I can imagine the complaints and hurdles. The discussion is it possible? Could it work?
To your specific questions, if there's no page-protection option, can there be? If it's absolutely impossible, then the moderators would have to keep an eye on those things. Also, I think there would be parts of the project that would be vehemently opposed, but others who wouldn't care one way or another, and some who would welcome such a space with open arms. I don't know about EEML. I will read that. Again, I am brainstorming here. Discussing how it *could* work, not whether or not it will or would. Lightbreather On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Katherine Casey < fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, how would you limit participation to just those people? There's no > page-protection option for "check person's gender, then allow edits only if > 'female'," and Wikipedia doesn't currently have any policies that would > allow, like, topic bans from a Wikiproject based on gender rather than > problematic behavior. I imagine the community would be vehemently opposed > to such things, and for good reason. Forcing people to identify to > participate, or sanctioning people when they've done nothing but been the > wrong gender, are antithetical to Wikipedia's "anyone can participate" > ethos. > > If you were setting something up offwiki, not in association with > Wiki[m|p]edia, you'd be as free as anyone else to set your own criteria for > membership, but the problem then becomes a) attracting enough high-quality > participation b) without becoming a "cabal" in the style of the EEML > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list> > that got people in so much trouble a few years ago. > > On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 10:59 AM, LB <lightbreath...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Well, I'm brainstorming, but yes... a project that is only open to women >> or those who identify as women. And yes, that would mean identifying (via >> one's "she edits" preference - as I know of no other ways to identify, >> right?) Hypothetically, is there anything to prevent us from doing it? >> >> (I just went and re-identified as "she edits." I had turned that off for >> a while when I first started getting harassed, but WTF. I'm tired of >> hiding. I'll bet other women are tired of hiding, too.) >> >> >> 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
