[Gendergap] Sumana on codes of conduct

[Neotarf]

This may be the article I remember--the part towards the end caught my
attention:

"The Dangerous Speech Project has gathered typical hallmarks of speech that
seems to catalyze just such mass violence and has developed guidelines for
analyzing the level of danger posed by a particular turn of phrase: how
likely it is to lead to violence in a specific context. This analysis can
be applied to any form of expression—a drawing, photograph, or film—not
just words.

WHICH WORDS SPARK

One can estimate the likelihood that speech will spark violence in any
given situation using just these five criteria: the speaker, the audience,
the speech itself, the social and historical context, and the means of
dissemination.
In each case, one or more of these criteria may be especially important. A
speaker can have great influence over a particular audience, while certain
audiences may be especially vulnerable, because of economic hardship, fear,
or existing grievances. Certain language-related events—defined broadly to
include such acts of expression as burning a book—can be particularly
powerful. "

source: http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/spring2012/words-weapons

There are more links at the bottom of this Berkman Center page:
https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/luncheon/2014/03/benesch
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)

[J Hayes]

"Keilana's actions have encouraged people to make it less so. "

or validating the bad behavior elsewhere.
i'd just say they don't need no validation, they will continue the "buzz
saw" regardless.
this language appropriation, (like sl**-walking) is a common enough device
to be cliché. shouldn't have to let the young editors vent, but it's better
than internalizing it.

and please don't troll the Yanks to immigrate, we're saving for our
wikimania 2017 tickets, wouldn't want to make it one way.

cheers

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Risker  wrote:

>
> On 22 February 2016 at 13:06, Neotarf  wrote:
>
>> @Risker, if your high school student are that benign, perhaps I will move
>> to Canada.
>>
>>
>
> :-)  Even though it's a big urban centre that takes the word
> "multicultural" to a whole new level, Toronto is actually a pretty
> accommodating and pleasant place.You'd probably like it here.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)

[Risker]

On 22 February 2016 at 13:06, Neotarf  wrote:

> @Risker, if your high school student are that benign, perhaps I will move
> to Canada.
>
>

:-)  Even though it's a big urban centre that takes the word
"multicultural" to a whole new level, Toronto is actually a pretty
accommodating and pleasant place.You'd probably like it here.

Risker/Anne
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)

[Neotarf]

@Risker, if your high school student are that benign, perhaps I will move
to Canada.

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Risker  wrote:

> Give me a break, Neotarf. I am critiquing the article and the decisions by
> its author and its publisher.  It doesn't surprise me that having someone
> of Keilana's stature drop more f-bombs in a couple of paragraphs than I
> heard on a bus full of high school students this morning will change the
> climate to suggest that it is now perfectly acceptable to curse out people
> everywhere under every circumstance.
>
> For some strange reason, it appears the people on this list are
> celebrating that fact.  And it has nothing to do with gender, really, and
> everything to do with making Wikipedia a pleasant place to work.  Keilana's
> actions have encouraged people to make it less so.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 22 February 2016 at 12:46, Neotarf  wrote:
>
>> @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  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  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 
 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  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 themand 
>> 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 
>> 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 

Re: [Gendergap] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)

[Risker]

Give me a break, Neotarf. I am critiquing the article and the decisions by
its author and its publisher.  It doesn't surprise me that having someone
of Keilana's stature drop more f-bombs in a couple of paragraphs than I
heard on a bus full of high school students this morning will change the
climate to suggest that it is now perfectly acceptable to curse out people
everywhere under every circumstance.

For some strange reason, it appears the people on this list are celebrating
that fact.  And it has nothing to do with gender, really, and everything to
do with making Wikipedia a pleasant place to work.  Keilana's actions have
encouraged people to make it less so.

Risker/Anne

On 22 February 2016 at 12:46, Neotarf  wrote:

> @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  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  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 
>>> 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  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 themand 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 
> 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. 

Re: [Gendergap] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)

[Neotarf]

@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  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  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  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  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 themand 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 
 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 
> 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  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.
>>>

[Gendergap] Sumana on codes of conduct

[Neotarf]

Some notes from Sumana Harihareswara framing codes of conduct, also on the
spectrum of liberty versus hospitality.

There is another piece I saw somewhere associated with the Berkman Center,
that this group might find useful, that gives a framework for evaluating
types of speech. I will try to find it.

https://brainwane.dreamwidth.org/76629.html
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap