Thanks, Sarah. I've got to ask...I've not seen some of those comments before on the "public" lists, and I subscribe to most of them. Did I miss something?
Risker/Anne On 1 May 2013 11:12, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stie...@gmail.com> wrote: > Please see below > > > via Matthew Roth at WMF. > > > Sue published this blog post just recently: > http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/05/01/of-wikipedia-categories-and-sexism/ > > > What’s missing from the media discussions of Wikipedia categories and > sexism > Posted by Sue Gardner on May 1, 2013 > > Last week the New York Times published an Op-Ed from author Amanda > Filipacchi headlined Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists, in which > she criticized Wikipedia for moving some authors from the “American > novelists” category into a sub-category called “American women novelists.” > Because there is no subcategory for “American male novelists,” Filipacchi > saw the change as reflecting a sexist double standard, in which ‘male’ is > positioned as the ungendered norm, with ‘female’ as a variant. > > I completely understand why Filipacchi was outraged. She saw herself, and > Harper Lee, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Judy Blume, Louisa May Alcott, Mary > Higgins Clark, and many others, seemingly downgraded in the public record > and relegated to a subcategory that she assumed would get less readership > than the main one. She saw this as a loss for American women novelists who > might otherwise be visible when people went to Wikipedia looking for ideas > about who to hire, to honor, or to read. > > In the days following, other publications picked up the story, and > Filipacchi wrote two followup pieces — one describing edits made to her own > biography on Wikipedia following her first op-ed, and another rebutting > media stories that had positioned the original categorization changes as > the work of a lone editor. > For me–as a feminist Wikipedian–reading the coverage has been extremely > interesting. I agree with many of the criticisms that have been raised (as > I think many Wikipedians do), and yet there are important points that I > think have been missing from the media discussions so far. > In Wikipedia, like any large-scale human endeavor, practice often falls > short of intent. > > Individuals make mistakes, but that doesn’t and shouldn’t call into > question the usefulness or motivations of the endeavor as a whole. Since > 2011, Wikipedia has officially discouraged the creation of gender-specific > subcategories, except when gender is relevant to the category topic. (One > of the authors of the guideline specifically noted that it is clear that > any situation in which women get a gendered subcategory while men are left > in the ungendered parent category is unacceptable.) In other words, the > very situation Filipacchi decries in her op-ed has been extensively > discussed and explicitly discouraged on Wikipedia. > Wikipedia is a continual work-in-progress. It’s never done. > > In her original op-ed, Filipacchi seems to assume that Wikipedians are > planning to move all the women out of the American Novelists category, > leaving all the men. But that’s not the case. There’s a continuous effort > on Wikipedia to refine and revise categories with large populations, and > moving out the women from American Novelists would surely have been > followed by moving out the satirical novelists, or the New York novelists, > or the Young Adult novelists. I’d argue it’s still an inappropriate thing > to do, because women are 50 percent of the population, not a variant to the > male norm. Nevertheless the move needs to be understood not as an attack on > women, but rather, in the context of continuous efforts to refine and > revise all categories. > Wikipedia is a reflection of the society that produces it. > > Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and as such it reflects the > cultural biases and attitudes of the general society. It’s important to say > that the people who write Wikipedia are a far larger and vastly more > diverse group than the staff of any newsroom or library or archive, past or > present. That’s why Wikipedia is bigger, more comprehensive, up-to-date and > nuanced, compared with any other reference work. But with fewer than one in > five contributors being female, gender is definitely Wikipedia’s weak spot, > and it shouldn’t surprise anyone that it would fall victim to the same > gender-related errors and biases as the society that produces it. > > Are there misogynists on Wikipedia? Given that anyone with internet access > can edit it, and that there are roughly 80,000 active editors (those who > make at least 5 edits per month on Wikimedia projects), it would be absurd > to claim that Wikipedia is free of misogyny. Are there well-intentioned > people on Wikipedia accidentally behaving in ways that perpetuate sexism? > Of course. It would be far more surprising if Wikipedia were somehow free > of sexism, rather than the reverse. > > Which brings me to my final point. > > It’s not always the case, but in this instance the system worked. > Filipacchi saw something on Wikipedia that she thought was wrong. She drew > attention to it. Now it’s being discussed and fixed. That’s how Wikipedia > works. > > The answer to bad speech is more speech. Many eyes make all bugs shallow. > If you see something on Wikipedia that irks you, fix it. If you can’t do it > yourself, the next best thing is to do what Filipacchi did — talk about it, > and try to persuade other people there’s a problem. Wikipedia belongs to > its readers, and it’s up to all of us to make it as good as it possibly can > be. > > Sue Gardner, Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation > > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Matthew Roth <mr...