I joined the Systers mailing list - women only - administered by the Anita Borg Institute some months ago, and it basically involved swearing that you are female. There are a few moderators who manages the list.
Lightbreather On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: > Could you please clarify, Lightbreather? Do you mean a wikiproject that > is *only* open to women/those who identify as women? Because all > wikiprojects are open to all interested editors, generally speaking. > > Would that not require editors to have to publicly self-identify? How > would that be done? > > Risker/Anne > > On 31 December 2014 at 10:31, LB <lightbreath...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Is it simply impossible to start a Wikipedia project that's open to >> women, or people who identify as women? (I'm sorry if I don't use the >> correct terms, but I haven't kept up with them in recent years.) >> >> I mean if we did it... what would the consequences be? >> >> >> Lightbreather >> >> On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Sarah <slimvir...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 7:43 PM, LB <lightbreath...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Why abandon it? Let's reclaim it. Just ignore those who try to distract >>>> and derail. There are sanctions so no nastiness, but nastiness is not my >>>> usual style anyway. >>>> >>> >>> I don't know whether it's better to abandon, reclaim or move it. But it >>> has been a lesson in how deep Wikipedia's sexism runs. Any journalists in >>> future wanting examples of it need only read those archives and the >>> dispute-resolution threads that failed to deal with it (which one of us >>> ought to compile at some point). >>> >>> Marie, I saw the suggestion on GGTF that women might prefer to edit >>> "[f]ashion, cookery, domestic affairs, childrearing". Is it worth >>> continuing with it when that's what we have to deal with? >>> >>> Sarah >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Dec 30, 2014 10:25 AM, "Marie Earley" <eir...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> We're abandoning the GGTF on Wikipedia? Fair enough. >>>>> >>>>> It was just that I had an editor accused me of radical feminism POV >>>>> pushing on GGTF via my talk page (I dared to say that it was "interesting" >>>>> that the example topics that he thought women would be interested in >>>>> editing, other than feminism, might be "*fashion, cookery, domestic >>>>> affairs and childrearing*" rather than "*science, business, >>>>> filmmaking or politics*"). There was then this follow-on swipe on >>>>> GGTF. >>>>> >>>>> > "...one of the reasonable first steps toward seeing what women in >>>>> wikipedia thinks needs to be done most would be to actively ask women who >>>>> have self-identified as women what content of particular interest to women >>>>> might be underrepresented or undercovered here. Those women would >>>>> presumably be in a better position to clearly state their concerns than >>>>> would be individuals who can only speculate on them or draw potentially >>>>> flawed assumptions based on limited previous personal experience." >>>>> >>>>> So, my potentially flawed assumptions and limited previous personal >>>>> experience are surplus to requirements at the GGTF. The plan now seems to >>>>> go out and find answers that fit a pre-existing narrative about what is >>>>> causing the Gender Gap. >>>>> >>>>> So... "I believe the Gender Gap is caused by women who want to write >>>>> about knitting thinking that Wikipedia does not welcome articles about >>>>> knitting." I will create a skewed survey to fit this narrative and get the >>>>> "right kind of women" to fill it in and prove my pre-conceived notions >>>>> correct. >>>>> >>>>> I really don't see the point of it. If you ask 1,000 female editors, >>>>> "What kind of articles do you like to edit?", then you'll get 1,000 >>>>> answers >>>>> with a wide variety of topics. What would that prove? Suppose you find 90% >>>>> of them edit traditionally feminine topics, what conclusion would you draw >>>>> from it? Would it prove that they clearly prefer to edit those topics, or >>>>> those are the topics that they feel less likely to encounter intimidation, >>>>> or a combination of the two? I just think the GGTF board is currently >>>>> being >>>>> used to promote a truly pointless exercise. >>>>> >>>>> Marie >>>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
