Re: [Gendergap] Emails to friends, lists to encourage participation
> >From: Pete Forsyth >To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects > >Sent: Tue, February 22, 2011 10:47:23 PM >Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Emails to friends, lists to encourage participation > > >On Feb 22, 2011, at 7:38 PM, Birgitte SB wrote: > >People need to be sent to work on their passions with their personal >strengths, >not just told in a blanket fashion to write some articles. >> >>Birgitte SB >This all sounds like a pretty sound approach to me. I like it. > > >Another worthwhile thing, if somebody is really entertaining the idea of >taking >on this work, would be to contact the Wikipedia Ambassadors group, which has >formed in support of the Public Policy Initiative. This includes both >experienced Wikipedians, and college students and librarians were initially >new >to Wikipedia, but put some effort into getting to know it in order to support >students working on articles. The best place to contact them is probably >through >the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Ambassadors > > >Oh, and one other thing -- from what little evidence I have, Birgitte, I'd say >you're a pretty good writer :) > > >-Pete >Only with conversational writing. I don't know why there is a difference but >there really is. It is a hard thing about Wikipedia that to really succeed at >creating articles, you have to master both kinds of writing. One kind for the >articles, and the other for the talk pages. > Birgitte SB Birgitte SB ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Women's issues noticeboard
>I would suggest we not create not a noticeboard for this issue specifically. How about putting it in the form of a Systemic Bias Noticeboard? That way it could accomodate other such issues we may uncover, or already have (i.e., U.S- and U.K.-centrism, general English-speaking world-centrism). Daniel Case___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Emails to friends, lists to encourage participation
On Feb 22, 2011, at 7:38 PM, Birgitte SB wrote: > People need to be sent to work on their passions with their personal > strengths, not just told in a blanket fashion to write some articles. > > Birgitte SB This all sounds like a pretty sound approach to me. I like it. Another worthwhile thing, if somebody is really entertaining the idea of taking on this work, would be to contact the Wikipedia Ambassadors group, which has formed in support of the Public Policy Initiative. This includes both experienced Wikipedians, and college students and librarians were initially new to Wikipedia, but put some effort into getting to know it in order to support students working on articles. The best place to contact them is probably through the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Ambassadors Oh, and one other thing -- from what little evidence I have, Birgitte, I'd say you're a pretty good writer :) -Pete ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Women's issues noticeboard
> > > >> >>From: Steven Walling >>To: fredb...@fairpoint.net; Increasing female participation in Wikimedia >>projects >>Sent: Tue, February 22, 2011 12:52:43 PM >>Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Women's issues noticeboard >> >>On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Fred Bauder >> wrote: >> >>> Given the demographic imbalance in our community, and the resultant >>> risk of systemic bias in our editorial decisions, it might make sense to create a Women's issues noticeboard in en:WP and other Wikipedias, where related matters can be brought up for review. Thoughts? Andreas >>> >>>Please create it and inform everyone. >>> >>>Fred >>> >>Noticeboards are huge magnets for drama. >> >> >>There are longtime English Wikipedia editors already starting to grumble >> about >>this effort. If we're going to make progress by bringing the community >> along >>with this, rather than having them fight us, we should try to minimize >> the >>potential for drama, especially of the accusatory kind that gets >> performed on >>incident noticeboards. >> >> >>I would suggest we not create not a noticeboard for this issue >> specifically. >>Noticeboards are the only way I am aware of for handling systematic >> problems in >>any sort of regular fashion. I would suggest that is systematic >> problems that >>are magnets for drama, not the fact that someone creates space name "Foo >>Noticeboard". And frankly drama is primarily caused by ego and speed. >> While we >>can hardly banish people who are controlled by their egos, we can make >> an effort >>to take things slowly. Make certain to get the full history of an issue >> is >>collected before posting personal judgments. Don't assume anyone who is >> brought >>to the noticeboard has any understanding of why women's issues are a >> systematic >>problem on Wikipedia. Focus on educating people and bringing their >> level of >>understanding up to speed rather than just condemning their thoughtless >> errors. >>That might cut the drama by half. >> > > Of course, not allowing any space for the people who understand these > concerns > as a systematic issue to be available to review the everyday sorts of > decisions > that are made on an case-by-case basis without any particular context > would be > even less drama. But the goal of this whole effort, or even en.WP in > particular, is not "avoid drama at all costs". The goal of Wikipedia is > to > create a free, neutral, verifiable encyclopedia. Drama is inevitable, the > best > we can strive for is that the drama is as cost-effective as possible. > > I don't understand how you imagine the wikis will actually work on any > kind of > systematic problem without these kinds of spaces. > > > Birgitte SB > Focus on educating people and bringing their level of understanding up > to speed rather than just condemning their thoughtless errors. An application to this problem of the basic wiki policy assume good faith. If the community cannot resolve such problems there is no authority we can term to without abandonment of the basic wiki paradigm. Reports of feelings that are disassociated from the edits or other actions they arose from are very difficult to relate to as you don't have adequate information about what the editor was trying to do and how they went about it. Fred ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Emails to friends, lists to encourage participation
