Re: [Gendergap] User blocked for sexist comment, many disagree - it wasn't sexist
What's more important than the content of what Baseball Bugs said, to me, was the underlying assumption; that there couldn't possibly be any women around who might be offended. I'd venture that most people would hesitate to recount a particularly hilarious episode of South Park featuring the character Timmy (a caricature of a disabled boy) if they were standing next to a stranger in a wheelchair, because for most people it's slightly more important not to hurt someone's feelings than it is to impress others with their wit. Maybe the person in the wheelchair also thinks Timmy is hilarious -- but maybe he or she doesn't, and I think most people would agree that it's not worth the risk of coming off as offensive or insensitive until they know for sure. Similarly, I think if Bugs was aware that there *are* (gasp) women on the Internet, and on Wikipedia even, he would have thought twice before posting a comment about how women do and do not act. For me, this is a great example of Wikipedia's problematic gender dynamic in action: it's not about directed hostility and hounding of female contributors (though that may very well happen). To me, it's more about a majority that does not see the problem because it doesn't ever hear the minority voice -- and in the rare cases when they do hear it, they choose to interpret it as shrill and reactionary. And it's about a minority that doesn't want to be painted as a bunch of hysterical reactionaries, so they continue to remain silent. So thank you, Fluffy, for speaking out calmly and sensibly, even if it seems like nobody's listening. It may feel discouraging and frustrating, but I'm absolutely certain that it's little acts like that that are going to make a big difference :) Maryana ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] User blocked for sexist comment, many disagree - it wasn't sexist.
BaseballBugs has a problematic history at the reference desk. This isn't the first time he's made sexist comments there.[1] Unfortunately, none of this context was brought up in the discussion about the block. The unblock was a knee-jerk reaction from a superficial evaluation. Arguably, the block was a knee-jerk reaction as well. Bad behavior all around, in my opinion. Ryan Kaldari 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2010_January_21#Orgasm On 10/12/11 7:10 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote: I never said that I agreed or disagreed with the block. I was merely expressing that some of the comments made in regards to the comment the blocked user made were interesting. A nice selection of people didn't see anything sexist about the comment, or the potential to find anything sexist within it. I also think it's not a healthy environment when people think a witty person is just being, well, witty and clever as always, and that it's acceptable and perhaps doesn't require any reprimanding, perhaps on any level. And I do agree with Fred, the admin was perhaps just reacting to what they saw - after some of the stories, talk page comments, and behavior of some users - of any gender - I can see how the occasional admin jumps the gun. It's very easy to do when you have good faith while trying to defend the users of an environment you care so deeply about. I have also been described as a snarky, witty, clever (among other names) person and even to this day I open my big mouth and regret what I say, on occasion. I also expect to be reprimanded when I'm out of line and while that comment might not have been extreme (as Fluffernutter pointed out), other comments have been that other users have been made on Wikipedia and related projects, and people most often walk off without being taught a lesson. I think it's fascinating. But, perhaps I'm in the minority (oh wait, I am ;-)...ok..just being witty!)... -Sarah On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 9:22 PM, icewe...@gmail.com mailto:icewe...@gmail.com wrote: Is there any way to criticize a any action justified with sexism without adding to the persecution complex here? Honest question. Blocking a user for comments made a week prior falls a mile out of standard process. Blocking a user who tries to explain himself without begging for mercy falls a mile out of process. It was a ridiculous power trip by the blocking admin and was over turned as such. The only concerning thing in the thread was how a bogus block was sized upon and defended as an opportunity to crusade against the boyzone [sic]. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia http://www.glamwiki.org Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Art http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch and Sarah Stierch Consulting /Historical, cultural artistic research advising./ -- http://www.sarahstierch.com/ ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] User blocked for sexist comment, many disagree - it wasn't sexist.
* ChaoticFluffy wrote: Hi Björn, thanks for a very thoughtful email. I just want to point out that the problematic comment the user made was not calling another user a woman. If you think we would be better off if the comment had not been made in the manner it has been made, I think we should look at what lead to it and how to avoid similar circumstances that may lead to similar comments in the future. I offered an interpretation and steps to mitigate this kind of problem in the future in line with my personal experience. I do not care about identifying the greatest offense, I care about educating people so they can understand reactions to their communications and be- havior before they communicate and do things. Consider how this incident would have unfolded if the blocked user had never called the other user a he. It wouldn't have, there would have been no reason to point this apparent mistake out, no need to respond, no warning, no response to the warning, no block, no discussion about the block, no thread here, etc. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] User blocked for sexist comment, many disagree - it wasn't sexist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_review_for_Baseball_Bugs The first unblock statement shares the link to the joke and the reprimand by an admin on the users page telling them they can get blocked for ongoing comments like that. Fluffernutter points out that there is a boyzone in Wikipedia and that it's not right to mock a users gender. I do appreciate Fluffernuter speaking up about this, I know it's not always something that she likes to get mixed up with (so to say - as we talked about in IRC today). A dialogue takes place ranging from people thinking the joke wasn't sexist, to Fluffernutter is being PC. I don't believe that the user the joke was directed at participates in the conversation - for all we know they might have not been offended - but, this is just another example of how people seem to be unclear about what sexist behavior is. Where I've worked and attended school, it was always very clear that behavior or comments like that were/are not prohibited, but more often than not, people don't speak up when people behave poorly (silent victims). Unlike on Wikipedia, where people generally do speak up - the shroud of the internet, I suppose. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, an educational environment. And when people have to start questioning Is this offensive or not? Is it sexist or not? then clearly there is a problem with something in the culture and system. -Sarah Stierch I'm just looking into this and am not happy. There was a great wind from all quarters... It gets complicated fast. What the hell is this: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneousdiff=453620216oldid=453618738 Fred ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] User blocked for sexist comment, many disagree - it wasn't sexist.