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > >> I know we've put a lot of these on the list recently, but I think this >> piece provides a fairly reasoned analysis and a good call to action for >> more women to get involved and edit: >> >> FORBESWOMAN | 4/26/2013 >> >> http://www.forbes.com/sites/deannazandt/2013/04/26/yes-wikipedia-is-sexist-thats-why-it-needs-you/ >> >> Yes, Wikipedia Is Sexist -- That's Why It Needs You >> Deanna Zandt, Contributor >> >> In a New York Times op-ed, writer Amanda Filipacchi shared her discovery >> that sexism on Wikipedia is intrusively shaping how women are represented, >> and in this case, how women are sometimes categorized as a special subset >> within a broader occupation. [Disclaimer: one of the services my agency >> offers is teaching webinars and workshops on the principles of Wikipedia >> editing.] While the veracity of this claim is being debated and questioned >> within the Wikipedia community (many are pointing out that the edits >> Filipacchi describes were rejected strongly, and that there are more >> structural problems with the entries discussed), there’s no doubt that >> gender and other biases, both conscious/intentional and unconscious, are >> common on Wikipedia. Over the years, any number of flare-ups around gender >> have occurred, ranging from harassment via vandalism of women’s pages, to >> using language and informational structures that marginalize or even erase >> entire genders, and more. >> >> But saying that “Wikipedia is sexist” and hoping its users change their >> ways misses the mark on the bigger opportunity we have culturally to shift >> how we represent our information and stories on Wikipedia. Anyone can edit >> Wikipedia, but over 80% of Wikipedia’s editors are young, white, child-free >> men, which means that their perspective is what largely dominates how >> information is organized, framed and written. There’s nothing inherently >> wrong with a young, white, child-free man’s perspective, of course– it’s >> just that there are tons of other perspectives in the world that should >> influence how a story gets told. Think about how many Americans, for >> example, learned about white colonists’ relationships with the indigenous >> peoples that lived on the continent. The purely-Manifest-Destiny version of >> the events that’s often given to children in school definitely isn’t how >> people who’ve been nearly eradicated would tell that story. >> >> Thus, it’s critical that we have as many perspectives as we can find >> creating the information that we share with one another, and this is a >> driving force behind one of Wikipedia’s main principles: neutral point of >> view. One person’s take can never be completely neutral, but Wikipedia’s >> guidelines hope that with many people participating, the most neutral >> version of a story will arise. >> >> Which is why it’s not enough to sit back and hope for the best when >> finding sexist, racist, homophobic, trans*phobic, etc., language or >> information on Wikipedia. In order to fix it, we need lots of different >> kinds of people to jump in and start editing Wikipedia, too. That’s a scary >> prospect, but there are tons of resources available for beginners to get >> started. >> >> Wikipedia has a a welcome library of resources that includes handbooks >> and videos on principles of editing and how to use the editing tools. >> >> - WikiWomen is a collective of people interested in supporting >> women’s activities in the community. It’s both a rallying cause and >> resource for women’s participation, as well as a supportive environment in >> which to learn. >> - The Teahouse is a community gathering spot on Wikipedia for >> newcomers (of all genders) to ask questions and get help with problems >> they >> might be having. >> - Of course, my own work: I teach introductory webinars and workshops >> on Wikipedia principles, tools and resources, and have tailored those >> workshops to primarily women-centered groups. >> >> One of my own first forays into understanding the sexism of the Wikipedia >> community, and learning how it could right itself, was back in 2005. A very >> public conversation took place about the fact that the entry for “Woman” >> contained a list of (mostly derogatory) slang terms for women. On top of >> the abject negativity that section offered for the entry, there was also no >> comparable list in the entry for “Man.” But instead of simply kvetching on >> blogs and listservs, the