Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile to Women"

Hi all - As a further bit of clarification regarding the current arbcom case request (it had not been accepted yet:) 1) Eric Corbett made a series of statements that Kirill Lokshin, one of our best regarded former arbitrators, regarded as violating his topic bans w/r/t discussion of the

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile to Women"

The Signpost has an article, "Women and Wikipedia, the world s watching" and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-10-21/Editorial and "In the media: Wikipedia's hostility to women" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-10-21/In_the_media On

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile to Women"

the point about dying with a whimper is well taken; or as Andrew Lih said: become like wikinews, a failed wiki the librarian who said "cultural buzzsaw", also said, "would not touch wikipedia with a 10 foot pole." apparently, the write an article outside wiki to provide negative feedback to the

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile to Women"

In case anyone missed it, there is now an Arbcom case about this article... or something - am not entirely clear what it's about but there are some very, erm, "interesting" arguments being made in the dozens of case statements. On 21 Oct 2015 21:01, "Carol Moore dc"

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile to Women"

Jonathan, I think there's a bit of talking past each other going on. Rehashing details of one of the many dramafest Arbcom cases is not worthwhile. From my viewpoint Sarah hit the nail on the head with "Something systemic is happening here. As a result of those cases and many other examples

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile to Women"

Personally I'm skeptical of our (this mailing list's) ability to reform ArbCom. The candidates who are the most tolerant of harassment and misogyny seem to always be the most popular candidates. Thus the outcome of the ArbCom cases are hardly surprising. Do we even have a slate of candidates that

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile to Women"

I confess I had too much fun sparring with them yesterday, but had enough and don't feel like responding to last half dozen responses to myself, or those to lots of others who were sympathetic to the views of so many women on Wikipedia. The "arguments" are so much like the harassment we got

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile to Women"

Jonathan and Fae, I see the disagreement about details as part of the systemic bias. The evidence in question was widely available; one did not have to be a functionary to see it. I looked at it with a view to searching for the holes, because of course it was possible that someone was making

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile to Women"

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Risker wrote: > But it's gonna take more than "this picture is the same one on Person X's > personal website" to do it for me - because any experienced Wikimedian > knows that "stolen" images from personal websites are constantly showing up

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile to Women"

FWIW: speaking as a non-functionary who is not aware of what information our functionaries had at the time but used to handle abuse cases like this for a major website (and also briefly worked as an actual skiptracer, using purely legal means) the evidence I dug up on my own I would consider

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile to Women"

Hi Sarah, I'm not a "functionary" so I haven't seen the evidence - clearly it convinces you, but it did not quite convince the functionaries. Reading the result and for example Yunshui's comment I would simply prefer that the record shows we were not fully convinced by the evidence, rather than

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile to Women"

It is very tempting to say that. Unfortunately, as functionaries are even more likely to be trolled than just about anyone else on Wikipedia, and almost all of them have been impersonated on multiple places (some of them even on porn sites - seriously), it takes more to persuade them. I speak

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile to Women"

I was directly interviewed for this article but my contributions were scrapped. I have Emma's email and I would be happy to reach out to her if you'd like to list a set of uniform "corrections"? No guarantee she'd be able to change them but it's a start if you'd like? Sent from my iPhone - please

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile to Women"

Thanks Francesca, It seems a shame that an Arbcom case in which one person was blocked for offwiki harassment and another would have been if the evidence had been conclusive has been reported as if they'd decided instead to spare the harasser for privacy reasons. As Thryduulf put it "there is no

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile to Women"

WSC, the evidence as to who posted the porn images was, I would say, conclusive. We nevertheless ended up with a situation in which a man who had been engaged in harassment (much of which was onwiki and had been going on for about a year) was let off the hook, and the harassed woman was banned.

[Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile to Women"

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/ Goes into lots of details... ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing,

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile to Women"

Thanks for sending this out Carol, you beat me by about two minutes. I would hugely encourage everyone to read this, and a lot of it also relates to why it's important that people vote in arbcom election, and we don't have arbitrators elected with 273 support votes and fewer than 600 total

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile to Women"

Good that this story has been told, at last. Overdue. (Minor quibbles: Eric is not an admin, and the New York Times piece was not written by a NYT reporter. Corrections possible?) On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Kevin Gorman wrote: > Thanks for sending this out Carol, you

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile to Women"

On 21 October 2015 at 21:00, Carol Moore dc wrote: > http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/ > > Goes into lots of details... It is a readable summary. At the end, I felt a wash of overwhelming sadness. We've been

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile to Women"

Some journos take corrections easily, and some don't. I've had people directly misquote me at major outlets where I had the call on record (with their consent, since CA is a 2 party consent state for recording calls,) and refuse to make corrections, and had other people accept my corrections at

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile to Women"

feel free to correct about Clara H. Hasse not Nellie A. Brown, and there were a handful of women contributors at EB1911 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Agnes_Mary_Clerke https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Contributors On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Kevin