You are right, of course, what we do is bad enough, without having to answer for the expectations of what our gender is expected to do. Fred Thanks for posting this, Sarah. I was hesitant to link to it while it was an active thread. My basic feeling in this case was that the user's comments weren't *particularly* terrible, and all of us who are sensitive to gender issues have probably seen way worse. A block may well have been overkill in this situation. However, I'm concerned that the way that thread played it out gave an overwhelmingly strong impression that oh, you're not a woman sort of comments are completely fine, and that anyone who says otherwise is a PC, tiny, reactive minority. I was really disappointed to be the only person who showed up to that thread who could understand how the comments could even be *perceived* as a problem. Just when we think gender concerns may be penetrating the wiki's consciousness, we get something like and I go, ...oh. Sigh. There's nothing to be done with regard to this particular case at this point, and I hasten to ask that people not descend on the (now-close) thread, or the (now-unblocked) user. But I would like to see a conversation about how we can address this sort of Of COURSE it's fine! attitude. -Fluffernutter On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_review_for_Baseball_Bugs The first unblock statement shares the link to the joke and the reprimand by an admin on the users page telling them they can get blocked for ongoing comments like that. Fluffernutter points out that there is a boyzone in Wikipedia and that it's not right to mock a users gender. I do appreciate Fluffernuter speaking up about this, I know it's not always something that she likes to get mixed up with (so to say - as we talked about in IRC today). A dialogue takes place ranging from people thinking the joke wasn't sexist, to Fluffernutter is being PC. I don't believe that the user the joke was directed at participates in the conversation - for all we know they might have not been offended - but, this is just another example of how people seem to be unclear about what sexist behavior is. Where I've worked and attended school, it was always very clear that behavior or comments like that were/are not prohibited, but more often than not, people don't speak up when people behave poorly (silent victims). Unlike on Wikipedia, where people generally do speak up - the shroud of the internet, I suppose. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, an educational environment. And when people have to start questioning Is this offensive or not? Is it sexist or not? then clearly there is a problem with something in the culture and system. -Sarah Stierch -- GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia http://www.glamwiki.org Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Arthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch and Sarah Stierch Consulting *Historical, cultural artistic research advising.* -- http://www.sarahstierch.com/ ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] User blocked for sexist comment, many disagree - it wasn't sexist.
Is there any way to criticize a any action justified with sexism without adding to the persecution complex here? Honest question. Blocking a user for comments made a week prior falls a mile out of standard process. Blocking a user who tries to explain himself without begging for mercy falls a mile out of process. It was a ridiculous power trip by the blocking admin and was over turned as such. The only concerning thing in the thread was how a bogus block was sized upon and defended as an opportunity to crusade against the boyzone [sic]. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] User blocked for sexist comment, many disagree - it wasn't sexist.
I never said that I agreed or disagreed with the block. I was merely expressing that some of the comments made in regards to the comment the blocked user made were interesting. A nice selection of people didn't see anything sexist about the comment, or the potential to find anything sexist within it. I also think it's not a healthy environment when people think a witty person is just being, well, witty and clever as always, and that it's acceptable and perhaps doesn't require any reprimanding, perhaps on any level. And I do agree with Fred, the admin was perhaps just reacting to what they saw - after some of the stories, talk page comments, and behavior of some users - of any gender - I can see how the occasional admin jumps the gun. It's very easy to do when you have good faith while trying to defend the users of an environment you care so deeply about. I have also been described as a snarky, witty, clever (among other names) person and even to this day I open my big mouth and regret what I say, on occasion. I also expect to be reprimanded when I'm out of line and while that comment might not have been extreme (as Fluffernutter pointed out), other comments have been that other users have been made on Wikipedia and related projects, and people most often walk off without being taught a lesson. I think it's fascinating. But, perhaps I'm in the minority (oh wait, I am ;-)...ok..just being witty!)... -Sarah On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 9:22 PM, icewe...@gmail.com wrote: Is there any way to criticize a any action justified with sexism without adding to the persecution complex here? Honest question. Blocking a user for comments made a week prior falls a mile out of standard process. Blocking a user who tries to explain himself without begging for mercy falls a mile out of process. It was a ridiculous power trip by the blocking admin and was over turned as such. The only concerning thing in the thread was how a bogus block was sized upon and defended as an opportunity to crusade against the boyzone [sic]. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia http://www.glamwiki.org Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Arthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch and Sarah Stierch Consulting *Historical, cultural artistic research advising.* -- http://www.sarahstierch.com/ ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
