date:20110914

>
> I don't have very good examples in mind, but maybe user Valorum27 fits
> the description here :
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sleeveless_shirt#Is_this_necessary.3F
>
> He is alone in this example but if there were more, it would bring back
> sexual focus.
>
> A better example is this, which personally I find pathetic :
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Skirt#Sexist
>
> And it's the user who didn't want female content who started it, albeit
> with good intentions certainly.
>
> I imagine that if on the contrary you'd let viewers look away without
> mentioning decency, it would be much better, and more proper to focus on
> the clothe.

On the other side, years ago, when I saw this discussion (at the top of the 
page), I blanked it right away because it didn't belong on the talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Miniskirt&oldid=115184039

Daniel Case 



___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] "beauty" project


  Sarah:


  I've been spending a little bit of time this evening looking at beauty 
related topics. I noticed most of them aren't tagged with any projects.  I 
looked at WP:Fashion, which specifically focuses on style/clothing/etc. I have 
to admit, I'm a bit surprised there isn't a "Beauty and Personal Care" type of 
project, or something...it'd be a great and prime category to get beauty and 
make-up junkies (it's a cult!) to participate. The category could even cover 
holistic body care, spa treatment, relaxation..and perhaps similar subjects. 

  Myself:

  Early on in WP:FASHION, I suggested some internal subdivisions within the 
project into task forces/working groups/whatever we call them, that included 
one for beauty: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fashion/Archive_1#Possible_future_divisions_of_responsibility

  I suppose if more people had been involved at the time, this might have 
actually happened. I somewhat grandiosely believed that the project could draw 
in as many editors as WP:MILHIST, which probably has more such subgroups (and 
active ones at that) than any other WikiProject (with WP:RAIL being close 
behind).

  And it still could ...

  Daniel Case___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Hairdresser, hairstylist...barber?

2011-09-14 Thread Ole Palnatoke Andersen

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Sarah Stierch  wrote:
> I searched for "hairdresser" and was directed to barber.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hairdresser
>
> Kind of interesting, that it directs to barber and then discusses male
> barbers and men's haircutting culture.
>
> Surely I can't be the only person who finds this odd...

Did you take a look at the article history? Would you prefer the last
pre-merger version
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hairdresser&oldid=238820338)
over a redirect to a proper article about the same subject?

Regards,
Ole

-- 
http://palnatoke.org * @palnatoke * +4522934588

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 8, Issue 40

2011-09-14 Thread Jutta von Dincklage


> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 12:34:21 +1000
> From: Laura Hale 
> Subject: [Gendergap] Wikipedia: Biography of Living People guide
>   (focusing   on sport)
> To: memb...@wikimedia.org.au, Increasing female participation in
>   Wikimedia projects  
> Message-ID:
>9mov5efqx24c3emq5ytqv7dlg+...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> I've created a small guide to editing articles about living people, with a 
> focus
> on sport people (and Australian Paralympians specifically). If anyone has any
> feedback on the attached file, that would be really great. I wanted to try to
> cover issues that tend to be the biggest pit falls in terms of trying to edit
> articles about living people.  The only area that, being self critical, I 
> think may
> need work is the photographs part... but maybe that can be fixed by linking to
> another guide?  there is a lot more out there regarding uploading pictures 
> than
> BLP editing.
> 

Hi Laura,
I am going through it now and will email you a pdf with sticky notes directly 
:-)
Great job! I was so happy to hear that the paralympics project is happening!

Cheers,
Jutta

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Hairdresser, hairstylist...barber?

2011-09-14 Thread Fred Bauder

> I searched for "hairdresser" and was directed to barber.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hairdresser
>
> Kind of interesting, that it directs to barber and then discusses male
> barbers and men's haircutting culture.
>
> Surely I can't be the only person who finds this odd...
>
> Really needs some gender neutrality... Cosmetology is the closest thing
> to
> any article that discusses "hairdressers" "hair stylists" and it's
> basically
> a paragraph.
>
> Just surprises me..no "hairstylists" content on Wikipedia. If I am
> missing
> something, or passing over it, please correct me! Another example on the
> struggles we have here...  (for example, the hair stylist Frederic Fekkai
> links to barberand he's an icon of women's hair styling and is
> considered a "hairdresser" or stylist)
>
> -Sarah

Actually, it's not as bad as you think. No one has written a good
hairdressers article. What we have is at Beauty salon, which has little
about beauty shop culture. What is needed is a several good articles:
probably hairdressing, beauty shop, and beauty salon.