> >From: Pete Forsyth >To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects > >Sent: Tue, February 22, 2011 5:49:29 PM >Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Emails to friends, lists to encourage participation > >Whoops. I just re-read Carol's message -- I had misunderstood at first. If >this >is an effort to recruit *brand new* contributors (as opposed to retaining >those >who have dabbled), the research I cited above doesn't really apply :) > >But, I do think the findings of the Wikipedia Public Policy Initiative would >be >informative;[1] Carol, I'm not sure if you've had contact with this program or >not. > >But in general, it ties in with what Sue brought up: people brand new to >Wikipedia often need a *lot* of support and advice before they start to get >their legs. So directing them to educational resources, and establishing a >"cafe" type space to ask questions and build a sense of community, would >certainly be helpful in keeping with what we've learned from our outreach >efforts. > >And personalizing the message a little bit, tailoring it to the specific >woman's >interests by suggesting articles she may want to edit, couldn't hurt either! >If you really want to ease new recruits into Wikipedia, you wouldn't send them >straight to Wikipedia. Create the cafe space on Meta and use it as welcoming >committee and a place to ask for general guidance without bringing in the >turf-battle baggage. Plus since there are not a large number of women who >understand the wikis, we would be better off consolidating ourselves there >instead splitting up by language where perhaps our voices might be drowned out >in a local forum. Also try and start them off outside of the Wikipedia's where they can get a handle on the interface and mark-up without having a creative investment in the content they are working on. I would recommend proof-reading on Wikisource [1] for the most timid, as you only very occasionally have a completely ambiguous decision to make and if you do the first proofread it is guaranteed that another person will check all you work during validation. You could watchlist the pages see the validation happen and check the diff to see if any of your work was corrected or not. It is really a good introduction to wikis for those who want confirmation they are doing things right at first. I am sure Commons and other wikis have many gnomish tasks that will get new recruits used to how to work on wikis. Also send people to do peer reviews at the Wikipedias. They can give feedback on articles that interest them and begin getting used to the to interaction with people who are invested in the articles they worked on while nearly being guaranteed a positive interaction. Then they will feel more comfortable changing things in Wikipedia articles and better able to understand what is going on when their edits are challenged. There is more to even Wikipedia the writing articles. I am personally a terrible writer and only make a great deal of work for people when significantly edit articles. I am rather good at peer reviews. I have an excellent understanding of text-based copyright issues. I am a decent mediator. People need to be sent to work on their passions with their personal strengths, not just told in a blanket fashion to write some articles. Birgitte SB [1] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikisource/en/wiki/Wikisource:Proofread_of_the_Month Click on the work listed for the month (Ornithological biography, or an account of the habits of the birds of the United States of America, volume 1) and then pick one of the numbers highlighted in yellow on the target page. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Women's issues noticeboard
> >From: Steven Walling >To: fredb...@fairpoint.net; Increasing female participation in Wikimedia >projects >Sent: Tue, February 22, 2011 12:52:43 PM >Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Women's issues noticeboard > >On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Fred Bauder wrote: > >> Given the demographic imbalance in our community, and the resultant risk >>> of systemic bias in our editorial decisions, it might make sense to >>> create a Women's issues noticeboard in en:WP and other Wikipedias, where >>> related matters can be brought up for review. >>> Thoughts? >>> Andreas >> >>Please create it and inform everyone. >> >>Fred >> >Noticeboards are huge magnets for drama. > > >There are longtime English Wikipedia editors already starting to grumble about >this effort. If we're going to make progress by bringing the community along >with this, rather than having them fight us, we should try to minimize the >potential for drama, especially of the accusatory kind that gets performed on >incident noticeboards. > > >I would suggest we not create not a noticeboard for this issue specifically. >Noticeboards are the only way I am aware of for handling systematic problems >in >any sort of regular fashion. I would suggest that is systematic problems that >are magnets for drama, not the fact that someone creates space name "Foo >Noticeboard". And frankly drama is primarily caused by ego and speed. While >we >can hardly banish people who are controlled by their egos, we can make an >effort >to take things slowly. Make certain to get the full history of an issue is >collected before posting personal judgments. Don't assume anyone who is >brought >to the noticeboard has any understanding of why women's issues are a >systematic >problem on Wikipedia. Focus on educating people and bringing their level of >understanding up to speed rather than just condemning their thoughtless >errors. >That might cut the drama by half. > Of course, not allowing any space for the people who understand these concerns as a systematic issue to be available to review the everyday sorts of decisions that are made on an case-by-case basis without any particular context would be even less drama. But the goal of this whole effort, or even en.WP in particular, is not "avoid drama at all costs". The goal of Wikipedia is to create a free, neutral, verifiable encyclopedia. Drama is inevitable, the best we can strive for is that the drama is as cost-effective as possible. I don't understand how you imagine the wikis will actually work on any kind of systematic problem without these kinds of spaces. Birgitte SB ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Emails to friends, lists to encourage participation
Done! :-) Including adding the idea of suggesting articles... http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_gap/outreach_letters On 2/22/2011 4:46 PM, Sue Gardner wrote: > Carol, I think this is a great idea :-) > > I think we (anyone here) should create a page on meta (linked to from > here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_gap) where we put your > draft text, and point to good basic resources to support people > getting started in editing. (There are some very good resources here: > http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bookshelf/Wikipedia and elsewhere > on the outreach wiki.) > > That would equip people to use your base text, plus any links that > seem useful to them, to do outreach to any group they like. I really > believe that individual outreach: people reaching out to their own > networks, is a good tactic for us. Because the people who are one > degree of separation from the people here are by definition good > candidates to become editors. > > Thanks, > Sue > > > > -- > Sue Gardner > Executive Director > Wikimedia Foundation > > 415 839 6885 office > 415 816 9967 cell > > Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in > the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! > > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate > ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Emails to friends, lists to encourage participation
