writes a column supposedly celebrating women scientists with the same tone, that tone would be widely perceived as mockery and not celebration, and that perception would

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

I think you miss my point, Slowking. It wouldn't have been published at all if not for the author. If a man had written it, I doubt it would have made its way out of Gamaliel's inbox. And if a man with a reputation for negative interactions with women had written it, and somehow or other those

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

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Risker wrote: > >> If exactly the same article had been written by someone who has a long > and colourful history of behaviour considered to be very uncivil, nobody > would be thinking it was an okay article. It's only okay because Keilana >

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

"the reaction would have been infinitely more severe if not for the name of the author" oh no, the reaction is because she is a women. commentators at signpost care not of position, but they could be appalled that a woman is in a position of responsibility. why waste a chance to sealion when

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

On 24 February 2016 at 13:45, Nathan wrote: > > Additionally, not only have I never heard "badass" used in a derogatory > way, I've never even once heard anyone suggest that it might be used as an > insult. In my experience it has only ever been a compliment. In the context >

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

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Risker wrote: > Give me a break, Neotarf. I am critiquing the article and the decisions by > its author and its publisher. It doesn't surprise me that having someone > of Keilana's stature drop more f-bombs in a couple of paragraphs than I

[Gendergap] Women's Day

Hello all, Interesting video: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGzHWmR7Un8=youtu.be -- Isla Haddow-Flood skype: islahaddow twitter: @havingaflood instgram: islig Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Islahaddow Linked in: http://za.linkedin.com/pub/isla-haddow-flood

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

Leaving aside the language issue, there's an important issue in this article re the Gendergap. I had been under the impression that Wikipedia's ratio of bios by gender was skewed, but overall no more skewed than the secondary sources. That we have many gaps, male and female but, and this could be