@Risker, the double standard is that several individuals dropped f-bombs on the page, but only the woman got tsked. Talk pages of various users, not to mention the arbitration committee's pages, routinely contain f-bombs, which I have never seen anyone remark on. JimboTalk has occasionally seen some respectful and considerate pushback, but nothing like the strident comments on the Signpost piece. True, there was a former arbitrator who had an essay about the word deleted, but that was before my time. In the current climate, an individual can drop the c-bomb on a women's task force page with impunity, while someone who marks such a thread with a NSFW tag can be permabanned for doing so. Wikipedia has become f-Wikipedia; Keilana has claimed her place at the table.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 11:33 PM, J Hayes <slowki...@gmail.com> wrote: > risker: > i'm kinda with you about defining deviancy down > > it's just that things are so bad can't go lower > article subjects are already dismayed by the opaque unfriendly culture > they periodically ask for article deletion > librarians are advised about the "cultural buzzsaw" > having a safe environment on line is a lost cause > but we can have a grim determination with much cursing > > cheers > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I think I've made myself clear, Pete. I don't think that anything I say >> will make a difference, any more than anything I have ever said has changed >> the sub-optimal behaviour of any editor who thinks it's acceptable >> professional behaviour to cuss all over the place. I'm just really >> disappointed that people who used to be in the "let's make this a more >> pleasant and positive place to do our work" have gone over to the other >> side. >> >> Risker >> >> On 21 February 2016 at 19:38, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Risker, I want to be clear: >>> >>> It's not that I don't see a problem. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to >>> your view; but I think your point has been made very strongly already, and >>> the important audience is the Signpost editorial staff. I am confident they >>> have heard the message, and I don't see how further discussion moves us in >>> a better direction. The past can't be changed. I suppose the Signpost could >>> retract the op-ed, but I rather doubt you're seeking something so >>> extreme...or am I wrong? >>> >>> -Pete >>> [[User:Peteforsyth]] >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I feel very sad that you fellows don't see the problem in using this >>>> kind of language to describe women. "Badass" isn't a compliment. After the >>>> first two descriptions, I was fully expecting to see "brilliant >>>> motherf***er" to describe the third one. I'm surprised it wasn't used, in >>>> fact. >>>> >>>> The subjects of our articles deserve to be treated much better than >>>> this. >>>> >>>> Further, I'm incredibly disappointed that this got published in The >>>> Signpost. On Emily's own page...well, okay. But instead of drawing >>>> attention to the women who are the subjects of the articles, almost all of >>>> the discussion is about the language used to describe them....and pointing >>>> out that several of them already had articles about them that were >>>> improved, rather than that they'd not been written about at all. >>>> >>>> All in all, it impressed me as an island of lovely flowers in a garden >>>> with a winter's worth of St. Bernard droppings. >>>> >>>> Risker >>>> >>>> On 21 February 2016 at 17:13, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 Ryan. >>>>> >>>>> This was one article, and no Wikipedians, readers, or article subjects >>>>> were injured as a result of its publication. I don't really have a strong >>>>> opinion one way or the other about whether using language in this way is >>>>> OK. But the main lesson to me is how much the English Wikipedia community >>>>> has come to value the Signpost as an institution. It's hard to imagine >>>>> such >>>>> any Signpost column inspiring so much passion, say, five years ago. Above >>>>> all, I think this constitutes a strong endorsement of the general value of >>>>> the Signpost. >>>>> >>>>> -Pete >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari <rkald...@wikimedia.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community >>>>>> takes all of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of >>>>>> profanity in a positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia >>>>>> calls a female editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by >>>>>>> Keilana, would it have been published as is? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite the >>>>>>> one some think it would be. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Risker/Anne >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf <neot...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting double >>>>>>>> standard about profanity in the comment section. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> 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 >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