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Pete Forsyth wrote: > > But in general, it ties in with what Sue brought up: people brand new to > Wikipedia often need a *lot* of support and advice before they start to get > their legs. So directing them to educational resources, and establishing a > "cafe" type space to ask questions and build a sense of community, would > certainly be helpful in keeping with what we've learned from our outreach > efforts. > Related to this, I'm helping organize and conduct a series of "wiki academies" aimed at the Australian, possibly New Zealand, sport community. The details can be found at http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/UCNISS/Sport_Wiki_Academy . The content for the academy will really depend on who is there. How we approach university professors will be different than how we approach athletes. Wikimedia Australia and UCNISS are working on helping fund these academies. (Details are being sorted out and only the first academy date and location are set.) We're hoping to really address the women's sport community as the articles in that area can be a little underwhelming when compared to the men's side. There are also some major women's sporting events going on this year, which Australia and New Zealand are both participating in. They include the netball world championships and the women's soccer World Cup. This can help create additional interest, give fans and organizations a reason to participate. While the focus is on how sport organizations and athletes can use wikis in general, there will be a fair bit of discussion about how to use Wikipedia correctly to help work towards meeting institutional objectives, like increasing visibility as Wikipedia ranks so highly on Google searches. If there is interest, we'll see if we can't work it out between UCNISS and Wikimedia Australia to set up some form of Wikipedian in Residence program so that sport studies students can get academic credit, but that is a bit further down the road. We'd love some help with this if you're local. If you might want to try something similar or have any advice on running these academies, please let me know either on list or off. -- twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Emails to friends, lists to encourage participation
Whoops. I just re-read Carol's message -- I had misunderstood at first. If this is an effort to recruit *brand new* contributors (as opposed to retaining those who have dabbled), the research I cited above doesn't really apply :) But, I do think the findings of the Wikipedia Public Policy Initiative would be informative;[1] Carol, I'm not sure if you've had contact with this program or not. But in general, it ties in with what Sue brought up: people brand new to Wikipedia often need a *lot* of support and advice before they start to get their legs. So directing them to educational resources, and establishing a "cafe" type space to ask questions and build a sense of community, would certainly be helpful in keeping with what we've learned from our outreach efforts. And personalizing the message a little bit, tailoring it to the specific woman's interests by suggesting articles she may want to edit, couldn't hurt either! -Pete (formerly Public Outreach Officer at WMF) [1] http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_Initiative ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Lecture from Wikipedia Academy in Bergen 2009
--- On Tue, 22/2/11, Nina Wikipedia wrote: > From: Nina Wikipedia > I found this that I have nearly > forgotten Video: http://blip.tv/file/3038704 > and the text: http://jilltxt.net/?p=2441 > Jill Walker Rettberg on Wikipedia Academy i in Bergen, 15. > oktober > 2009. Its interesting in this context too. Thanks, fascinating. Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Emails to friends, lists to encourage participation
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 9:32 PM, wrote: > One thing we can all do is send letters of encouragement to women to > join wikipedia. I don't know if there is a form letter already used > that we can merge ideas like the below into. This is includes and > expands on points I sent out to a couple of political women friends and > womens lists - about 150 women total - as a personal encouragement. > Underwhelming two responses so far: "good idea" and "I'm too busy." So I > know that the letter needs work! Maybe we could have a couple versions > linked from http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_Gap > I like this idea; and I want to point to some possibly relevant research. The paper "Socialization tactics in Wikipedia and their effects" by Robert Kraut et. al.[1] [2] studies various efforts at welcoming newcomers. In that research, the finding is that the most effective techniques are those that reflect an engagement with the content that the user has added; in other words, if your "welcome" message is a genuine response to what they did (for example, "Thank you for adding information about so-and-so's history with such-and-such; are you aware of these other similar articles that need expansion?") More generic welcome messages were generally ineffective at getting people to stick around. It may be that a "call to action" message like you suggest is effective; I guess that's not something this group specifically studied. But for anybody taking this on, I'd suggest that you personalize each one a little, based on the contributor's recent edits, or the info they've put on their user page! -Pete [1] PDF file: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/groups/connect/cscw_10/docs/p107.pdf [2] Abstract on web: http://acawiki.org/Socialization_tactics_in_Wikipedia_and_their_effects ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] fostering better communication on differences
> Perhaps there are already adequate guidelines as well as resources > regarding > on line conflict and resolution, but one resource might be the Public > Conversations Project in Cambridge which has all sorts of resources for > better communications - they managed a six month online conversation with > about 25 people with varying views on abortion. I am sure they could help > as > could many other such groups. > > > > Frances Kissling, visiting scholar > > Center for Bioethics, UPenn > > 202 368 3954 Ten years of conversation on abortion: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion&dir=prev&action=history Fred ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] Lecture from Wikipedia Academy in Bergen 2009
I found this that I have nearly forgotten Video: http://blip.tv/file/3038704 and the text: http://jilltxt.net/?p=2441 Jill Walker Rettberg on Wikipedia Academy i in Bergen, 15. oktober 2009. Its interesting in this context too. Nina nina.wikipe...@gmail.com ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Women's issues noticeboard
