I agree with Sarah: the thread should stay, tagged with [Commons] as Erik has suggested.
We are actually making progress – painful progress at times, but significant progress nevertheless. Andreas On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Sarah <slimvir...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Sumana, >> >> Yes, gladly. I feel that thread has served a good purpose, but it's true, >> it's been at the expense of flooding the list with a lot of noise, and I've >> contributed some of it. I do think that after a prolonged long dip into >> less productive discussion, in the last exchange we have arrived at a point >> where there is some consensus about what the problems are and how to attack >> them, and hopefully we can leverage that into some policy reform that moves >> the project forward. But you're right, it would be better at this point to >> move that activity onto a wiki. >> > > Hi Sumana and Pete, I would object to closing any thread down. If people > don't want to read the thread, that's fine, but if others are discussing > it, please allow that. > > The presence of this kind of material on Commons is directly related to > the whole issue of sexism on Wikipedia and the lack of women editors, and > that makes it a very valid topic for the gender-gap list. I can't imagine a > more valid topic than women being represented sexually without their > consent on Wikimedia projects. If discussing it on this list brings people > together and edges us closer to a solution that would surely be a really > good outcome for the list. > > Sarah > > _______________________________________________ > 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
