(changing the topic back)
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Sylvia Ventura <slvent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anne, you're absolutely right on the 'high profile'. The broader the
> reach, impact, exposure, the more likely you are to become the target of
> good and bad 'attention'. The question is, much like in real-life, the
> higher up you are in an organization the more 'support' and/or protection
> you will likely need/get, as a community should we be able to insure a
> similar mechanism. This community resilience won't be built on a MadMax
> fighting-your-way-through model (I know it's rather dramatic :)
>
>
>From all the stories I've heard over the years, admins and arbitrators get
the worst of it -- being in a position where you delete articles or mediate
disputes on the project (and let's face it, the folks who get into
arbitration-type situations on wikipedia are often not the most stable or
reasonable people on earth) seems to be the most direct way to potentially
exposing yourself to lots of harassment. And if you're identified as
female, it's way worse.
Conversely from my experiences being pretty visible on the *organizational*
side of things (and talking to colleagues), there is a low level of
harassment that comes with that gig, but *nothing* like the horror stories
I've heard from some admins.
This is clearly untenable; the projects need to grow experienced
contributors who can serve in positions of leadership and as mentors on the
projects, and we can't expect everyone to just suck it up ("so sorry, you
will have to work with crazy people"). I worry that folks often just find
themselves unsupported. I don't know what the answer is.
-- phoebe
--
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers <at>
gmail.com *
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