Fred


___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Hairdresser, hairstylist...barber?

Yes, as you have pointed out in other threads the whole area of women's
beauty is a mess.

Disorganized and under represented

Slight mention of hair stylists here, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair_cut

. Sydney

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:

> I searched for "hairdresser" and was directed to barber.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hairdresser
>
> Kind of interesting, that it directs to barber and then discusses male
> barbers and men's haircutting culture.
>
> Surely I can't be the only person who finds this odd...
>
> Really needs some gender neutrality... Cosmetology is the closest thing to
> any article that discusses "hairdressers" "hair stylists" and it's basically
> a paragraph.
>
> Just surprises me..no "hairstylists" content on Wikipedia. If I am missing
> something, or passing over it, please correct me! Another example on the
> struggles we have here...  (for example, the hair stylist Frederic Fekkai
> links to barberand he's an icon of women's hair styling and is
> considered a "hairdresser" or stylist)
>
> -Sarah
>
> --
> GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia 
> Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American 
> Art
> and
> Sarah Stierch Consulting
> *Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
> --
> http://www.sarahstierch.com/
>
>
> ___
> 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] Hairdresser, hairstylist...barber?

I searched for "hairdresser" and was directed to barber.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hairdresser

Kind of interesting, that it directs to barber and then discusses male
barbers and men's haircutting culture.

Surely I can't be the only person who finds this odd...

Really needs some gender neutrality... Cosmetology is the closest thing to
any article that discusses "hairdressers" "hair stylists" and it's basically
a paragraph.

Just surprises me..no "hairstylists" content on Wikipedia. If I am missing
something, or passing over it, please correct me! Another example on the
struggles we have here...  (for example, the hair stylist Frederic Fekkai
links to barberand he's an icon of women's hair styling and is
considered a "hairdresser" or stylist)

-Sarah

-- 
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia 
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Art
and
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
--
http://www.sarahstierch.com/
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] Cosmo Mag 1967: The Computer Girls

2011-09-14 Thread Moka Pantages

Hi, all.

I don't remember seeing this in the digests, so apologies if this work
has already been posted.

I came across an historical article from a 1968 edition of
Cosmopolitan, The Computer Girls [1] and this amazing add targeted at
female programmers [2].

This was cited in a recent Washington Post [2] story exploring the
absence of women in tech. The writer talks about women who worked as
Keypunch girls in the 60s and the ebb and flow of women programers
ever since. I think this kind of story is common knowledge, as I
remember reading similar things in the past, but I've never actually
seen the original Cosmo story or some of the stats that were included.

Like Sue experienced during her CBC interview, there's a common
misconception that the STEM gender gap is closing. This article helps
support what this list already knows:

In 1967, when Cosmo’s “The Computer Girls” article ran, 11 percent of
computer science majors were women. In the late 1970s, the percentage
of women in the field approached and exceeded the same figure we are
applauding today: 25 percent. The portion of women earning computer
science degrees continued to rise steadily, reaching its peak — 37
percent — in 1984. Then, over the next two decades, women left
computer science in droves — just as their numbers were increasing
steadily across all other science, technology, engineering, and math
fields. By 2006, the portion of women in computer science had dropped
to 20 percent.

I'm still fascinated by the Cosmo story! Hope this is useful.

[1] http://thecomputerboys.com/?tag=gender#
[2] http://thecomputerboys.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/susie-meyer.jpg
[3]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-computer-programming-was-womens-work/2011/08/24/gIQAdixGgJ_story.html

--
Cheers,
Moka

Moka Pantages
415.839.6885 x 635
@moka

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Consent for photographs on Commons

2011-09-14 Thread Emily Monroe

FloNight said:

> [snip]

It make no real difference what it is called, guideline or policy, as long
> as everyone one is singing from the same page in the hymnal. The deletion
> discussion over the past week, (and there have been many of them using lack
> of model consent as reason) have  gone well. Friendly, with no conduct
> issues that I can see. No extreme hyperbole. Largely people are discussing
> the images by citing policy, and admins are closing them with consensus.
>

Nice to hear about civility being done! [?]