Fred, I don't know about the Hawthorne effect, but institution a women's issues noticeboard certainly would put to rest the notion that there's no open sexism/misogyny on Wikipedia! Imagining the probable reaction to the creation of such a board, let alone the type of discourse on it, makes me want to go back to categorising for the rest of eternity. At least the open expressions of sexism I've encountered on Wikipedia are rare. I deal with that kind of bull enough in "real" life; I don't want to seek it out in my pastime. Nepenthe On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > > > Go ahead and do it if you feel passionate about it (of course), but you > > asked for people's views, so I'm just saying that you should be prepared > > for > > an awful mess of drama and bickering, some of which is likely to drive > > out > > the very women we're trying to retain. > > > > -- > > Steven Walling > > Fellow at Wikimedia Foundation > > wikimediafoundation.org > > > > I'm counting on the [[Hawthorne effect]], and I don't think I'm wrong. In > fact, some good rows and frank expression of sexist attitudes, if such > are held, is sure to attract passionate involvement by women. We need to > stake out a public position. > > Fred > > > > ___ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] fostering better communication on differences
Perhaps there are already adequate guidelines as well as resources regarding on line conflict and resolution, but one resource might be the Public Conversations Project in Cambridge which has all sorts of resources for better communications - they managed a six month online conversation with about 25 people with varying views on abortion. I am sure they could help as could many other such groups. Frances Kissling, visiting scholar Center for Bioethics, UPenn 202 368 3954 ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Emails to friends, lists to encourage participation
Carol, I think this is a great idea :-) I think we (anyone here) should create a page on meta (linked to from here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_gap) where we put your draft text, and point to good basic resources to support people getting started in editing. (There are some very good resources here: http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bookshelf/Wikipedia and elsewhere on the outreach wiki.) That would equip people to use your base text, plus any links that seem useful to them, to do outreach to any group they like. I really believe that individual outreach: people reaching out to their own networks, is a good tactic for us. Because the people who are one degree of separation from the people here are by definition good candidates to become editors. Thanks, Sue -- Sue Gardner Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation 415 839 6885 office 415 816 9967 cell Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate On 21 February 2011 21:32, wrote: > One thing we can all do is send letters of encouragement to women to > join wikipedia. I don't know if there is a form letter already used > that we can merge ideas like the below into. This is includes and > expands on points I sent out to a couple of political women friends and > womens lists - about 150 women total - as a personal encouragement. > Underwhelming two responses so far: "good idea" and "I'm too busy." So I > know that the letter needs work! Maybe we could have a couple versions > linked from http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_Gap > > Revised draft version: > > Wikipedia has set as it's goal increasing the number of editors from > under 15% to 25% over the next few years. See the New York Times and > other articles and other relevant Women and Wikipedia links here. > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_Gap > > I've been editing a lot the last few years. It is fun for amateur policy > wonks and has taught me a lot about good referencing and how easily > ones own biases can twist the material one is dealing with. And it's a > great motivator to learn more about a topic you are interest in - you go > in and improve an article on a topic of interest with better information > from better sources. > > And it's fun to get challenged, whether you are proven wrong, proven > right, or work with others to come up together with a collaborative > solution. Talk page discussions and debates are a great way to learn > about Wikipedia editing policies. > > It can take a few months to get up to speed on all the policies to > enable you to edit effectively, i.e., making edits that will stick > while deleting unsourced and biased material. > > Also, since Wikipedia is still mostly a 20 something man's world, it may > be best to use a gender neutral name and not advertise on your user page > you are a female, at least until you get the hang of editing it. At > least avoid using use your whole real name to avoid possible harassment > on and off Wikipedia.* > > But if you have favorite topics that you'd like to see better covered, > have time on your hands (as some of us semi- and retired women do), and > want to have some great fun, do try Wikipedia. > > > > (*CM Note: this point is actually said explicitly in User name policy, > but few people get to it before they choose a user name) > > > > > > ___ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] The concept of love (not really an offtopic)
Hello. I'd like to share with you what is -in my opinion- a serious problem with one of the most important articles in Wikipedia. I'm referring to the article about love. I think that keeping neutrallity in this article is fundamental, since many people from all over the world reads it, and also copy the contents to their own Wikipedias, so lack of neutrallity would mean something very dangerous, in fact something like a tacit dictatorship of thought -or feeling, in fact- sent to the world. And I mean it. I opened a discussion in the village pump, maybe you'd want to have a look and see what I mean. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29#Love I think it's not an offtopic since this article has a serious lack of neutrallity on what global human relationships are. Best wishes, Miguel Ángel ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Women's issues noticeboard
If a woman may speak... :-) The noticeboard IS too combative and won't have much positive effect *at this point. * Already I'm finding it difficult to bring up in a neutral manner ideas like putting Wife selling in category: sexism or creating more appopriate categories, like Category: Male dominance on the Feminism Wikiproject without a minor brouhaha ensuing from men - with no female input at all. (And then there were two long and hot debates in sex practice articles by males offended by proposals to remove their favorite images.) Just imagine a noticeboard where even more males would be watching... Oi! I still think WIKIPROJECT:WOMEN'S CAFE would be a great education, social and support area, one which could have a section on articles of interest, in addition to wikiproject feminism. If it was too newbie or touchy-feely for some guys, so be it. Unfortunately, though I've brought it up 2 or 3 times, I don't think any women have replied to that Idea. if women on this list can't respond to what seems to me like *a natural* what hope is there? How about all the guys control yourselves and not post your responses on this til Wednesday? :-) Carol in dc ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Women's issues noticeboard
