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

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

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

Rob, Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I think it is a good recap of the situation and I support your overall thinking. Warm regards, Sydney Sydney Poore User:FloNight Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane Collaboration On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Rob wrote: > >

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

Thank you, Pete, for the reminder about this message. There's a lot going on this week. The response to the op-ed has given us a lot to think about. We expected a strong response and some objections, but we did not anticipate anything like this. We do want a response, and sometimes we

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

"Keilana's actions have encouraged people to make it less so. " or validating the bad behavior elsewhere. i'd just say they don't need no validation, they will continue the "buzz saw" regardless. this language appropriation, (like sl**-walking) is a common enough device to be cliché. shouldn't

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

On 22 February 2016 at 13:06, Neotarf wrote: > @Risker, if your high school student are that benign, perhaps I will move > to Canada. > > :-) Even though it's a big urban centre that takes the word "multicultural" to a whole new level, Toronto is actually a pretty

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

@Risker, if your high school student are that benign, perhaps I will move to Canada. 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

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

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 heard on a bus full of high school students this morning will change the

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

@Risker, the double standard is that several individuals dropped f-bombs on the page, but only the woman got tsked. Talk pages of various users, not to mention the arbitration committee's pages, routinely contain f-bombs, which I have never seen anyone remark on. JimboTalk has occasionally seen

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

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

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

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

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

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 > >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

>"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

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

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

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

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

[Gendergap] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)

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