From,
Emily


On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Sydney Poore wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
>
>> On 9/13/11 8:03 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
>> > I think this is really great, thank you Kaldari for taking the time to
>> > create this.
>> >
>> > The n00b in me asks :
>> >
>> >  1) Is this trackable? That is, a hidden category or anything?
>>
>> There aren't any categories currently, but I could add some. Right now,
>> you can view all the images it is used on at
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Consent
>>
>> > 2) I think we should solidify the policy documentation (i.e. the
>> > recent board passing, etc), and complete that work before we promote
>> > this template.
>>
>> Right now there is no actual policy as far as I know, just a guideline
>> and a resolution. Getting something encoded as policy might be a good
>> goal to work towards.
>>
>> Ryan Kaldari
>>
>
> It make no real difference what it is called, guideline or policy, as long
> as everyone one is singing from the same page in the hymnal. The deletion
> discussion over the past week, (and there have been many of them using lack
> of model consent as reason) have  gone well. Friendly, with no conduct
> issues that I can see. No extreme hyperbole. Largely people are discussing
> the images by citing policy, and admins are closing them with consensus.
>
> I know that there has been division about this in the past, but if people
> use the consent template as you have written it, I think that everything
> will be fine.
> Sydney
>
> User:FloNight
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
<<35D.gif>>___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] "beauty" project

I've been spending a little bit of time this evening looking at beauty
related topics. I noticed most of them aren't tagged with any projects.  I
looked at WP:Fashion, which specifically focuses on style/clothing/etc. I
have to admit, I'm a bit surprised there isn't a "Beauty and Personal Care"
type of project, or something...it'd be a great and prime category to get
beauty and make-up junkies (it's a cult!) to participate. The category could
even cover holistic body care, spa treatment, relaxation..and perhaps
similar subjects.

I don't have the time or heavy interest at this moment, but, it is
interesting that nothing like this exists...

But at least we have a project page for pretty much all NFL teams ;)

-Sarah

-- 
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia 
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Art
and
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
--
http://www.sarahstierch.com/
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Consent for photographs on Commons

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:

> On 9/13/11 8:03 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
> > I think this is really great, thank you Kaldari for taking the time to
> > create this.
> >
> > The n00b in me asks :
> >
> >  1) Is this trackable? That is, a hidden category or anything?
>
> There aren't any categories currently, but I could add some. Right now,
> you can view all the images it is used on at
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Consent
>
> > 2) I think we should solidify the policy documentation (i.e. the
> > recent board passing, etc), and complete that work before we promote
> > this template.
>
> Right now there is no actual policy as far as I know, just a guideline
> and a resolution. Getting something encoded as policy might be a good
> goal to work towards.
>
> Ryan Kaldari
>

It make no real difference what it is called, guideline or policy, as long
as everyone one is singing from the same page in the hymnal. The deletion
discussion over the past week, (and there have been many of them using lack
of model consent as reason) have  gone well. Friendly, with no conduct
issues that I can see. No extreme hyperbole. Largely people are discussing
the images by citing policy, and admins are closing them with consensus.

I know that there has been division about this in the past, but if people
use the consent template as you have written it, I think that everything
will be fine.
Sydney

User:FloNight
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Wikifashion


http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/fashion/students-startup-weaves-a-web-that-keeps-growing-20110914-1k9hi.html


  ''If you look at Wikipedia, a lot of the [fashion] designer or brand pages do 
not have a lot of information on them, and Wikipedia does not really focus on 
images, so you will not ever find the new collections or [fashion] look books 
on there,'' she says. 

  ''At the moment, there is no central database for fashion, a location where a 
girl can find the latest look book for Marc Jacobs or the first collection for 
Chanel. Either they are not there or they are on a host of different websites, 
so we want 
  to create all of that in one place.''
  Sarah Stierch says:

  ...uh..it's called Style.com and it's the greatest fashion website, ever, and 
has been for almost ten years. (Always makes me laugh that people in the 
fashion world forget men are as into fashion as much as women are, too!) 

  And I comment:

  Given my experience with Wikipedia's fashion coverage, I think I can speak to 
this with some authority.

  We did create a little external-link template for style.com: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Style.com_collection, that can be used as 
you would use the Facebook, Twitter or MySpace templates. It's, as Sarah says, 
an excellent resource.

  I don't mind the idea of the look-book thing-we could and should arguably 
have articles on notable designers' biannual collections, and there would thus 
inevitably be associated Commons categories, which would serve as look books.

  What we'd need-and this, it seems to me, is where wikifashion is failing-is 
someone who can take those pictures with a decent enough camera and can get 
access to the shows. Someone with some professional experience as a fashion 
photographer (cue Steely Dan's "Peg", from the now-deleted "Songs about 
fashion" category: "When the shutter falls / You see it all in 3-D / It's your 
favorite foreign movie ..."), in other words.

