Michael Snow wrote: > > Similarly, we know that the community population skews young and male. > That has important consequences, and some of those unfortunately > reinforce our lack of diversity. It's been pointed out what a > male-centric approach we sometimes have, in the enthusiasm and manner > with which certain subjects are covered, and the oblivious attitude > toward potential offensiveness of various images. This comes across to > all too many women as a hostile culture. Most large online communities > do not have the kind of gender imbalance we have. This is a serious > issue we need to address. The foundation could do targeted outreach > forever to recruit underrepresented groups (whether it's ethnicity, age, > gender, or other factors), and it would accomplish very little without > significant improvements in our culture. > >
Well, yes and no. Historically the first time the offensiveness of images on wikipedia first came to a head (so to speak), was the images on [[Clitoris]]. At least in that instance the contributors who feigned the images as being offensive to viewers -- while in many cases claiming *they* personally weren't at all offended (!!) -- were predominantly male. My recollection was/is that the defenders of a photographic image on that page, instead of a schematic drawing, were mostly female. I don't deny the general point about the testosterone-laden atmosphere in some areas of our community, but I do want to note that even in the latest controversy over images, the person on the Board of Trustees who came strongest in defense of a unfettered retention of sensual images of educational value was its (single?) female member. It would be a serious mistake to claim that she was doing so only to "fit in" with the lads. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l