[Gendergap] As I was passing through...
Hello, everyone, I joined this list a couple days ago after reading through its archives, which I embarked on after having come across the June 13th article in *The Signpost* discussing the tiny percentage of self-identified female Wikipedia editors. I'd missed the January *New York Times* article and all that flowed from it (including this list) until I started systematically looking through the community section of Wikipedia for the first time about 10 days ago, to see what my options might be to address my own recent negative encounters with other Wikipedia editors, although I hadn't yet stumbled upon the Wikipedia policies on canvassing, etc., that apparently preclude any disclosure on this list of such experiences in a potentially identifiable manner. Having learned of that policy from reading this list's archives, I'm accordingly using an email account not associated with my Wikipedia user account, and I'm not disclosing my Wikipedia user name, so as not to arouse any concerns that I might be canvassing for support concerning that situation, which I'm not. In fact, I've even concluded that it's not worth the aggravation of pursuing Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, which from reading through **those** archives has impressed me as likely to be little more than an exercise in futility (if not also masochism!). I'm certainly neither fragile nor easily intimidated, but I prefer not to waste my valuable free time on such exercises, so I've now stopped editing Wikipedia and -- with one foot out the door, the other soon to follow -- am posting to this list now only because I hadn't seen anything its archives that expressed anything close to some of my own thoughts about a few of the topics discussed, which might perhaps be of some value to at least some of you who plan to continue in this effort. By way of background, I'm one of those older staying-at-home professional mothers Sarah Stierch had suggested in February might constitute a potentially fruitful demographic for female recruitment. I'm certainly no geek, although I've picked up just enough basic HTML code along the way so as not to find Wikipedia's coding basics unduly daunting -- as long as I had the MoS Cheat Sheet handy. Well, aside from formatting references... I made my first few edits not quite 18 months ago, I believe, to an article about a park system I'd just been reading about, to which I made a few gnome-like corrections without blowing the place up accidentally or attracting notice. With that success in hand, I started drafting an article about a superb all-female dance company that a niece had recently introduced me to. After seeing them perform and coming to share her enthusiasm, I tried to learn a little more about their history, discovered there was no comprehensive article about them I could find anywhere online (although they would clearly and objectively satisfy WP's notability criteria), and decided that drafting one myself could be a useful exercise in teaching myself Wikipedia's coding and style conventions, while eventually benefiting others with the fruits of my research. I got about half-way finished with it in my userspace (utilizing the Article Wizard), then had to abandon the draft (and Wikipedia) a few days later due to some serious health problems one of my children developed unexpectedly. I didn't return again until two months ago, when a discussion elsewhere pointed me to another Wikipedia article (about whose subject I knew quite a bit) that was seriously deficient, so I signed in again for the first time in 16 months or so, added a number of references to that article, expanded it a bit and began wikifying it without generating any controversy or blowing the place up accidentally. I then encountered an egregious usage error a few weeks later in another Wikipedia article that had badly muddled a sentence's meaning, and corrected it, again without generating any controversy. I then checked for similar misuses of that and another commonly misused word on Wikipedia, discovered hundreds of examples, and so began correcting them in gnome-like fashion over the next month or so while watching films with my daughter after school and/or evenings and tracking down some uncommon but needed public domain images for a few other articles, until I unluckily attracted the attention of a chauvinist (in the original sense of the word) member of the recent pages patrol whose truculence and devotion to Huggle greatly exceeded his grasp of correct [international] English usage. What ensued persuaded me that my free time from now on would be *so* much better spent on volunteer projects other than Wikipedia (and * so* much better for my blood pressure!) that I'm not even going to bother finishing the draft article about the dance company or upload the public domain images I'd located. C'est la vie! Also by way of background, I'm a late-70s graduate of Harvard Law School, now retired from a successful legal career, and
Re: [Gendergap] As I was passing through...
Hi Charlotte, I managed to find the dispute and had a look at it. The editor concerned definitely was being a bit of a prat in my view, and should have discussed the matter with you before going on a reverting spree. I would not have inserted the sic in that one quote, but otherwise you were quite correct, and they were wrong, and moreover dealt with it poorly. Hope that helps. I think what we see here once more is the off-putting effect of templating good-faith contributors. Andreas --- On Thu, 23/6/11, Charlotte J ravin...@gmail.com wrote: From: Charlotte J ravin...@gmail.com Subject: [Gendergap] As I was passing through... To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, 23 June, 2011, 1:50 Hello, everyone, I joined this list a couple days ago after reading through its archives, which I embarked on after having come across the June 13th article in The Signpost discussing the tiny percentage of self-identified female Wikipedia editors. I'd missed the January New York Times article and all that flowed from it (including this list) until I started systematically looking through the community section of Wikipedia for the first time about 10 days ago, to see what my options might be to address my own recent negative encounters with other Wikipedia editors, although I hadn't yet stumbled upon the Wikipedia policies on canvassing, etc., that apparently preclude any disclosure on this list of such experiences in a potentially identifiable manner. Having learned of that policy from reading this list's archives, I'm accordingly using an email account not associated with my Wikipedia user account, and I'm not disclosing my Wikipedia user name, so as not to arouse any concerns that I might be canvassing for support concerning that situation, which I'm not. In fact, I've even concluded that it's not worth the aggravation of pursuing Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, which from reading through *those* archives has impressed me as likely to be little more than an exercise in futility (if not also masochism!). I'm certainly neither fragile nor easily intimidated, but I prefer not to waste my valuable free time on such exercises, so I've now stopped editing Wikipedia and -- with one foot out the door, the other soon to follow -- am posting to this list now only because I hadn't seen anything its archives that expressed anything close to some of my own thoughts about a few of the topics discussed, which might perhaps be of some value to at least some of you who plan to continue in this effort. By way of background, I'm one of those older staying-at-home professional mothers Sarah Stierch had suggested in February might constitute a potentially fruitful demographic for female recruitment. I'm certainly no geek, although I've picked up just enough basic HTML code along the way so as not to find Wikipedia's coding basics unduly daunting -- as long as I had the MoS Cheat Sheet handy. Well, aside from formatting references... I made my first few edits not quite 18 months ago, I believe, to an article about a park system I'd just been reading about, to which I made a few gnome-like corrections without blowing the place up accidentally or attracting notice. With that success in hand, I started drafting an article about a superb all-female dance company that a niece had recently introduced me to. After seeing them perform and coming to share her enthusiasm, I tried to learn a little more about their history, discovered there was no comprehensive article about them I could find anywhere online (although they would clearly and objectively satisfy WP's notability criteria), and decided that drafting one myself could be a useful exercise in teaching myself Wikipedia's coding and style conventions, while eventually benefiting others with the fruits of my research. I got about half-way finished with it in my userspace (utilizing the Article Wizard), then had to abandon the draft (and Wikipedia) a few days later due to some serious health problems one of my children developed unexpectedly. I didn't return again until two months ago, when a discussion elsewhere pointed me to another Wikipedia article (about whose subject I knew quite a bit) that was seriously deficient, so I signed in again for the first time in 16 months or so, added a number of references to that article, expanded it a bit and began wikifying it without generating any controversy or blowing the place up accidentally. I then encountered an egregious usage error a few weeks later in another Wikipedia article that had badly muddled a sentence's meaning, and corrected it, again without generating any controversy. I then checked for similar misuses of that and another commonly misused word on Wikipedia, discovered hundreds of examples, and so began correcting them in gnome-like fashion over the next month or so while watching films with my daughter after school and/or evenings and tracking
Re: [Gendergap] As I was passing through...
P.S. I echo Sue's sentiments. :) Welcome, and thanks for your articulate letter. Andreas --- On Thu, 23/6/11, Charlotte J ravin...@gmail.com wrote: From: Charlotte J ravin...@gmail.com Subject: [Gendergap] As I was passing through... To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, 23 June, 2011, 1:50 Hello, everyone, I joined this list a couple days ago after reading through its archives, which I embarked on after having come across the June 13th article in The Signpost discussing the tiny percentage of self-identified female Wikipedia editors. I'd missed the January New York Times article and all that flowed from it (including this list) until I started systematically looking through the community section of Wikipedia for the first time about 10 days ago, to see what my options might be to address my own recent negative encounters with other Wikipedia editors, although I hadn't yet stumbled upon the Wikipedia policies on canvassing, etc., that apparently preclude any disclosure on this list of such experiences in a potentially identifiable manner. Having learned of that policy from reading this list's archives, I'm accordingly using an email account not associated with my Wikipedia user account, and I'm not disclosing my Wikipedia user name, so as not to arouse any concerns that I might be canvassing for support concerning that situation, which I'm not. In fact, I've even concluded that it's not worth the aggravation of pursuing Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, which from reading through *those* archives has impressed me as likely to be little more than an exercise in futility (if not also masochism!). I'm certainly neither fragile nor easily intimidated, but I prefer not to waste my valuable free time on such exercises, so I've now stopped editing Wikipedia and -- with one foot out the door, the other soon to follow -- am posting to this list now only because I hadn't seen anything its archives that expressed anything close to some of my own thoughts about a few of the topics discussed, which might perhaps be of some value to at least some of you who plan to continue in this effort. By way of background, I'm one of those older staying-at-home professional mothers Sarah Stierch had suggested in February might constitute a potentially fruitful demographic for female recruitment. I'm certainly no geek, although I've picked up just enough basic HTML code along the way so as not to find Wikipedia's coding basics unduly daunting -- as long as I had the MoS Cheat Sheet handy. Well, aside from formatting references... I made my first few edits not quite 18 months ago, I believe, to an article about a park system I'd just been reading about, to which I made a few gnome-like corrections without blowing the place up accidentally or attracting notice. With that success in hand, I started drafting an article about a superb all-female dance company that a niece had recently introduced me to. After seeing them perform and coming to share her enthusiasm, I tried to learn a little more about their history, discovered there was no comprehensive article about them I could find anywhere online (although they would clearly and objectively satisfy WP's notability criteria), and decided that drafting one myself could be a useful exercise in teaching myself Wikipedia's coding and style conventions, while eventually benefiting others with the fruits of my research. I got about half-way finished with it in my userspace (utilizing the Article Wizard), then had to abandon the draft (and Wikipedia) a few days later due to some serious health problems one of my children developed unexpectedly. I didn't return again until two months ago, when a discussion elsewhere pointed me to another Wikipedia article (about whose subject I knew quite a bit) that was seriously deficient, so I signed in again for the first time in 16 months or so, added a number of references to that article, expanded it a bit and began wikifying it without generating any controversy or blowing the place up accidentally. I then encountered an egregious usage error a few weeks later in another Wikipedia article that had badly muddled a sentence's meaning, and corrected it, again without generating any controversy. I then checked for similar misuses of that and another commonly misused word on Wikipedia, discovered hundreds of examples, and so began correcting them in gnome-like fashion over the next month or so while watching films with my daughter after school and/or evenings and tracking down some uncommon but needed public domain images for a few other articles, until I unluckily attracted the attention of a chauvinist (in the original sense of the word) member of the recent pages patrol whose truculence and devotion to Huggle greatly exceeded his grasp of correct [international] English usage. What ensued persuaded me that my free time from now on would be so much better spent on