  The problem, though, is that these people are not usually open to 
freely-licensing their work. And even, I suppose, a Wikipedian with the skill 
set might not necessarily be welcome at a fashion show, not if it was known 
that they were going to create images that would undermine the commercial value 
of the work of every other photographer there.

  But, then again, we did get people into sporting events eventually, so I'm 
sure we'll eventually get someone into a fashion show or two.

  Daniel Case

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] WikiProject Fashion

Nicole:
A similar area where Wikipedia is lacking is cosmetics and I don't mean in 
terms of how to create makeup looks or pictures of every shade of nail polish, 
but general information on cosmetics companies like Cover Girl and Maybelline. 
I think there needs to more information on the history of each company as well 
as criticisms. In addition, those articles are lacking in citations. 

My reply:

I was the first male user to sign on to WikiProject Fashion 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FASHION) and, as I have said every other time 
someone brings this up, that project is dreadfully short of editors with the 
time (I did a lot in the beginning, an outgrowth of the effort I put into [[The 
Devil Wears Prada (novel)]], [[The Devil Wears Prada (film)]] and [[Anna 
Wintour]], but I haven't been able to focus on it in a while. So, anyone who 
feels that they can contribute there is welcome ... in the "beauty" department, 
I am happy to see that [[Template:Cosmetics]] has grown as much as it has since 
I first created it in the project's early days, though perhaps I should restore 
the original color scheme (once denounced by an anon as sexist: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cosmetics&diff=351849019&oldid=345846576)
 now that a CSS has been written to allow users who have vision problems to 
override navbox coloring to high-contrast defaults).

Daniel Case 
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Wikifashion

2011-09-14 Thread Brandon Harris

On 9/14/11 8:41 AM, Sarah Stierch wrote:

>
> I really like the layout and such of the website  

I am on record in a number of places expressing my love for their skin 
design.  I don't necessarily like the color scheme but the skin layout 
is top-notch.

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Consent for photographs on Commons

2011-09-14 Thread Ryan Kaldari

On 9/13/11 8:03 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
> I think this is really great, thank you Kaldari for taking the time to 
> create this.
>
> The n00b in me asks :
>
>  1) Is this trackable? That is, a hidden category or anything?

There aren't any categories currently, but I could add some. Right now, 
you can view all the images it is used on at 
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Consent

> 2) I think we should solidify the policy documentation (i.e. the 
> recent board passing, etc), and complete that work before we promote 
> this template.

Right now there is no actual policy as far as I know, just a guideline 
and a resolution. Getting something encoded as policy might be a good 
goal to work towards.

Ryan Kaldari

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Wikifashion

2011-09-14 Thread Sue Gardner

On 14 September 2011 10:03, Michael J. Lowrey  wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Sarah Stierch  
> wrote:
>> I do like this though (scroll down to badges), not the portraits..but the
>> round badges. I'd love to see something like this developed for Wikipedia.
>> I'd have them on my tumblr, etc.
>>
>> http://wikifashion.com/wiki/Wikifashion:Contributors_Needed
>
> Really I find them loathsome in the extreme; very Facebooky.


S funny: everyone is different, and that is fine.

I remember Jack Herrick seeming flustered and a little embarrassed one
day by a purple girly welcome message on WikiHow. But I loved the
purple girly welcome message, personally :-)

Thanks,
Sue

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] An example of clothed model in medical document

2011-09-14 Thread Arnaud HERVE

On 14/09/2011 18:25, Sydney Poore wrote:
> We often need to rewrite text to make it less like an investigative 
> report, a salacious tabloid story, or a company press release.

One of the reasons I insist so much on positive rules is that I fear 
there might be a perverse use of negative rules, which would 
paradoxically bring sexuality back to the menu.

For example, it is alright to have rules against groping in the subway, 
but I think a woman who would walk in the subway with a large signpost 
saying "Don't grope me" would perhaps be ambiguous.

I think that on clothes articles there might easily be a lot of prudes 
saying "That's too short" or something like that, who even if they don't 
want to might bring unease.

I don't have very good examples in mind, but maybe user Valorum27 fits 
the description here :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sleeveless_shirt#Is_this_necessary.3F

He is alone in this example but if there were more, it would bring back 
sexual focus.

A better example is this, which personally I find pathetic :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Skirt#Sexist

And it's the user who didn't want female content who started it, albeit 
with good intentions certainly.

I imagine that if on the contrary you'd let viewers look away without 
mentioning decency, it would be much better, and more proper to focus on 
the clothe.

