Re: [Gendergap] Joseph Reagle on Wikipedia's category taxonomy

[Ryan Kaldari]

On the issue of using tags instead of categories (which is mentioned in 
Joseph Reagle's article), I've been involved in some discussions on this 
issue. The two major hurdles for this are how do you make tagging work 
across languages (for projects like Commons and Meta), and figuring out 
whether tags should augment or replace the categorization system. The 
first problem may be solved by Wikidata; the 2nd problem is probably 
solved by using both for a while and then eventually abandoning 
categories. There's a possibility that the multimedia development team 
that is being spun up over the next few months may try to tackle this, 
but there's nothing concrete on the agenda yet.


Ryan Kaldari

On 4/29/13 11:15 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 5:43 AM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case 
mailto:danc...@frontiernet.net>> wrote:


>This system keeps the categories more straightforward, and pretty
well avoids the sort of subtle bias Wikipedia >has >been caught
with here. Defining the precise intersection of interest is up to
the user.

But the corresponding weakness is that it depends on the editors
hitting all the right categories to work properly (as well as the
tool itself, which as heavy toolserver users know is not always
the case). Someone may categorize in two of three but not the
third (guess which one might get forgotten?)



Compare it to the weaknesses of the current category system. 98% of 
editors don't know what they are doing. Categories and subcategories 
are applied inconsistently all the time. Nobody has an overview of the 
entire tree structure, or even a major branch of it. Something that is 
a subcategory of American novelists today may stop being one tomorrow, 
just by dint of a single edit, and no one would be the wiser (unless 
they keep hundreds of categories on their watchlist). The category 
tree (or weave, as categories can have several parents) changes daily, 
with categories created, renamed, recategorised, and deleted. There 
are incessant arguments about how to name, categorise and diffuse 
categories, and about perceived iniquities. Wiki-gnomes spend days 
working and undoing each other's work. It's insane.


Using a defined set of basic tags in combination with something like 
CatScan – ported across to the Foundation server if you like, and 
given a friendly front-end with shortcuts to the most common searches 
– would do away with that.



___
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] Joseph Reagle on Wikipedia's category taxonomy

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 5:43 AM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case <
danc...@frontiernet.net> wrote:

>   >This system keeps the categories more straightforward, and pretty well
> avoids the sort of subtle bias Wikipedia >has >been caught with here.
> Defining the precise intersection of interest is up to the user.
>
> But the corresponding weakness is that it depends on the editors hitting
> all the right categories to work properly (as well as the tool itself,
> which as heavy toolserver users know is not always the case). Someone may
> categorize in two of three but not the third (guess which one might get
> forgotten?)
>


Compare it to the weaknesses of the current category system. 98% of editors
don't know what they are doing. Categories and subcategories are applied
inconsistently all the time. Nobody has an overview of the entire tree
structure, or even a major branch of it. Something that is a subcategory of
American novelists today may stop being one tomorrow, just by dint of a
single edit, and no one would be the wiser (unless they keep hundreds of
categories on their watchlist). The category tree (or weave, as categories
can have several parents) changes daily, with categories created, renamed,
recategorised, and deleted. There are incessant arguments about how to
name, categorise and diffuse categories, and about perceived iniquities.
Wiki-gnomes spend days working and undoing each other's work. It's insane.

Using a defined set of basic tags in combination with something like
CatScan – ported across to the Foundation server if you like, and given a
friendly front-end with shortcuts to the most common searches – would do
away with that.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Categories hit NPR

[Ryan Kaldari]

Sigh. Of course they only took my two quotes about how there's sexism on 
Wikipedia, and not a word of my explanation about how categorization on 
Wikipedia works and how half of what Ms. Filipacchi wrote was 
misleading. I also talked extensively about the "real" sexist problems 
on Wikipedia (whitewashing of rape and domestic violence articles by 
men's rights groups, over-representation of female porn stars, 
under-representation of female academics, etc.) and how these issues 
have been largely ignored by the media. Of course they were still 
ignored, so I guess it was wasted effort :P


Ryan Kaldari

On 4/29/13 6:09 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:

Gender gap's & WikiProject Feminism's own Kaldari is interviewed here:

http://www.npr.org/2013/04/29/179850435/what-s-in-a-category-women-novelists-spark-wiki-controversy

and User:Qworty in a not so pleasant light here:

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/29/wikipedias_shame/

O_o


--
*Sarah Stierch*
*/Museumist and open culture advocate/*
>>Visit 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] Joseph Reagle on Wikipedia's category taxonomy

[Daniel and Elizabeth Case]

>This system keeps the categories more straightforward, and pretty well avoids 
>the sort of subtle bias Wikipedia >has >been caught with here. Defining the 
>precise intersection of interest is up to the user.

But the corresponding weakness is that it depends on the editors hitting all 
the right categories to work properly (as well as the tool itself, which as 
heavy toolserver users know is not always the case). Someone may categorize in 
two of three but not the third (guess which one might get forgotten?)