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Marc Riddell > wrote: > >> What's wrong with drama, Steven? If the issue is creating a dramatic >> situation for people, how would you have them express it, neutrally? >> Since >> passion is the temperature of emotion, shouldn't we get a measure of >> it? >> >> Marc Riddell >> >> Constant drama and fighting is one of the big things driving many >> people, > including women, away from Wikipedia. That's what's wrong with it. > > -- > Steven Walling > Fellow at Wikimedia Foundation > wikimediafoundation.org And leaving the field to them is a solution? We need to candidly discuss issues on wiki. Fred ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Women's issues noticeboard
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: Women's views are too often drowned out on talk pages, simply because of their numerical inferiority. A noticeboard would help. While I understand the concern about the potential for drama, I think any method used to make Wikipedia more gender-neutral will attract a share of drama. Having an institution to look at women's issues is a pretty mainstream idea. The UK has a [[Minister for Women and Equalities]] (a poorly researched article at this time); there is a [[Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Canada)]]; a [[Minister for the Status of Women (Australia)]]; even Afghanistan has one: [[Ministry_of_Women's_Affairs_(Afghanistan)]]. Denmark has a [[Minister_for_Gender_Equality_(Denmark)]]; Sweden has a [[Ministry of Integration and Gender Equality (Sweden)]], etc. The United States have affirmative action. We should not fear controversy, or grumbling; our democratically elected governments don't let that stop them either. If the Wikipedia community cannot support something that is standard in democratic society, then we do have a problem with our demographics, and whatever problem we have will become readily apparent. I wouldn't mind calling it a gender issues noticeboard. (That would be [[WP:GIN]] as opposed to [[WP:WIN]].) Andreas on 2/22/11 2:36 PM, Steven Walling at swall...@wikimedia.org wrote: Go ahead and do it if you feel passionate about it (of course), but you asked for people's views, so I'm just saying that you should be prepared for an awful mess of drama and bickering, some of which is likely to drive out the very women we're trying to retain. I don't want to see anyone leave who can make a positive contribution to the Project, Steven. But are we willing to sacrifice the integrity and honesty of the Project; have it become full of politically-correct pabulum in order to retain or attract people? A part of what has made the Project vital and unique has been its refusal to shy-away from controversial issues - both in its selection and presentation of its articles, and in the collaborative dialogue that takes place between and among its editors. Yes, the interpersonal dialogue does need some work, but I know this can be done without sacrificing its passion and honesty. Marc ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Women's issues noticeboard
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Steven Walling wrote: > > Noticeboards are huge magnets for drama. > > There are longtime English Wikipedia editors already starting to grumble > about this effort. If we're going to make progress by bringing the community > along with this, rather than having them fight us, we should try to minimize > the potential for drama, especially of the accusatory kind that gets > performed on incident noticeboards. > > I would suggest we not create not a noticeboard for this issue > specifically. > I want to expand on Steven's point a little, as I think it's a good one. It seems to me that there's pretty broad consensus among this group that many or most of the issues that keep women away, are not specifically gender-related; rather, they are departures from the policies or the ethos we are generally trying to establish, and likely impact most potential new contributors. As a longtime Wikipedian, one of the things that has become clear to me is that calm and productive discussion is often hampered by extraneous accusations. So, here is a scenario that I think illustrates the concern that Steven brings up: * Pat deletes a paragraph in the biography of a reasonably well-known female poet, which discusses her affiliation with a women's rights organization. * Blaine restores the paragraph, and a small edit war ensues. Ideal result: Pat and Blaine, with the help of some others, discuss their disagreement about the paragraph. Maybe it turns out that Pat's concern was rooted in poor referencing; the only citation in the paragraph linked to a small blog with no known editorial policies and a history of several inaccuracies. Maybe, as this gets revealed, Blaine decides to go out and find a better source, and finds an article in a local newspaper or a literary journal. Maybe that article contains even has more detail than the blog post, allowing for substantive improvement to the article. Maybe Pat and Blaine develop mutual respect during the process, and go on to work together on other articles, in a more collaborative fashion. Concern, if there were a Gender Issues Noticeboard: Blaine, or somebody trying to act on his/her behalf, takes the issue to the GIN, before making any substantial efforts on the article's talk page, or on a relevant WikiProject (like maybe "WikiProject Poetry"). This initial report frames the content dispute in terms of gender, building the assumption that Pat's initial action was based on a bias against women into the debate. Within a few days, somebody is preparing a case for ArbCom, which adds to the burden of our elected committee members; a local reporter has decided to write a news story about misogyny on Wikipedia, citing this dispute; and there's a Signpost article in the works. I think the point is, the structures we establish have a strong effect on how people interact. When a noticeboard for a hot-button issue exists, contributors often feel compelled to use it, and may proceed under the mistaken impression that the most productive way to approach such an issue is to zero in on a controversial issue that may *or may not* have anything to do with what's going on. So -- there may be benefits to establishing such a noticeboard, but my hope would be that we could find a way to work within the more dispassionately-titled structures that already exist. -Pete ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Girl Scout achievement award proposal