Arnaud

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Other "women's" wiki's

I'm creating account on these two wikis to better understand ways that these
wikis function since they have more women, and were created more recently
than WMF projects.

Sydney Poore
User:FloNight

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:

> These are two others that I have stumbled across. I think it's really
> interesting to look at these wiki's and see what makes them good/bad,
> attractive/not, etc. I think there can always be something to learned..I've
> looked at these extensively, and even made accounts on them to explore the
> process. I encourage others to experience and perhaps share what you think
> makes these different, good/bad, etc, compared to Wikipedia.
>
> Global Women's Network has videos on how to do things a simple as create a
> user account...which I think is nice.
>
> http://www.global-womens-network.org/
>
> http://wikigender.org/index.php/New_Home
>
> -Sarah
>
>
> --
> GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia 
> Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American 
> Art
> and
> Sarah Stierch Consulting
> *Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
> --
> http://www.sarahstierch.com/
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] Wikifashion

2011-09-14 Thread Michael J. Lowrey

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Sarah Stierch  wrote:
> I do like this though (scroll down to badges), not the portraits..but the
> round badges. I'd love to see something like this developed for Wikipedia.
> I'd have them on my tumblr, etc.
>
> http://wikifashion.com/wiki/Wikifashion:Contributors_Needed

Really I find them loathsome in the extreme; very Facebooky.

-- 
Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey

"When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food
and clothes."
     --  Desiderius Erasmus

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] An example of clothed model in medical document

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Arnaud HERVE wrote:

> The last few days we talked about appropriate nudity in medical images.
> I have an example of appropriate clothing now.
>
> I think applying such rules as decency, respect, etc. are not totally
> sufficient.
>
> I think that the main principle should to avoid erotic content in order
> to focus on the cognitive effort to understand the physiology. And in
> such a context an erotic content would not only be offensive, it would
> be a pollution for the cognitive intention.
>
> I just worked on this document ( ~ 7 Mo download) :
>
> http://arnaudherve.free.fr/Sugery_table_with_female_patient.pdf
>
> It comes from a vendor of surgery tables. The document was originally in
> German and has been translated to French. Anyway you don't have to
> understand the language, because the medical words are almost the same,
> and the images are obvious anyway.
>
> What I wanted to show is that the patient is clothed, although in a real
> life surgery situation, she would be naked.
>
> The answer for that is not really in respect for the person, although it
> is present here. The main intention is semantic. It mean the sellers
> work seriously at making tables, they talk to buyers who work seriously
> using those tables, and the focus is on the tables and not the patient.
>
> By the way you will notice here and there the arm of a nurse, without
> her face. The arm is naked and the shoulder clothed, which doesn't mean
> the nurse is decent, it means she is working. So her face would not only
> be a violation of anonymity, it would be a pollution to showing her arm
> manipulating the tools.
>
> I think that is the spirit. For images of organs of course it will be
> more difficult, but still the focus must be on understanding the
> anatomy, or physiology, or pathology. Or in other words, discourage
> those who want to drool over female bodies, BUT encourage those who want
> to acquire knowledge.
>
> I think the principle applies to women in sports too. Have a look at this :
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadia_Com%C4%83neci
>
> Here you can see, or at least I can see immediately, that the focus in
> on the sports feat and not on decency or desirability.
>
> Don't know if that makes sense to you. So to sum it up it would not be
> sufficient to merely REMOVE the erotic content, it is necessary to
> IMPOSE the cognitive content. Then if you want to positively impose the
> cognitive content, the negative removal of erotic content comes very
> naturally.
>
> Arnaud
>

Arnaud, I agree with the point that you are making.

It is the same as when we expect article content to have a encyclopedic
tone. We often need to rewrite text to make it less like an investigative
report, a salacious tabloid story, or a company press release.

Images need to be used in a way that that best illustrates the overall
content of the topic being discussed.

This can be a matter of presenting a neutral point of view, or maybe just
good recognition of the way that that an image can be introduced into the
article to supplement the text.

It is true when introducing all images into an article. But it seems
particularly necessary to think of it when writing articles that feature
images of women because of the way that women are sexualized in many of the
images uploaded to Commons. Forcing them into articles that are not erotic
adds a weird connotation to the article.

(The first example image would not load for me but your excellent
description helped me understand the point you were making.)

Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] Other "women's" wiki's

These are two others that I have stumbled across. I think it's really
interesting to look at these wiki's and see what makes them good/bad,
attractive/not, etc. I think there can always be something to learned..I've
looked at these extensively, and even made accounts on them to explore the
process. I encourage others to experience and perhaps share what you think
makes these different, good/bad, etc, compared to Wikipedia.

