yep, let's study some more, not all men, let's recruit more pipeline... i tend to edit in article space. talk space and even project talk are dysfunctional (waste of time) people seeking to disrupt, can only on wiki.
i tend to organize on facebook, twitter, meetup etc. where there is adult supervision. On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Carol Moore dc <carolmoor...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 12/29/2014 12:31 PM, Marie Earley wrote: > > Is it possible to post some of the stuff that has been mentioned on here > on the GGTF talk page > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force > > It feels like the two have nothing in common at the moment. There's a > whole load of "why don't we survey women and find out what they like to > edit / give women their own noticeboard / review the scope of the project" > - type rhetoric. > > Rather than wade in and argue (it's pointless, I got accused of 'radical > feminism' POV pushing for my trouble), can some of the stuff about grants, > meet ups etc. and replies be posted so we can move on, and all of the > "let's rip it up and start again" stuff can make its way into the archive? > > Marie > > Everything you see is just a variation of what was happening all summer, > with the pro-GGTF editors managing to keep their tempers against various > attempts by anti-project editors to disrupt the project by trying to narrow > and control the scope (as some women explicitly have complained): > > *general nitpicking of statement by a woman/supporter of project that > supports the original vision of being both about increasing number of > articles about women/topics of interest to women and increasing number of > women, including by dealing with issues that turn women off (both software > and behavior issues). (One editor summarized these past comments here: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Vintage_Feminist/GGTF%27s_re-boot > The comments are being challenged.) And of course various accusations of > defacto sexism for those who complain about this, as Marie alludes to above > > *Opposition to the idea of using the page to get other editors to help > with new articles about women unless the articles are already 100% in > compliance with every policy imaginable. > > *proposal to divide GGTF into two projects, one for articles about women, > the other for getting more women and "behavior"problems; divide and conquor > is the strategy here and I'm sure the second would quickly be put up for > deletion, widdling the project down to nothing > > *proposal to invite anything and everything regarding women (including > perhaps through womens noticeboard), which could be used to water GGTF down > to nothing regarding a gender gap by flooding with less relevant concerns > > *continuing contention that there is no evidence that there's a problem > despite these two existing pages: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force/research > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force/media > It would help if > > *Past edits at GGTF show that one or more of the alleged women posting now > are recruits of editors against the project from the arbitration. > > We'll see what happens... > > CM > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please > visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