We're still in the process of working out the possibility of Wikipedian-In-Residence stuff. The topic of merit badges did also come up awhile back, too :) Thanks, Richard (User:Pharos) On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 10:21 PM, James Salsman wrote: > I've made preliminary inquires regarding the establishment of a Girl > Scout merit badge or other achievement award in online encyclopedia > improvement. There is precedent for such a program in the 1960's "Wing > Scouts" Girl Scout aviation program: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_Scout#Wing_Scouts_in_Northern_California > > San Francisco's Girl Scout camp, Camp Ida Smith, is due to be returned > soon from the Department of Public Works after renovation of the Lake > Merced pumping station -- see p. 4, topic 12 of > http://www.girlscoutsnorcal.org/documents/08-07-07-MM-No-Co.pdf -- > presenting an opportunity for the re-commissioning ceremony. > > It is still not clear to me what is necessary to establish a new > achievement award, but I would ask that list members in the US contact > their local Girl Scouts USA Council in support of the proposal: > http://www.girlscouts.org/councilfinder/ > > For those of you outside of the US, please contact the World > Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts -- http://www.wagggs.org/ > email wagggs at wagggsworld dot org -- and/or the USA Girl Scouts > Overseas -- http://www.girlscouts.org/who_we_are/overseas/committees/ > or email kathryn.m.owen at eur dot army dot mil. > > Richard, how have the New York Chapter efforts to contact the Girl > Scouts been going? > ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Women's issues noticeboard
> Go ahead and do it if you feel passionate about it (of course), but you > asked for people's views, so I'm just saying that you should be prepared > for > an awful mess of drama and bickering, some of which is likely to drive > out > the very women we're trying to retain. > > -- > Steven Walling > Fellow at Wikimedia Foundation > wikimediafoundation.org > I'm counting on the [[Hawthorne effect]], and I don't think I'm wrong. In fact, some good rows and frank expression of sexist attitudes, if such are held, is sure to attract passionate involvement by women. We need to stake out a public position. Fred ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Women's issues noticeboard
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Steven Walling wrote: > > Noticeboards are huge magnets for drama. > > There are longtime English Wikipedia editors already starting to grumble > about this effort. If we're going to make progress by bringing the community > along with this, rather than having them fight us, we should try to minimize > the potential for drama, especially of the accusatory kind that gets > performed on incident noticeboards. > > I would suggest we not create not a noticeboard for this issue > specifically. > > I want to expand on Steven's point a little, as I think it's a good one. It seems to me that there's pretty broad consensus among this group that many or most of the issues that keep women away, are not specifically gender-related; rather, they are departures from the policies or the ethos we are generally trying to establish, and likely impact most potential new contributors. As a longtime Wikipedian, one of the things that has become clear to me is that calm and productive discussion is often hampered by extraneous accusations. So, here is a scenario that I think illustrates the concern that Steven brings up: * Pat deletes a paragraph in the biography of a reasonably well-known female poet, which discusses her affiliation with a women's rights organization. * Blaine restores the paragraph, and a small edit war ensues. Ideal result: Pat and Blaine, with the help of some others, discuss their disagreement about the paragraph. Maybe it turns out that Pat's concern was rooted in poor referencing; the only citation in the paragraph linked to a small blog with no known editorial policies and a history of several inaccuracies. Maybe, as this gets revealed, Blaine decides to go out and find a better source, and finds an article in a local newspaper or a literary journal. Maybe that article contains even has more detail than the blog post, allowing for substantive improvement to the article. Maybe Pat and Blaine develop mutual respect during the process, and go on to work together on other articles, in a more collaborative fashion. Concern, if there were a Gender Issues Noticeboard: Blaine, or somebody trying to act on his/her behalf, takes the issue to the GIN, before making any substantial efforts on the article's talk page, or on a relevant WikiProject (like maybe "WikiProject Poetry"). This initial report frames the content dispute in terms of gender, building the assumption that Pat's initial action was based on a bias against women into the debate. Within a few days, somebody is preparing a case for ArbCom, which adds to the burden of our elected committee members; a local reporter has decided to write a news story about misogyny on Wikipedia, citing this dispute; and there's a Signpost article in the works. I think the point is, the structures we establish have a strong effect on how people interact. When a noticeboard for a hot-button issue exists, contributors often feel compelled to use it, and may proceed under the mistaken impression that the most productive way to approach such an issue is to zero in on a controversial issue that may *or may not* have anything to do with what's going on. So -- there may be benefits to establishing such a noticeboard, but my hope would be that we could find a way to work within the more dispassionately-titled structures that already exist. -Pete ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Women's issues noticeboard
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Steven Walling wrote: > > Noticeboards are huge magnets for drama. > > There are longtime English Wikipedia editors already starting to grumble > about this effort. If we're going to make progress by bringing the community > along with this, rather than having them fight us, we should try to minimize > the potential for drama, especially of the accusatory kind that gets > performed on incident noticeboards. > > I would suggest we not create not a noticeboard for this issue > specifically. > I want to expand on Steven's point a little, as I think it's a good one. It seems to me that there's pretty broad consensus among this group that many or most of the issues that keep women away, are not specifically gender-related; rather, they are departures from the policies or the ethos we are generally trying to establish, and likely impact most potential new contributors. As a longtime Wikipedian, one of the things that has become clear to me is that calm and productive discussion is often hampered by extraneous accusations. So, here is a scenario that I think illustrates the concern that Steven brings up: * Pat deletes a paragraph in the biography of