Wikipedians who cared about the issue took to the >> “Talk” page of the “Woman” entry — this is where anyone can discuss the >> content of a page — and started to hash out how and why to improve. >> Eventually, everyone agreed to move those terms to the “Misogyny” entry. >> >> Not every discussion ends up working out so neatly, of course, but >> Wikipedians have worked hard on hammering out editing guidelines together >> (there’s even a mediation process for people who can’t agree on how a page >> should be edited). Where things start to get sticky is figuring out how to >> handle the bias that may influence those guidelines. For example, one of >> the principles of a Wikipedia entry is notability. How notable an item is >> can depend on how much it’s been referenced in 3rd-party sources, like >> academic journals or news articles. With the case of the novelists in the >> Times piece, verifying that a novelist who is a woman is notable could get >> complicated based on that guideline. Tech entrepreneur and author Lauren >> Bacon brought this to my attention in an email discussion: “If [writers who >> are women] can’t get equal representation in the literary review pages, >> then how can they get the necessary ‘credible source’ citations that >> Wikipedia demands in order to deem them a noteworthy individual?” >> >> I don’t expect Wikipedia to solve the sexism that exists in the world, >> but I do see it as a place for us to challenge the status quo of the sexism >> that surrounds us. And it’s not enough that we create an open system and >> say that everyone has the opportunity to work on it– we need to make >> intentional interventions into the status quo that involve raising the >> voices of those who are not heard as often. That’s just starting to happen, >> and I’m looking forward to seeing where we take it, together. >> >> – >> >> Many thanks to Sarah Stierch for sharing WikiWomen and the Teahouse >> resources with me. >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Sarah Stierch <sstie...@wikimedia.org>wrote: >> >>> I concur with Jimmy. >>> >>> On an feminist academic list I'm on a poster suggested the editor is a >>> "clueless busybody". >>> >>> I second that. I find value in "women's" categories as a feminist >>> academic. But this was just a situation of epic fail being exploded into a >>> gender-mess. >>> >>> Sarah >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Apr 25, 2013, at 5:37 PM, Jimmy Wales <jwa...@wikia-inc.com> wrote: >>> >>> > On 4/25/13 8:00 PM, James Alexander wrote: >>> >> Yeah, I think the discussion on the Categories for discussion page >>> will likely mean this steers towards conclusion relatively quickly as a >>> keep and merge option (keep them in the female category but readd them to >>> the general category). >>> >> >>> >> Though as a Wikipedian I tend to have the 'what's the problem? This >>> isn't sexist it's just more specific, we should have a male category too >>> but you aren't saying they aren't American novelists it's just repetitive >>> to have both" viewpoint. It confounds me how people wouldn't understand >>> that 'American women novelists' are obviously by definition included as >>> 'american novelists' as well and so don't need to be manually included in >>> both ... >>> > I urge everyone who is communicating on this issue to very strongly >>> avoid this approach. It's just wrong and it makes us look really really >>> bad. >>> > >>> > It *is* sexist to have a category "American novelists" that contains >>> only men, and a subcategory "American female novelists" for the women. It >>> is sexist >>> > because it assumes that "male" is the default and "female" is a >>> special case. >>> > >>> > There are several valid options, but that one is really not acceptable. >>> > >>> > It is very important that we emphasize to the press that the Wikipedia >>> community did not and does not approve of such categorization schemes. >>> There is >>> > overwhelming shock and opposition to the very possibility. What >>> happened here is apparently one editor working on gender separation and >>> being slightly >>> > clueless about the implications. >>> > >>> > --Jimbo >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Wmfcc-l mailing list >>> > wmfc...@lists.wikimedia.org >>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wmfcc-l >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wmfcc-l mailing list >>> wmfc...@lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wmfcc-l >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Matthew Roth >> Global Communications Manager >> Wikimedia Foundation >> +1.415.839.6885 ext 6635 >> www.wikimediafoundation.org >> *https://donate.wikimedia.org* >> > > > > -- > > Matthew Roth > Global Communications Manager > Wikimedia Foundation > +1.415.839.6885 ext 6635 > www.wikimediafoundation.org > *https://donate.wikimedia.org* > > _______________________________________________ > Wmfcc-l mailing list > wmfc...@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wmfcc-l > > > > > -- > -- > *Sarah Stierch* > *Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian* > *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