Global Women's Network has videos on how to do things a simple as create a
user account...which I think is nice.

http://www.global-womens-network.org/

http://wikigender.org/index.php/New_Home

-Sarah


-- 
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia 
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Art
and
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
--
http://www.sarahstierch.com/
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Wikifashion

2011-09-14 Thread Nicole Willson

My one issue with fashion wiki is the licensing. It's a copyrighted wiki:

*(a) Unless otherwise indicated, My Lemmings Pty Ltd reserves all copyright
in the Content and design of wikifashion.com. (b) My Lemmings Pty Ltd owns
all such copyright or uses it under licence or applicable law to Users of
Users of wikifashion.com. (c) Other than for the purposes of and subject to
the conditions prescribed under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (or any other
applicable legislation throughout the world), or as otherwise provided for
in this copyright notice, no part of any Content may in any form or by any
means (including framing, screen scraping, electronic, mechanical,
microcopying, photocopying or recording) be reproduced, adapted, stored in a
retrieval system or transmitted without the prior written permission of My
Lemmings Pty Ltd. (d) My Lemmings Pty Ltd is the owner of several trade
marks which appear on its Website. Unauthorised use of these trade marks
will infringe our intellectual property rights. (e) My Lemmings Pty Ltd
reserves all other rights in Content and wikifashion.com.*
*
*
*-*
http://wikifashion.com/wiki/Wikifashion:Terms_of_Service#9..09Copyright_in_Content
*
*
I have asked about this on Quora where I know the wikiFashion founders are
active in answering questions and have never gotten an answer.

A similar area where Wikipedia is lacking is cosmetics and I don't mean in
terms of how to create makeup looks or pictures of every shade of nail
polish, but general information on cosmetics companies like Cover Girl and
Maybelline. I think there needs to more information on the history of each
company as well as criticisms. In addition, those articles are lacking in
citations.

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Sarah Stierch wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/fashion/students-startup-weaves-a-web-that-keeps-growing-20110914-1k9hi.html
>>
>
> *''If you look at Wikipedia, a lot of the [fashion] designer or brand
> pages do not have a lot of information on them, and Wikipedia does not
> really focus on images, so you will not ever find the new collections or
> [fashion] look books on there,'' she says.
>
> ''At the moment, there is no central database for fashion, a location where
> a girl can find the latest look book for Marc Jacobs or the first collection
> for Chanel. Either they are not there or they are on a host of different
> websites, so we want to create all of that in one place.''*
> *
> *...uh..it's called Style.com and it's the greatest fashion website, *ever
> *, and has been for almost ten years. (Always makes me laugh that people
> in the fashion world forget men are as into fashion as much as women are,
> too!)
>
>
>>
>> http://wikifashion.com/wiki/Main_Page
>>
>
> I really like the layout and such of the website. I do think it's kind of
> interesting, that for a fashion website, they don't have any copyright data
> for the photographs they are using (most are copyrighted), fair use
> mentions, etc. After reading a few pages in the Designer category... (and as
> someone recovering from a career in the fashion industry) it's a mix of
> preachy bias content about how amazing certain designers are (Yes, Karl
> Lagerfeld is awesome, I have to admit), small time or no-name designers who
> write their own articles and upload photos of their designs, etc, or cut and
> paste unsourced content. The website started in 2008 and most articles have
> under 8 edits and lack special mark up. It is promotional enough, they also
> have one paid advert and is not a non-profit org ;)
>
> Perhaps this is what people want? ;)
>
> I suppose I'm being debbie downer (as usual) but, I tend to look at female
> dominated Wiki's and see what makes them different, with a critical eye, to
> see what *we* are doing right and wrong, and vice versa.
>
> I do like this though (scroll down to badges), not the portraits..but the
> round badges. I'd love to see something like this developed for Wikipedia.
> I'd have them on my tumblr, etc.
>
> http://wikifashion.com/wiki/Wikifashion:Contributors_Needed
>
>
>
> Sarah
>
>
> --
> GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia <http://www.glamwiki.org>
> Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American 
> Art<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch>
> and
> Sarah Stierch Consulting
> *Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
> --
> http://www.sarahstierch.com/
>
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>

-- 
"Only the shallow know themselves." - Oscar Wilde
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Wikifashion

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:

>
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/fashion/students-startup-weaves-a-web-that-keeps-growing-20110914-1k9hi.html
>

*''If you look at Wikipedia, a lot of the [fashion] designer or brand pages
do not have a lot of information on them, and Wikipedia does not really
focus on images, so you will not ever find the new collections or [fashion]
look books on there,'' she says.

''At the moment, there is no central database for fashion, a location where
a girl can find the latest look book for Marc Jacobs or the first collection
for Chanel. Either they are not there or they are on a host of different
websites, so we want to create all of that in one place.''*
*
*...uh..it's called Style.com and it's the greatest fashion website, *ever*,
and has been for almost ten years. (Always makes me laugh that people in the
fashion world forget men are as into fashion as much as women are, too!)

>
> http://wikifashion.com/wiki/Main_Page
>

I really like the layout and such of the website. I do think it's kind of
interesting, that for a fashion website, they don't have any copyright data
for the photographs they are using (most are copyrighted), fair use
mentions, etc. After reading a few pages in the Designer category... (and as
someone recovering from a career in the fashion industry) it's a mix of
preachy bias content about how amazing certain designers are (Yes, Karl
Lagerfeld is awesome, I have to admit), small time or no-name designers who
write their own articles and upload photos of their designs, etc, or cut and
paste unsourced content. The website started in 2008 and most articles have
under 8 edits and lack special mark up. It is promotional enough, they also
have one paid advert and is not a non-profit org ;)

Perhaps this is what people want? ;)

I suppose I'm being debbie downer (as usual) but, I tend to look at female
dominated Wiki's and see what makes them different, with a critical eye, to
see what *we* are doing right and wrong, and vice versa.

I do like this though (scroll down to badges), not the portraits..but the
round badges. I'd love to see something like this developed for Wikipedia.
I'd have them on my tumblr, etc.

http://wikifashion.com/wiki/Wikifashion:Contributors_Needed

Sarah

-- 
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia <http://www.glamwiki.org>
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Art<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch>
and
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
--
http://www.sarahstierch.com/
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Consent for photographs on Commons

2011-09-14 Thread Sarah

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 09:25, Arnaud HERVE  wrote:
> On 14/09/2011 16:56, Sarah wrote:
>> So the problem with the basic consent template as written -- "I
>> personally created this media. All identifiable persons shown
>> specifically consented to this photograph or video" -- is that it
>> implies to the unsuspecting that consent has been given to take the
>> image, publish the image, and release the image.
>
> Well yes and it is also legally invalid. You don't sign an agreement
> stating the consent of another person.
>
> Arnaud

You also don't sign an agreement using a pseudonym. So, yes, the whole
thing is problematic, but I think the idea is to make a start by
getting uploaders to bear the issue of the subject's consent in mind.

Sarah

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Consent for photographs on Commons

2011-09-14 Thread Arnaud HERVE

On 14/09/2011 16:56, Sarah wrote:
> So the problem with the basic consent template as written -- "I 
> personally created this media. All identifiable persons shown 
> specifically consented to this photograph or video" -- is that it 
> implies to the unsuspecting that consent has been given to take the 
> image, publish the image, and release the image.

Well yes and it is also legally invalid. You don't sign an agreement 
stating the consent of another person.

Arnaud


___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Wikifashion

2011-09-14 Thread Michael J. Lowrey

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Fred Bauder  wrote:
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/fashion/students-startup-weaves-a-web-that-keeps-growing-20110914-1k9hi.html
>
> http://wikifashion.com/wiki/Main_Page
>
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikifashion&action=edit&redlink=1
>
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Madeline_Veenstra&action=edit&redlink=1


??

What's the point of all this?

-- 
Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey

"When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food
and clothes."
     --  Desiderius Erasmus

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] Wikifashion

2011-09-14 Thread Fred Bauder


http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/fashion/students-startup-weaves-a-web-that-keeps-growing-20110914-1k9hi.html

http://wikifashion.com/wiki/Main_Page

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikifashion&action=edit&redlink=1

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Madeline_Veenstra&action=edit&redlink=1

Fred


___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Consent for photographs on Commons

2011-09-14 Thread Sarah

On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 17:39, Ryan Kaldari  wrote:
> I added a new parameter to the template for indicating full consent. If
> you use {{consent|full}} it outputs:
> "I personally created this media. All identifiable persons shown
> specifically consented to publication of this photograph or video under
> a free license, granting unrestricted rights to redistribute the media
> for any purpose."
>
> If you use {{consent|basic}} it outputs:
> "I personally created this media. All identifiable persons shown
> specifically consented to this photograph or video."
>
> I think it's important that both options are available, since we should
> allow people to indicate different degrees of consent. There's also a
> parameter, 'public', for photographs without consent of people in public
> places (which explains some of the issues involved in that particular case).
>
Hi Ryan, I think it's a good idea to have two templates (and thank you
for creating them), but is it not important in the basic one to signal
its limitations? For example, we could say: "I personally created this
media. All identifiable persons shown specifically consented to this
photograph or video being taken, but may not have consented to its
publication or release."

We have three basic scenarios we are dealing with:

1. Someone takes a photograph of a person without their knowledge.
This is voyeurism if done for the purpose of sexual gratification, and
that's something we should never allow to be uploaded in my view,
because it's a criminal offence in some jurisdictions, and always
unethical.

2. Someone takes a photograph of a person with their knowledge, but
publishes it without their knowledge. This is almost as bad as (1) if
it's in a private space and there's a sexual element.

3. Someone takes a photograph of a person with their knowledge, but
releases it under a free licence without their knowledge. This means
the author can't easily withdraw the image, or control how it's used.

So the problem with the basic consent template as written -- "I
personally created this media. All identifiable persons shown
specifically consented to this photograph or video" -- is that it
implies to the unsuspecting that consent has been given to take the
image, publish the image, and release the image.

Sarah

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] An example of clothed model in medical document

2011-09-14 Thread Arnaud HERVE

The last few days we talked about appropriate nudity in medical images. 
I have an example of appropriate clothing now.

I think applying such rules as decency, respect, etc. are not totally 
sufficient.

I think that the main principle should to avoid erotic content in order 
to focus on the cognitive effort to understand the physiology. And in 
such a context an erotic content would not only be offensive, it would 
be a pollution for the cognitive intention.

I just worked on this document ( ~ 7 Mo download) :

http://arnaudherve.free.fr/Sugery_table_with_female_patient.pdf

It comes from a vendor of surgery tables. The document was originally in 
German and has been translated to French. Anyway you don't have to 
understand the language, because the medical words are almost the same, 
and the images are obvious anyway.

What I wanted to show is that the patient is clothed, although in a real 
life surgery situation, she would be naked.

The answer for that is not really in respect for the person, although it 
is present here. The main intention is semantic. It mean the sellers 
work seriously at making tables, they talk to buyers who work seriously 
using those tables, and the focus is on the tables and not the patient.

By the way you will notice here and there the arm of a nurse, without 
her face. The arm is naked and the shoulder clothed, which doesn't mean 
the nurse is decent, it means she is working. So her face would not only 
be a violation of anonymity, it would be a pollution to showing her arm 
manipulating the tools.

I think that is the spirit. For images of organs of course it will be 
more difficult, but still the focus must be on understanding the 
anatomy, or physiology, or pathology. Or in other words, discourage 
those who want to drool over female bodies, BUT encourage those who want 
to acquire knowledge.

I think the principle applies to women in sports too. Have a look at this :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadia_Com%C4%83neci

Here you can see, or at least I can see immediately, that the focus in 
on the sports feat and not on decency or desirability.

Don't know if that makes sense to you. So to sum it up it would not be 
sufficient to merely REMOVE the erotic content, it is necessary to 
IMPOSE the cognitive content. Then if you want to positively impose the 
cognitive content, the negative removal of erotic content comes very 
naturally.

Arnaud


___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Consent for photographs on Commons

2011-09-14 Thread Fred Bauder

> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Ryan Kaldari 
> wrote:
>> I added a new parameter to the template for indicating full consent. If
>> you use {{consent|full}} it outputs:
>> "I personally created this media. All identifiable persons shown
>> specifically consented to publication of this photograph or video under
>> a free license, granting unrestricted rights to redistribute the media
>> for any purpose."
>
> Not commenting on the merit of including such a variation:
>
> Consenting to the release of something under a free license
> emphatically *does not* mean "granting unrestricted rights to
> redistribute the media for any purpose." In particular, under many
> licenses, the redistribution is restricted by the requirement that the
> new copies also be provided under a free license. They also usually
> require that the creator be attributed.
>
> You may wish to rethink the wording of that, a bit.
>
> --
> Tracy Poff

A "full" release should signify that the subject should have been fully
informed and understand the broad nature of an unrestricted license;
things like the right to modify the image, substitute a pig's body for
yours, and use it in an ad during televising of the Super Bowl.

Fred


___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] Sexual Harassment in Online Communications: Effects of Gender and Discourse Medium