a reasonably well-known female poet, which discusses her affiliation with a women's rights organization. * Blaine restores the paragraph, and a small edit war ensues. Ideal result: Pat and Blaine, with the help of some others, discuss their disagreement about the paragraph. Maybe it turns out that Pat's concern was rooted in poor referencing; the only citation in the paragraph linked to a small blog with no known editorial policies and a history of several inaccuracies. Maybe, as this gets revealed, Blaine decides to go out and find a better source, and finds an article in a local newspaper or a literary journal. Maybe that article contains even has more detail than the blog post, allowing for substantive improvement to the article. Maybe Pat and Blaine develop mutual respect during the process, and go on to work together on other articles, in a more collaborative fashion. Concern, if there were a Gender Issues Noticeboard: Blaine, or somebody trying to act on his/her behalf, takes the issue to the GIN, before making any substantial efforts on the article's talk page, or on a relevant WikiProject (like maybe "WikiProject Poetry"). This initial report frames the content dispute in terms of gender, building the assumption that Pat's initial action was based on a bias against women into the debate. Within a few days, somebody is preparing a case for ArbCom, which adds to the burden of our elected committee members; a local reporter has decided to write a news story about misogyny on Wikipedia, citing this dispute; and there's a Signpost article in the works. I think the point is, the structures we establish have a strong effect on how people interact. When a noticeboard for a hot-button issue exists, contributors often feel compelled to use it, and may proceed under the mistaken impression that the most productive way to approach such an issue is to zero in on a controversial issue that may *or may not* have anything to do with what's going on. So -- there may be benefits to establishing such a noticeboard, but my hope would be that we could find a way to work within the more dispassionately-titled structures that already exist. -Pete ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Women's issues noticeboard
I've always been in this trouble; putting issues up for discussion by the community at large certainly does have the potential for "drama", and even serious trouble, but also for involvement by the entire community and an enlarged opportunity to wrestle with these issues and resolve them. And, note, where such issues would go now is Wikipedia:Administrator's Noticeboard/incidents. Unless, of course, we adopt the posture that gender issues need to be delicately handled; that does not scale. Also, I think that there needs to be some feedback from the general community regarding certain issues raised here, particularly those which are grounded in actual edits. A discussion of "They deleted my edits" has to grounded in an examination of the edits involved. Fred > > --- On Tue, 22/2/11, Fred Bauder wrote: >> > Given the demographic imbalance >> in our community, and the resultant risk >> > of systemic bias in our editorial decisions, it might >> make sense to >> > create a Women's issues noticeboard in en:WP and other >> Wikipedias, where >> > related matters can be brought up for review. >> > Thoughts? >> > Andreas >> >> Please create it and inform everyone. >> >> Fred >> > > Stephen Walling wrote: > >> Noticeboards are huge magnets for drama. > >> There are longtime English Wikipedia editors already starting to >> grumble >> about this effort. If we're going to make progress by bringing the >> community along with this, rather than having them fight us, we should >> try >> to minimize the potential for drama, especially of the accusatory kind >> that gets performed on incident noticeboards. > >> I would suggest we not create not a noticeboard for this issue >> specifically. > > Women's views are too often drowned out on talk pages, simply because of > their numerical inferiority. A noticeboard would help. > > While I understand the concern about the potential for drama, I think > any method used to make Wikipedia more gender-neutral will attract a > share > of drama. Having an institution to look at women's issues is a pretty > mainstream idea. > > The UK has a [[Minister for Women and Equalities]] (a poorly researched > article at this time); there is a [[Minister responsible for the Status > of > Women (Canada)]]; a [[Minister for the Status of Women (Australia)]]; > even > Afghanistan has one: [[Ministry_of_Women's_Affairs_(Afghanistan)]]. > > Denmark has a [[Minister_for_Gender_Equality_(Denmark)]]; Sweden has a > [[Ministry of Integration and Gender Equality (Sweden)]], etc. > > The United States have affirmative action. We should not fear > controversy, > or grumbling; our democratically elected governments don't let that stop > them either. If the Wikipedia community cannot support something that is > standard in democratic society, then we do have a problem with our > demographics, and whatever problem we have will become readily apparent. > > I wouldn't mind calling it a gender issues noticeboard. (That would be > [[WP:GIN]] as opposed to [[WP:WIN]].) > > Andreas > > > > ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Women's issues noticeboard
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > Women's views are too often drowned out on talk pages, simply because of > their numerical inferiority. A noticeboard would help. > > While I understand the concern about the potential for drama, I think > any method used to make Wikipedia more gender-neutral will attract a share > of drama. Having an institution to look at women's issues is a pretty > mainstream idea. > > The UK has a [[Minister for Women and Equalities]] (a poorly researched > article at this time); there is a [[Minister responsible for the Status of > Women (Canada)]]; a [[Minister for the Status of Women (Australia)]]; even > Afghanistan has one: [[Ministry_of_Women's_Affairs_(Afghanistan)]]. > > Denmark has a [[Minister_for_Gender_Equality_(Denmark)]]; Sweden has a > [[Ministry of Integration and Gender Equality (Sweden)]], etc. > > The United States have affirmative action. We should not fear controversy, > or grumbling; our democratically elected governments don't let that stop > them either. If the Wikipedia community cannot support something that is > standard in democratic society, then we do have a problem with our > demographics, and whatever problem we have will become readily apparent. > > I wouldn't mind calling it a gender issues noticeboard. (That would be > [[WP:GIN]] as opposed to [[WP:WIN]].) > > Andreas > Go ahead and do it if you feel passionate about it (of course), but you asked for people's views, so I'm just saying that you should be prepared for an awful mess of drama and bickering, some of which is likely to drive out the very women we're trying to retain. -- Steven Walling Fellow at Wikimedia Foundation wikimediafoundation.org ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Women's issues noticeboard
--- On Tue, 22/2/11, Fred Bauder wrote: > > Given the demographic imbalance > in our community, and the resultant risk > > of systemic bias in our editorial decisions, it might > make sense to > > create a Women's issues noticeboard in en:WP and other > Wikipedias, where > > related matters can be brought up for review. > > Thoughts? > > Andreas > > Please create it and inform everyone. > > Fred > Stephen Walling wrote: > Noticeboards are huge magnets for drama. > There are longtime English Wikipedia editors already starting to grumble > about this effort. If we're going to make progress by bringing the > community along with this, rather than having them fight us, we should try > to minimize the potential for drama, especially of the accusatory kind > that gets performed on incident noticeboards. > I would suggest we not create not a noticeboard for this issue > specifically. Women's views are too often drowned out on talk pages, simply because of their numerical inferiority. A noticeboard would help. While I understand the concern about the potential for drama, I think any method used to make Wikipedia more gender-neutral will attract a share of drama. Having an institution to look at women's issues is a pretty mainstream idea. The UK has a [[Minister for Women and Equalities]] (a poorly researched article at this time); there is a [[Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Canada)]]; a [[Minister for the Status of Women (Australia)]]; even Afghanistan has one: [[Ministry_of_Women's_Affairs_(Afghanistan)]]. Denmark has a [[Minister_for_Gender_Equality_(Denmark)]]; Sweden has a [[Ministry of Integration and Gender Equality (Sweden)]], etc. The United States have affirmative action. We should not fear controversy, or grumbling; our democratically elected governments don't let that stop them either. If the Wikipedia community cannot support something that is standard in democratic society, then we do have a problem with our demographics, and whatever problem we have will become readily apparent. I wouldn't mind calling it a gender issues noticeboard. (That would be [[WP:GIN]] as opposed to [[WP:WIN]].) Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Women's issues noticeboard
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Marc Riddell wrote: > What's wrong with drama, Steven? If the issue is creating a dramatic > situation for people, how would you have them express it, neutrally? Since > passion is the temperature of emotion, shouldn't we get a measure of it? > > Marc Riddell > > Constant drama and fighting is one of the big things driving many people, including women, away from Wikipedia. That's what's wrong with it. -- Steven Walling Fellow at Wikimedia Foundation wikimediafoundation.org ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Women's issues noticeboard
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Fred Bauder wrote: > Given the demographic imbalance in our community, and the resultant risk > of systemic bias in our editorial decisions, it might make sense to > create a Women's issues noticeboard in en:WP and other Wikipedias, where > related matters can be brought up for review. > Thoughts? > Andreas Please create it and inform everyone. Fred on 2/22/11 1:52 PM, Steven Walling at swall...@wikimedia.org wrote: Noticeboards are huge magnets for drama. There are longtime English Wikipedia editors already starting to grumble about this effort. If we're going to make progress by bringing the community along with this, rather than having them fight us, we should try to minimize the potential for drama, especially of the accusatory kind that gets performed on incident noticeboards. I would suggest we not create not a noticeboard for this issue specifically. What's wrong with drama, Steven? If the issue is creating a dramatic situation for people, how would you have them express it, neutrally? Since passion is the temperature of emotion, shouldn't we get a measure of it? Marc Riddell ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Women's issues noticeboard
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Fred Bauder wrote: > > Given the demographic imbalance in our community, and the resultant risk > > of systemic bias in our editorial decisions, it might make sense to > > create a Women's issues noticeboard in en:WP and other Wikipedias, where > > related matters can be brought up for review. > > Thoughts? > > Andreas > > Please create it and inform everyone. > > Fred > Noticeboards are huge magnets for drama. There are longtime English Wikipedia editors already starting to grumble about this effort. If we're going to make progress by bringing the community along with this, rather than having them fight us, we should try to minimize the potential for drama, especially of the accusatory kind that gets performed on incident noticeboards. I would suggest we not create not a noticeboard for this issue specifically. -- Steven Walling Fellow at Wikimedia Foundation wikimediafoundation.org ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Women's issues noticeboard
> Given the demographic imbalance in our community, and the resultant risk > of systemic bias in our editorial decisions, it might make sense to > create a Women's issues noticeboard in en:WP and other Wikipedias, where > related matters can be brought up for review. > Thoughts? > Andreas Please create it and inform everyone. Fred ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Nine Reasons Women Don't Edit Wikipedia
> And I was particularly interested > to read women saying they believe the bar for notability is higher for > the topics they write about, than it is for 'male' or 'ungendered' > topics. Years ago I had a direct personal experience of this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Pencil_Test Since there's a multiplicity of meanings, apparently, it became a disambigation page. Interestingly, the original meaning was edited out last year: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pencil_test&diff=354220823&oldid=353947576 Daniel Case ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Women's issues noticeboard
Given the demographic imbalance in our community, and the resultant risk of systemic bias in our editorial decisions, it might make sense to create a Women's issues noticeboard in en:WP and other Wikipedias, where related matters can be brought up for review. Thoughts? Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] a post in El Pais blog
For whom they do not know it, El País is one of the most important newspapers of Spain. In its blog an interesting post has been published, brings over of the problem that occupies us. It's in spanish, of course but it's not difificult of translating to the english (if someone wants it, it is possible to do an attempt). You can read in http://blogs.elpais.com/mujeres/2011/02/los-hombres-son-de-wikipedia-y-las-mujeres-de-facebook.html hasta luego. Marcos (aka Marctaltor) ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