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

Re: [Gendergap] Joseph Reagle on Wikipedia's category taxonomy

[Risker]

On 29 April 2013 23:34, Michael J. Lowrey  wrote:

>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Risker  wrote:
>
>> Michael, I have to say that I find your comment offensive.  NOBODY
>> expects to be denigrated on Wikipedia, and being "privileged" is no excuse
>> for doing so.  This is EXACTLY the kind of behaviour this list was created
>> to try to modify.
>>
>> Risker/Anne
>>
>>
> How so? I would have said the same thing, for the same reason, if the
> author had been male.  The evidence is that a lot of what she complains
> about is the EXACT SAME THING that happens to anybody who comes into
> Wikipedia and
> attacks editors: some morons act like morons, and a few other cynics start
> looking to see whether the complainant's hands are clean. Sadly, our morons
> acted like sexist morons, thus confirming all the worst assumptions of
> those who don't know how a wiki works. That doesn't give her a free pass
> from the same constant attention to which all of us, editors and outside
> critics alike, are subject.
>
> And damned if I'll be told to shut up when I point out that an ordinary
> working writer would be less likely to get an op-ed in the N.Y. Times than
> one of the heirs to a profitable publishing company which might easily be
> viewed as an obvious purchaser of the moribund N.Y. Times company, for what
> amounts to Hachette's pocket change.
>
> But of course, it's vulgar (meaning "of the common people") to point out
> when class privilege takes place. How offensive of me.
>
> Now could we go back to working on substantive matters instead of slanging
> at each other?
>
>

Michael, you miss my point entirely.  This is exactly the kind of nastiness
- trashing someone who takes umbrage at the way Wikipedia does something
that directly relates to her own real life - that brings the project into
disrepute, and that women in particular find hostile.

This entire story is about how truly absurd our categorizations are, and
how it relegates subjects into niches that make it even more difficult to
find them.  Yes, it's inherently sexist, and it's inappropriate; however,
it's also deeply entrenched and seems to be almost impossible to break
through.

What it isn't about is what "privilege" the subject of the article may or
may not have had anywhere in her life.  That she got an op-ed in the NYT is
because the NYT is interested in what she wrote about; they don't publish
op-eds just because of who the author is, they publish it because they
think there is something interesting about the article.  It is a major BLP
violation for you to allege otherwise.  I hope you're not going anywhere
near any of the affected articles, or the editors who have had anything to
do with any of the related articles.

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

Re: [Gendergap] Joseph Reagle on Wikipedia's category taxonomy

[Michael J. Lowrey]

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Risker  wrote:

> Michael, I have to say that I find your comment offensive.  NOBODY expects
> to be denigrated on Wikipedia, and being "privileged" is no excuse for
> doing so.  This is EXACTLY the kind of behaviour this list was created to
> try to modify.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
>
How so? I would have said the same thing, for the same reason, if the
author had been male.  The evidence is that a lot of what she complains
about is the EXACT SAME THING that happens to anybody who comes into
Wikipedia and
attacks editors: some morons act like morons, and a few other cynics start
looking to see whether the complainant's hands are clean. Sadly, our morons
acted like sexist morons, thus confirming all the worst assumptions of
those who don't know how a wiki works. That doesn't give her a free pass
from the same constant attention to which all of us, editors and outside
critics alike, are subject.

And damned if I'll be told to shut up when I point out that an ordinary
working writer would be less likely to get an op-ed in the N.Y. Times than
one of the heirs to a profitable publishing company which might easily be
viewed as an obvious purchaser of the moribund N.Y. Times company, for what
amounts to Hachette's pocket change.

But of course, it's vulgar (meaning "of the common people") to point out
when class privilege takes place. How offensive of me.

Now could we go back to working on substantive matters instead of slanging
at each other?

-- 
Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey
vulgar common peasant with dirt farmers in his close family

"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] Joseph Reagle on Wikipedia's category taxonomy

[Sarah Stierch]

I agree with Risker. O_o - it's the whole "asking for it" mentality.

-Sarah

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Risker  wrote:

> Michael, I have to say that I find your comment offensive.  NOBODY expects
> to be denigrated on Wikipedia, and being "privileged" is no excuse for
> doing so.  This is EXACTLY the kind of behaviour this list was created to
> try to modify.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
>
> On 29 April 2013 22:35, Michael J. Lowrey  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Joseph Reagle wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/29/2013 10:03 PM, Lady of Shalott wrote:
>>>
 Interesting commentary as far as it went. I wish he'd delved a little
 further into what he was saying.
  ...

 Just thinking out loud here...

>>>
>>> I'm actually on this list :) and was just thinking out loud as well to
>>> see if I could understand the incident since I was seeing pretty strong
>>> claims (both "Wikipedia is sexist" and "this is journalism run amok.") For
>>> instance, people continue to report that Filipacchi is a reporter for NYT
>>> when these were op-eds.
>>>
>>>
>>> __**_
>>> Gendergap mailing list
>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>>
>>
>>
>> And nobody, of course, addresses the class issue: that Filipacchi is a
>> privileged scion of one of the largest global publishing companies, and is
>> not accustomed to having her own self-interest questioned in a classic
>> WP:BOOMERANG fashion by vulgar Wikipedians nobody who MATTERS ever heard
>> of.
>>
>> --
>> 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 mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>


-- 
-- 
*Sarah Stierch*
*Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian*
*www.sarahstierch.com*
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Joseph Reagle on Wikipedia's category taxonomy

[Andreas Kolbe]

The tool is here, and is linked from all German category pages:

http://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite.php

de:WP does not use intersection categories as used in the English
Wikipedia. For example, American women poets would be added to the
following three categories, among others:

American
Woman
Poet

Readers looking for the intersection of these three categories would use
the CatScan tool, and enter the desired categories there. The tool then
provides a list of all the articles that have these three categories
applied to them.

This system keeps the categories more straightforward, and pretty well
avoids the sort of subtle bias Wikipedia has been caught with here.
Defining the precise intersection of interest is up to the user.

A

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Lady of Shalott  wrote:

> Interesting commentary as far as it went. I wish he'd delved a little
> further into what he was saying.
>
> Perception is important. I think people can act in good faith (for
> instance to reduce the size of a massive category) without realizing
> the effect of how the result looks. It may not be meant in a sexist
> way, but if the effect is "ghettoization", it looks sexist, and that
> does matter. There is the real need though to find women novelists,
> male nurses, etc. for studies. Apparently German WP has a system
> whereby one can query category intersections that are defined by the
> end user. ?This souns like a plausible solution, but I haven't used it
> myself (and do't speak German).
>
> Just thinking out loud here...
> Lady
>
> On 4/29/13, Sarah Stierch  wrote:
> > Sparked by the recent...situation..
> >
> >
> http://reagle.org/joseph/pelican/social/wikipedia-and-gendered-categories.html
> >
> > Sar
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Sarah Stierch*
> > */Museumist and open culture advocate/*
> >  >>Visit 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] Joseph Reagle on Wikipedia's category taxonomy

[Andreas Kolbe]

Note these well-researched articles:

Andrew Leonard: http://www.salon.com/2013/04/29/wikipedias_shame/

James Gleick:
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2013/apr/29/wikipedia-women-problem/

Andreas

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 4:07 AM, Risker  wrote:

> Michael, I have to say that I find your comment offensive.  NOBODY expects
> to be denigrated on Wikipedia, and being "privileged" is no excuse for
> doing so.  This is EXACTLY the kind of behaviour this list was created to
> try to modify.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
>
> On 29 April 2013 22:35, Michael J. Lowrey  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Joseph Reagle wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/29/2013 10:03 PM, Lady of Shalott wrote:
>>>
 Interesting commentary as far as it went. I wish he'd delved a little
 further into what he was saying.
  ...

 Just thinking out loud here...

>>>
>>> I'm actually on this list :) and was just thinking out loud as well to
>>> see if I could understand the incident since I was seeing pretty strong
>>> claims (both "Wikipedia is sexist" and "this is journalism run amok.") For
>>> instance, people continue to report that Filipacchi is a reporter for NYT
>>> when these were op-eds.
>>>
>>>
>>> __**_
>>> Gendergap mailing list
>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>>
>>
>>
>> And nobody, of course, addresses the class issue: that Filipacchi is a
>> privileged scion of one of the largest global publishing companies, and is
>> not accustomed to having her own self-interest questioned in a classic
>> WP:BOOMERANG fashion by vulgar Wikipedians nobody who MATTERS ever heard
>> of.
>>
>> --
>> 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 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] Joseph Reagle on Wikipedia's category taxonomy

[Kim Osman]

More thinking out loud :) ...

Following on from Joseph's observations of taxonomy and Web 2.0-ish
tagging (and perhaps echoing larger debates about the sociality of
Wikipedia as a platform), I guess I see it as an issue of top-down vs
bottom-up approaches to organising knowledge. Where top-down sees
knowledge as finite and splits it into categories, and bottom-up sees
knowledge as infinite and for want of a better word "taggable." And thus
making Wikipedia more searchableŠ whatever parameters the user
wantsŠrather than the prescriptive nature of categories.

I know the amount of times I've gone through obscure categories looking
for females in that category - having to visit every article page to work
out if the subject is male or female. It would be so awesome to be able to
tag 'female,' 'physicist,' 'nuclear physicist,' etc. And bottom-up seems
more in line with the wiki way of organising too.





On 30/04/13 12:26 PM, "Lady of Shalott"  wrote:

>Thanks for your reply, Joseph - fair enough!  :)  I agree with you - I
>think there have been some major lapses of assumption of good faith
>from both (all?) sides.
>
>(Ouch looking back at my post, I'm wishing I could hit edit. The edit
>summary would be something along the lines of "typo fixing".)
>
>
>On 4/29/13, Joseph Reagle  wrote:
>> On 04/29/2013 10:03 PM, Lady of Shalott wrote:
>>> Interesting commentary as far as it went. I wish he'd delved a little
>>> further into what he was saying.
>>>  ...
>>> Just thinking out loud here...
>>
>> I'm actually on this list :) and was just thinking out loud as well to
>> see if I could understand the incident since I was seeing pretty strong
>> claims (both "Wikipedia is sexist" and "this is journalism run amok.")
>> For instance, people continue to report that Filipacchi is a reporter
>> for NYT when these were op-eds.
>>
>
>___
>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] Joseph Reagle on Wikipedia's category taxonomy

[Risker]

Michael, I have to say that I find your comment offensive.  NOBODY expects
to be denigrated on Wikipedia, and being "privileged" is no excuse for
doing so.  This is EXACTLY the kind of behaviour this list was created to
try to modify.

Risker/Anne


On 29 April 2013 22:35, Michael J. Lowrey  wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Joseph Reagle wrote:
>
>> On 04/29/2013 10:03 PM, Lady of Shalott wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting commentary as far as it went. I wish he'd delved a little
>>> further into what he was saying.
>>>  ...
>>>
>>> Just thinking out loud here...
>>>
>>
>> I'm actually on this list :) and was just thinking out loud as well to
>> see if I could understand the incident since I was seeing pretty strong
>> claims (both "Wikipedia is sexist" and "this is journalism run amok.") For
>> instance, people continue to report that Filipacchi is a reporter for NYT
>> when these were op-eds.
>>
>>
>> __**_
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>
>
>
> And nobody, of course, addresses the class issue: that Filipacchi is a
> privileged scion of one of the largest global publishing companies, and is
> not accustomed to having her own self-interest questioned in a classic
> WP:BOOMERANG fashion by vulgar Wikipedians nobody who MATTERS ever heard
> of.
>
> --
> 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 mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Joseph Reagle on Wikipedia's category taxonomy

[Michael J. Lowrey]

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Joseph Reagle wrote:

> On 04/29/2013 10:03 PM, Lady of Shalott wrote:
>
>> Interesting commentary as far as it went. I wish he'd delved a little
>> further into what he was saying.
>>  ...
>>
>> Just thinking out loud here...
>>
>
> I'm actually on this list :) and was just thinking out loud as well to see
> if I could understand the incident since I was seeing pretty strong claims
> (both "Wikipedia is sexist" and "this is journalism run amok.") For
> instance, people continue to report that Filipacchi is a reporter for NYT
> when these were op-eds.
>
>
> __**_
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>


And nobody, of course, addresses the class issue: that Filipacchi is a
privileged scion of one of the largest global publishing companies, and is
not accustomed to having her own self-interest questioned in a classic
WP:BOOMERANG fashion by vulgar Wikipedians nobody who MATTERS ever heard
of.

-- 
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] Joseph Reagle on Wikipedia's category taxonomy

[Lady of Shalott]

Thanks for your reply, Joseph - fair enough!  :)  I agree with you - I
think there have been some major lapses of assumption of good faith
from both (all?) sides.

(Ouch looking back at my post, I'm wishing I could hit edit. The edit
summary would be something along the lines of "typo fixing".)


On 4/29/13, Joseph Reagle  wrote:
> On 04/29/2013 10:03 PM, Lady of Shalott wrote:
>> Interesting commentary as far as it went. I wish he'd delved a little
>> further into what he was saying.
>>  ...
>> Just thinking out loud here...
>
> I'm actually on this list :) and was just thinking out loud as well to
> see if I could understand the incident since I was seeing pretty strong
> claims (both "Wikipedia is sexist" and "this is journalism run amok.")
> For instance, people continue to report that Filipacchi is a reporter
> for NYT when these were op-eds.
>

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

Re: [Gendergap] Joseph Reagle on Wikipedia's category taxonomy

[Joseph Reagle]

On 04/29/2013 10:03 PM, Lady of Shalott wrote:

Interesting commentary as far as it went. I wish he'd delved a little
further into what he was saying.
 ...
Just thinking out loud here...


I'm actually on this list :) and was just thinking out loud as well to 
see if I could understand the incident since I was seeing pretty strong 
claims (both "Wikipedia is sexist" and "this is journalism run amok.") 
For instance, people continue to report that Filipacchi is a reporter 
for NYT when these were op-eds.


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

Re: [Gendergap] Joseph Reagle on Wikipedia's category taxonomy

[Lady of Shalott]

Interesting commentary as far as it went. I wish he'd delved a little
further into what he was saying.

Perception is important. I think people can act in good faith (for
instance to reduce the size of a massive category) without realizing
the effect of how the result looks. It may not be meant in a sexist
way, but if the effect is "ghettoization", it looks sexist, and that
does matter. There is the real need though to find women novelists,
male nurses, etc. for studies. Apparently German WP has a system
whereby one can query category intersections that are defined by the
end user. ?This souns like a plausible solution, but I haven't used it
myself (and do't speak German).

Just thinking out loud here...
Lady

On 4/29/13, Sarah Stierch  wrote:
> Sparked by the recent...situation..
>
> http://reagle.org/joseph/pelican/social/wikipedia-and-gendered-categories.html
>
> Sar
>
>
> --
> *Sarah Stierch*
> */Museumist and open culture advocate/*
>  >>Visit sarahstierch.com <<
>

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

Re: [Gendergap] Categories hit NPR

[Sarah]

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:

>
>
>
> Gender gap's & WikiProject Feminism's own Kaldari is interviewed here:
>
>
> http://www.npr.org/2013/04/29/179850435/what-s-in-a-category-women-novelists-spark-wiki-controversy
>
> Nice interview, Ryan!

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

[Gendergap] Categories hit NPR

[Sarah Stierch]

Gender gap's & WikiProject Feminism's own Kaldari is interviewed here:

http://www.npr.org/2013/04/29/179850435/what-s-in-a-category-women-novelists-spark-wiki-controversy

and User:Qworty in a not so pleasant light here:

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/29/wikipedias_shame/

O_o


--
*Sarah Stierch*
*/Museumist and open culture advocate/*
>>Visit sarahstierch.com <<
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] Joseph Reagle on Wikipedia's category taxonomy

[Sarah Stierch]

Sparked by the recent...situation..

http://reagle.org/joseph/pelican/social/wikipedia-and-gendered-categories.html

Sar


--
*Sarah Stierch*
*/Museumist and open culture advocate/*
>>Visit sarahstierch.com <<
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

[Sarah]

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:

>
> On 4/29/13 12:20 PM, Sarah wrote:
>
>
>  I was reverted when I tried to remove them all, so I started an RfC on
> the talk page, and alerted WikiProject Feminism. In turn, the editor who
> added them (who uses a woman's name) alerted WikiProject Pornography, so it
> seems likely that some at least will be kept; the article is now down to
> two images of porn stars and starts with Christine Lagarde,
> director-general of the International Monetary Fund. The editor who first
> added the images wrote on talk that, if we really want the images to be
> representative of women in general, "we should be looking for images of
> nurses, waitresses, school teachers, barmaids and prostitutes."
>
>
>
> O_o
>
> Well, we also know that PETA is a big fan of pushing celebrity - let alone
> naked celebrities (or "hot" models) for the sake of vegetarianism and
> animal rights. I'm sure that doesn't help the situation!
>
> -Sarah
>

Yes, indeed, that was mentioned and cited as a reason (or excuse).

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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

[Sarah Stierch]

On 4/29/13 12:20 PM, Sarah wrote:


I was reverted when I tried to remove them all, so I started an RfC on 
the talk page, and alerted WikiProject Feminism. In turn, the editor 
who added them (who uses a woman's name) alerted WikiProject 
Pornography, so it seems likely that some at least will be kept; the 
article is now down to two images of porn stars and starts with 
Christine Lagarde, director-general of the International Monetary 
Fund. The editor who first added the images wrote on talk that, if we 
really want the images to be representative of women in general, "we 
should be looking for images of nurses, waitresses, school teachers, 
barmaids and prostitutes."



O_o

Well, we also know that PETA is a big fan of pushing celebrity - let 
alone naked celebrities (or "hot" models) for the sake of vegetarianism 
and animal rights. I'm sure that doesn't help the situation!


-Sarah

--
*Sarah Stierch*
*/Museumist and open culture advocate/*
>>Visit sarahstierch.com <<
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Liz Henry on women novelists, English Wikipedia, and labelling

[Shlomi Fish]

Hi Ryan,

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 17:49:58 -0700
Ryan Kaldari  wrote:

> If people are concerned about sexism in Wikipedia categories they should 
> be drawing attention to edits like this:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Gillies&curid=19682193&diff=536982107&oldid=536980531
> 
> While the rest of the world is moving away from gender-specific job 
> names (like policeman and actress), Wikipedia is moving in the opposite 
> direction. That seems like a much worse problem than categorizing women 
> as women.

One should note that the obsession of having a gender-neutral way to refer to
both men and women is a peculiarity of the English language, after several
centuries of erosion, and European languages such as French, German, Italian,
Spanish, and Semitic languages such as Hebrew or Arabic have compulsory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender (male, female, and sometimes
also neuter), including for inanimate objects. So it's not the "rest of the
world" - it's only the American English-speaking Feminist-influenced media. 

Regards,

Shlomi Fish

> 
> Ryan Kaldari
> 

-- 
-
Shlomi Fish   http://www.shlomifish.org/
Freecell Solver - http://fc-solve.shlomifish.org/

SGlau: Sounds really crazy. Are you sure you’re OK?
SMG: No, I’m not. My secret for success was that I was never completely sane,
heh.
— http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/Summerschool-at-the-NSA/

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .

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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

[Sarah]

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Kathleen McCook  wrote:

> Of course they are scared. of course they are mean. equality is terrifying
> to them. so they do these kinds of things over and over and we fight back
> little by little...but each day another woman steps up on
> your shoulders and is carried to make an edit that changes their
> horridness. ...
>
>
I noticed recently that [[List of vegetarians]] on the English Wikipedia
contained 13 images of women, five of which were of porn stars, Playmates
of the Year, etc, including the first image.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_vegetarians&oldid=551813288

An earlier version contained six out of 13. The first two images at that
time were Pamela Anderson in a bikini, followed by Jayde Nicole, a Playboy
Playmate of the Year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_vegetarians&oldid=505392733

I was reverted when I tried to remove them all, so I started an RfC on the
talk page, and alerted WikiProject Feminism. In turn, the editor who added
them (who uses a woman's name) alerted WikiProject Pornography, so it seems
likely that some at least will be kept; the article is now down to two
images of porn stars and starts with Christine Lagarde, director-general of
the International Monetary Fund. The editor who first added the images
wrote on talk that, if we really want the images to be representative of
women in general, "we should be looking for images of nurses, waitresses,
school teachers, barmaids and prostitutes."

I was hesitant to mention this on the list to avoid allegations of offwiki
canvassing, so it's probably best that no one go to the RfC to comment. But
I think it's important to mention it in the context of this thread. It does
seem to me that the sexism is getting worse, more blatant.

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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention on Commons and use on enwp

[Daniel and Elizabeth Case]

>Came across this kerfuffle today. I'd love to see what more gendergap-focused 
>people think about the following >progression of events (note: the image is 
>NSFW, but each of the links I'm providing are SFW if you don't click >through 
>to the image/article): 
  a.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Exhibitionism#Image_at_top_of_page 
<---discussion about whether to use an identifiable woman's topless photo on 
the top of an enwp article. The person raising the discussion notes that "I 
find it hard to believe that this woman wants her picture on WP,  and I don't 
think we have a right to show her because of a momentary indiscretion in a 
public place."

There’s a simple compromise solution to this which took me less than a minute 
with Photoshop to make possible:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mardi_Gras_Flashing_-_Color_%28identity_protected%29.jpg

(link is also NSFW, if you hadn’t guessed).

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

[Gendergap] Report about the recent #GWWI event

[Sarah Stierch]

You can see it here:

http://dhpoco.org/2013/04/29/report-on-the-global-women-write-in-gwwi-friday-april-26/

And of course improve upon the content they wrote!

-Sarah
--
*Sarah Stierch*
*/Museumist and open culture advocate/*
>>Visit sarahstierch.com <<
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention on Commons and use on enwp

[Keilana]

I definitely agree that women actively don't want to participate on
Commons, from what I've seen, heard, and felt myself.


On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Sarah Stierch wrote:

>  It's been so long since I've had a chance to vent on this list about
> this!
>
> On 4/29/13 8:43 AM, Katherine Casey wrote:
>
> Yeah, the sheer domination by numbers of masculine voices - even when
> they're not *trying *to argue from a particularly masculine perspective,
> can just be draining in situations like this. *Especially* when they're
> not trying to argue from a particularly masculine perspective, frankly,
> because it's very hard to get across "I know you're not *trying *to
> ignore the value of a slightly different perspective, but..." without
> making them feel like they need to defend themselves and go on about how
> we're reading into them things they're not saying, they're not biased, men
> are capable of being open-minded, there's no single male perspective, etc.
> All those things are true, and before any of our male allies on this list
> get upset, I want to acknowledge that...but at the same time, that
> gender-related invisible 
> knapsack can
> just sort of steer male-dominated discussions in directions that a more
> gender-balanced conversation might not swerve, or might not swerve so
> strongly.
>
>
> Ha! That is exactly what happened when I said I was no longer watching the
> page and I was disconnecting myself from the discussion on the Amanda
> Filipacchi article:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SarahStierch#.22women.22_categories
>
> I have never read that essay - thank you for sharing it! Interesting, I *
> was* lucky that my education and my interest in punk rock music taught me
> about "skin color" privilege, wealth privilege, and male privilege, but,
> when I moved into different areas of work (and a flipside getting my
> masters which was 95% women in the program, however, majority were Anglo,
> which is another issue that museums - and open culture - are trying to sort
> out) it wasn't until I got involved (again) in the "gender fight", this
> time focusing on Wikipedia, that I realized what was happening. And it's
> often a challenge to walk the line of wanting to call out male participants
> in some regards, but also acknowledge allies. On an interesting twist, I
> even find that male allies are often unaware of who they sympathize with
> and the life they lead and how they got that life. It's really prominent in
> the tech industry, and I'm sure else where.
>
> It's quite a challenge - I don't want to be the sexist jerk, but at the
> same time, there is a lot happening that people aren't realizing they are
> doing or a part of and it's hard to know how to educate them - or if you
> should even say "Oh, and thanks to all those white guys who built
> Wikipedia..I appreciate it...BUT..." which I find myself doing sometimes.
> And then I get comments on Facebook saying I'm being a jerk to the white
> guys and I just facepalm, because inside I'm laughing going "oh, poor white
> guy! Truth hurts!" I was also told recently "you should be more polite and
> have less attitude when you talk about gender issues, maybe more people
> would listen," (by a white European male who identifies as an anarchist who
> is prone to cursing). It's been emblazoned into my head, mainly because of
> who said it - not that it's changing my ways.
>
>
>  Commons, especially, is just completely dominated by certain viewpoints
> with regard to sexual images, and Sarah, you get tons of my respect for
> just *attempting *to function there, because I certainly can't do it. I
> might be able to handle an inadvertent boys-zone atmosphere - I hang out on
> enwp, after all - but my blood pressure just can't handle the level of
> aggression Commons bring to bear on anyone who dares speak for the deletion
> of potentially-damaging images.
>
>
> I've had to stop. It's been months now since I even nominated a "nudie"
> image for deletion. I now just upload my images, and when I have time, or
> depending on my work, I do some gnomish stuff. After I was told (by white
> male editors) to curb my loud mouth behavior so I an become an admin
> someday, I totally stopped. I'm still shocked I let that happen - but, on
> the flipside, as you put it - it's terribly demoralizing, depressing, and
> painful to participate on Commons. I thought, if I could become an Admin,
> perhaps I could *really* make a difference. At least on Wikipedia you know
> there are some women, or at least active allies and women you can even call
> on when needed (canvasing isn't a policy :) ) for help or support. Most of
> the women I know go "Oh no, I'm not going on Commons, hell no!" LOL.
>
>  -Fluff
>
>  P.S. On re-reading the threads from my original email, I note that I was
> wrong about the "100% male" thing - Beria Lima commented twice. So uh,
> 99.999% male?
>
>  Ha! Glad at least one woman was there.

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention on Commons and use on enwp

[Sarah Stierch]

It's been so long since I've had a chance to vent on this list about this!

On 4/29/13 8:43 AM, Katherine Casey wrote:
Yeah, the sheer domination by numbers of masculine voices - even when 
they're not /trying /to argue from a particularly masculine 
perspective, can just be draining in situations like this. 
/Especially/ when they're not trying to argue from a particularly 
masculine perspective, frankly, because it's very hard to get across 
"I know you're not /trying /to ignore the value of a slightly 
different perspective, but..." without making them feel like they need 
to defend themselves and go on about how we're reading into them 
things they're not saying, they're not biased, men are capable of 
being open-minded, there's no single male perspective, etc. All those 
things are true, and before any of our male allies on this list get 
upset, I want to acknowledge that...but at the same time, that 
gender-related invisible knapsack 
 can just sort of 
steer male-dominated discussions in directions that a more 
gender-balanced conversation might not swerve, or might not swerve so 
strongly.


Ha! That is exactly what happened when I said I was no longer watching 
the page and I was disconnecting myself from the discussion on the 
Amanda Filipacchi article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SarahStierch#.22women.22_categories

I have never read that essay - thank you for sharing it! Interesting, I 
/was/ lucky that my education and my interest in punk rock music taught 
me about "skin color" privilege, wealth privilege, and male privilege, 
but, when I moved into different areas of work (and a flipside getting 
my masters which was 95% women in the program, however, majority were 
Anglo, which is another issue that museums - and open culture - are 
trying to sort out) it wasn't until I got involved (again) in the 
"gender fight", this time focusing on Wikipedia, that I realized what 
was happening. And it's often a challenge to walk the line of wanting to 
call out male participants in some regards, but also acknowledge allies. 
On an interesting twist, I even find that male allies are often unaware 
of who they sympathize with and the life they lead and how they got that 
life. It's really prominent in the tech industry, and I'm sure else where.


It's quite a challenge - I don't want to be the sexist jerk, but at the 
same time, there is a lot happening that people aren't realizing they 
are doing or a part of and it's hard to know how to educate them - or if 
you should even say "Oh, and thanks to all those white guys who built 
Wikipedia..I appreciate it...BUT..." which I find myself doing 
sometimes. And then I get comments on Facebook saying I'm being a jerk 
to the white guys and I just facepalm, because inside I'm laughing going 
"oh, poor white guy! Truth hurts!" I was also told recently "you should 
be more polite and have less attitude when you talk about gender issues, 
maybe more people would listen," (by a white European male who 
identifies as an anarchist who is prone to cursing). It's been 
emblazoned into my head, mainly because of who said it - not that it's 
changing my ways.


Commons, especially, is just completely dominated by certain 
viewpoints with regard to sexual images, and Sarah, you get tons of my 
respect for just /attempting /to function there, because I certainly 
can't do it. I might be able to handle an inadvertent boys-zone 
atmosphere - I hang out on enwp, after all - but my blood pressure 
just can't handle the level of aggression Commons bring to bear on 
anyone who dares speak for the deletion of potentially-damaging images.




I've had to stop. It's been months now since I even nominated a "nudie" 
image for deletion. I now just upload my images, and when I have time, 
or depending on my work, I do some gnomish stuff. After I was told (by 
white male editors) to curb my loud mouth behavior so I an become an 
admin someday, I totally stopped. I'm still shocked I let that happen - 
but, on the flipside, as you put it - it's terribly demoralizing, 
depressing, and painful to participate on Commons. I thought, if I could 
become an Admin, perhaps I could *really* make a difference. At least on 
Wikipedia you know there are some women, or at least active allies and 
women you can even call on when needed (canvasing isn't a policy :) ) 
for help or support. Most of the women I know go "Oh no, I'm not going 
on Commons, hell no!" LOL.



-Fluff

P.S. On re-reading the threads from my original email, I note that I 
was wrong about the "100% male" thing - Beria Lima commented twice. So 
uh, 99.999% male?



Ha! Glad at least one woman was there.

-Sarah

--
*Sarah Stierch*
*/Museumist and open culture advocate/*
>>Visit sarahstierch.com <<
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gende

[Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

[Kathleen McCook]

It is impossible not to get upset. In my memory we worked to honor Alice
Paul. She never saw the ERA pass. (and neither have I)
 It's is so soon in the history of the world that women have been able to
vote.It has not even been 100 years in the U.S.

Of course they are scared. of course they are mean. equality is terrifying
to them. so they do these kinds of things over and over and we fight back
little by little...but each day another woman steps up on
your shoulders and is carried to make an edit that changes their horridness.

it is a long slow fight.

I have been at it for years and years in the pre-Internet days and I drop
out for months at a time. Then go back. Your work, Sarah  has been read by
an entire class I teach and given much heart to many young women.
Don't give up.

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:44 AM, anna jonsson wrote:

> [image: Emoji]for your good work !!
> Anna Jonsson
>
> --
> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 08:29:40 -0700
> From: sarah.stie...@gmail.com
> To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention on Commons and use on enwp
>
> Sorry if this gets a little off topic from the actual focus of the
> subjects. I just need to personally vent and this gives me a chance (thanks
> Katherine). I assume I can't be the only one who feels this way, and it
> seems you might also.
>
> I totally understand the "it depresses me" situation. I got involved in
> some of the discussions about the women's foo categories only to get
> bombarded with comments when I brought up "I don't know if anyone here is
> even a woman involved, from what I know, I think I might be the only woman
> here," and then to be snapped at "How do you know I'm not a woman?" by
> someone with a male user name (Jeremy). I felt like a total fail, and
> basically left the conversation only to get comments on my talk page. I
> have officially declared I'm "burnt out" on any and all gender
> conversations, specifically triggered by the recent category situation.
>
> 95% if not more of the people discussing all of these things are, from
> what I believe, identifying on Wikipedia as the masculine. It's really
> troubling for me, and right now I'm at the point where I just can't fight
> it right now. I'm feeling depressed about it, hopeless, and all of the
> other fun things that go with burn out. (Funny, I didn't suffer burn out
> this severe when I was a fellow, but I did have two minor bouts of burn out
> during that year, this is by far the worst)
>
> I basically had to stop doing the painful nomination and arguing about
> nudity and women's images on Commons. Part of this was because it was so
> demoralizing and depressing, and the other was the repeated "You'll never
> be an admin on Commons if you keep doing this," and I always wanted to be
> an admin on Commons. The fact that I let this argument - being made by male
> Commonists - trigger me to not participate in the conversations is an
> entirely different psychological issue in itself! Oy vey.
>
> Gah. :(
>
> -Sarah
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Katherine Casey <
> fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Came across this kerfuffle today. I'd love to see what more
> gendergap-focused people think about the following progression of events
> (note: the image is NSFW, but each of the links I'm providing are SFW if
> you don't click through to the image/article):
>
>- 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Exhibitionism#Image_at_top_of_page<---discussion
>  about whether to use an identifiable woman's topless photo
>on the top of an enwp article. The person raising the discussion notes
>that "*I find it hard to believe that this woman wants her picture on
>WP,  and I don't think we have a right to show her because of a momentary
>indiscretion in a public place."*
>-
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mardi_Gras_Flashing_-_Color.jpg#File:Mardi_Gras_Flashing_-_Color.jpg<---Same
>  image is nominated for deletion on Commons, with similar rationale
>- The image is kept.
>- Discussion on enwp spins off from the same issue:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPN#Photos_of_private_people_doing_things_they_might_be_embarrassed_about_later,
>  splitting between one faction saying "It's legal, so it's fine" and
>another saying "It's a matter of ethics, not legality."
>
> Speaking personally, my takeaway from reading through this situation has
> gone through "mortification in empathy for the image subject, who was
> almost certainly drunk and unable to consent", "frustration with Commons's
> dismissive approach to the questioning of identfiable sexual images", and
> finally "realization that in all three discussions, I see *no *users who
> I know to be female. Not one. It seems quite likely that the issue of
> whether this woman's right to be protected by BLP extends to images of her
> breasts...is being discussed 100% by men."
>
> I don't qu

