On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stie...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Andreas - when you say "until the Foundation does something," what are you
> looking for them to do?
>
Sarah, change has to come from the top: from Sue and the board. As far as I
am concerned, they have failed abysmally. There have been words and PR
exercises, and no deeds.
One idea was raised just now: Enshrine the equivalent of the friendly space
policy that applies to meet-ups in the terms of use, to apply to the online
environment. Treat it like any workplace environment. Make clear that
sexism, including inappropriate use of sexual imagery, will not be
tolerated.
Here is another: redefine the scope of Commons, making it clear that the
more sordid and pointless contributions are not welcome.
The Foundation should have cleaned up the festering sore that is Commons
("ethically broken", as Jimmy Wales called it recently) years ago. It has
lacked the will to do so.
Without support from the top it is no surprise that people like you burn
out, or simply stop challenging certain issues, because doing so makes you
an outcast in the community that assembles under those conditions.
Here is what you said a few days ago:
---o0o---
I basically had to stop doing the painful nomination and arguing about
nudity and women's images on Commons. Part of this was because it was so
demoralizing and depressing, and the other was the repeated "You'll never
be an admin on Commons if you keep doing this," and I always wanted to be
an admin on Commons. The fact that I let this argument - being made by male
Commonists - trigger me to not participate in the conversations is an
entirely different psychological issue in itself! Oy vey.
---o0o---
Again, without support from the top, there is nothing you can do, or could
have done as a fellow, to address this. But know this: the people who will
leave in protest if the Foundation ever does step up to the plate are the
ones who made your life hell there.
What Kaldari said earlier – "Don't mention the sexism!" – is a policy of
appeasement and collusion. It reminds me of the parable of the boiling
frog:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
People in Wikipedia who are not sexists seem to have gotten so used to the
institutionalised sexism that they have stopped noticing it, accepted it as
"part of the deal" – something they can't change – and lost touch with the
moral bearings they had before they entered the project.
Every non-Wikipedian I have described the situation at List of vegetarians
to, or sent a link to the discussion, has reacted with complete
incomprehension (or derision).
What are people like that doing in a Wikipedia article like this?
The Wikimedia Foundation should adjust its policies to be less welcoming to
editors with such strange views of women, so they no longer "outnumber", to
use Kaldari's expression, normal people.
The Foundation should have done so years ago. It has had many opportunities
to do so, and has so far failed to take any of them.
> You can always directly write the legal team and ask them for input on
> what "they" could do regarding your concerns. That's what I would do if I
> was you.
>
> As you very well know, grantmaking and technical aren't able to do much of
> anything, due to our new focus. However, community members are welcome to
> develop Individual Engagement Grants and chapters are able to acquire
> funding for programs and projects, and the gender gap is something everyone
> loves to talk about over and over and over again but no one seems to be
> willing to step up as individuals or as chapters to make large scale
> changes outside of outreach activities. (And I am grateful for all people
> do on this list, but..I'm just sayin...it seems to be the same people over
> and over again bringing this up, however, all people seem to do to about it
> is complain and talk about it, and take no action, and it's really tiring
> and depressing to watch and puts the burden on those of us who have limited
> time and are already burnt out).
>
> -Sarah
>
>
> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Nepenthe <topazbutter...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> The more I look into it, the more it seems like it's a pointless
>>> endeavor. From the deletion discussions I've looked at (
>>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Save_the_Redwoods.jpg),
>>> a photo of two nude young women in a tree considered in scope. After all,
>>> it's been categorized! (Is that really all it takes? Absurd.) And it could
>>> be used to illustrate the article on Bagby Hot Springs!
>>>
>>> Of the seven images Commons proposes to have illustrate encyclopedic
>>> articles on Bagby Hot Springs, 3 are of nude women.
>>>
>>> It's female nudes all the way down.
>>>
>>> Nepenthe
>>>
>>
>>
>> I would say that until the Foundation does something to set a different
>> direction, it is indeed pointless to argue about things like this in
>> Wikipedia or Commons.
>>
>> However, sexism and the gender gap have been prominent topics in the
>> press these last couple of weeks. Talk to journalists instead. You may find
>> them more sympathetic, and such an effort has a better chance of bringing
>> about change.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Mary Mark Ockerbloom <
>>>> celebration.wo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Regarding the question of "what can you do",
>>>>> I had the experience last week of starting a new job.
>>>>> I had to read through the guidelines for the organization,
>>>>> which included a section on Equal Opportunity and Freedom from
>>>>> Harassment.
>>>>> Prominent on the first page:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Harassment Defined
>>>>> 1. Hostile Environment
>>>>> Harassment prohibited under this policy includes verbal, visual,
>>>>> or physical conduct relating to matters of race, national origin, sex,
>>>>> sexual preference, religion, age or disability which is unwelcome to the
>>>>> reasonable person, and
>>>>> a. has the purpose or effect of interfering with a person's
>>>>> work performance
>>>>> b. has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating,
>>>>> hostile or offensive working environment. "
>>>>>
>>>>> Item 2 goes on to deal with more direct incidents such as "unwelcome
>>>>> sexual attention, sexual advances," etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also looked at the relevant page on Wikipedia, to see what
>>>>> Wikipedia's policy is.
>>>>> (Sorry I don't have the link to hand to include.) It covered item 2.
>>>>> But "Hostile environment", item 1 on my workplace's guidelines,
>>>>> is not included.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note too that item 1 is not limited to sexual materials;
>>>>> this is not identified as a "feminist problem" but as a type of
>>>>> behavior
>>>>> potentially relevant and unacceptable to anyone.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would suggest that one reason that it's hard to get people to address
>>>>> this sort of situation is that it's not clearly identified at a high
>>>>> level as unacceptable
>>>>> behavior which creates a "hostile environment"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A very interesting point, which reminded me of "The Benevolent Dictator
>>>> Incident":
>>>>
>>>> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_incident
>>>>
>>>> Wikimedia has a "friendly space" policy for physical meetings, but
>>>> apparently no exact equivalent for its online environment.
>>>>
>>>> To give an example, Commons has a "hot sex barnstar", present on a
>>>> number of user talk pages, which does not appear to have violated any
>>>> Wikimedia policy, judging by its existence for more than a year now. The
>>>> imagery is grossly pornographic, and would be unacceptable in almost any
>>>> workplace outside of the adult entertainment industry:
>>>>
>>>> NSFW: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_sex_barnstar.png
>>>>
>>>> Similar imagery is sometimes found on user pages.
>>>>
>>>> It is widely accepted that the open display of pornographic photographs
>>>> or drawings is a key contributor to a sexually hostile workplace. This is
>>>> something that could have been addressed as part of the Foundation's terms
>>>> of use:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities
>>>>
>>>> However, the present terms of use appear to permit anything that is not
>>>> outright illegal. If the Wikimedia Foundation is serious about addressing
>>>> the gender gap, why does it not apply customary workplace standards to its
>>>> online environment?
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> --
> *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