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention on Commons and use on enwp

[anna jonsson]

🌹for your good work !!
Anna Jonsson

Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 08:29:40 -0700
From: sarah.stie...@gmail.com
To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention on Commons and use on enwp

Sorry if this gets a little off topic from the actual focus of the subjects. I 
just need to personally vent and this gives me a chance (thanks Katherine). I 
assume I can't be the only one who feels this way, and it seems you might also. 

I totally understand the "it depresses me" situation. I got involved in some of 
the discussions about the women's foo categories only to get bombarded with 
comments when I brought up "I don't know if anyone here is even a woman 
involved, from what I know, I think I might be the only woman here," and then 
to be snapped at "How do you know I'm not a woman?" by someone with a male user 
name (Jeremy). I felt like a total fail, and basically left the conversation 
only to get comments on my talk page. I have officially declared I'm "burnt 
out" on any and all gender conversations, specifically triggered by the recent 
category situation. 

95% if not more of the people discussing all of these things are, from what I 
believe, identifying on Wikipedia as the masculine. It's really troubling for 
me, and right now I'm at the point where I just can't fight it right now. I'm 
feeling depressed about it, hopeless, and all of the other fun things that go 
with burn out. (Funny, I didn't suffer burn out this severe when I was a 
fellow, but I did have two minor bouts of burn out during that year, this is by 
far the worst)

I basically had to stop doing the painful nomination and arguing about nudity 
and women's images on Commons. Part of this was because it was so demoralizing 
and depressing, and the other was the repeated "You'll never be an admin on 
Commons if you keep doing this," and I always wanted to be an admin on Commons. 
The fact that I let this argument - being made by male Commonists - trigger me 
to not participate in the conversations is an entirely different psychological 
issue in itself! Oy vey. 

Gah. :( 
-Sarah

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Katherine Casey  
wrote:

Came across this kerfuffle today. I'd love to see what more gendergap-focused 
people think about the following progression of events (note: the image is 
NSFW, but each of the links I'm providing are SFW if you don't click through to 
the image/article):


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Exhibitionism#Image_at_top_of_page 
<---discussion about whether to use an identifiable woman's topless photo on 
the top of an enwp article. The person raising the discussion notes that "I 
find it hard to believe that this woman wants her picture on WP,  and I don't 
think we have a right to show her because of a momentary indiscretion in a 
public place."



http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mardi_Gras_Flashing_-_Color.jpg#File:Mardi_Gras_Flashing_-_Color.jpg
 <---Same image is nominated for deletion on Commons, with similar rationale



The image is kept.Discussion on enwp spins off from the same issue: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPN#Photos_of_private_people_doing_things_they_might_be_embarrassed_about_later
 , splitting between one faction saying "It's legal, so it's fine" and another 
saying "It's a matter of ethics, not legality."


Speaking personally, my takeaway from reading through this situation has gone 
through "mortification in empathy for the image subject, who was almost 
certainly drunk and unable to consent", "frustration with Commons's dismissive 
approach to the questioning of identfiable sexual images", and finally 
"realization that in all three discussions, I see no users who I know to be 
female. Not one. It seems quite likely that the issue of whether this woman's 
right to be protected by BLP extends to images of her breasts...is being 
discussed 100% by men."



I don't quite know what my point is here, other than to note that to me, this 
feels very, very representative of the way women and women's issues are treated 
on WP and on Commons, even when we're supposed to be hyper-aware of the 
gendergap and its effects, and it depresses me.



-Fluffernutter

___

Gendergap mailing list

Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap




-- 
-- 
Sarah Stierch
Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedianwww.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] Topless image retention on Commons and use on enwp

[Katherine Casey]

Yeah, the sheer domination by numbers of masculine voices - even when
they're not *trying *to argue from a particularly masculine perspective,
can just be draining in situations like this. *Especially* when they're not
trying to argue from a particularly masculine perspective, frankly, because
it's very hard to get across "I know you're not *trying *to ignore the
value of a slightly different perspective, but..." without making them feel
like they need to defend themselves and go on about how we're reading into
them things they're not saying, they're not biased, men are capable of
being open-minded, there's no single male perspective, etc. All those
things are true, and before any of our male allies on this list get upset,
I want to acknowledge that...but at the same time, that gender-related
invisible knapsack  can
just sort of steer male-dominated discussions in directions that a more
gender-balanced conversation might not swerve, or might not swerve so
strongly.

Commons, especially, is just completely dominated by certain viewpoints
with regard to sexual images, and Sarah, you get tons of my respect for
just *attempting *to function there, because I certainly can't do it. I
might be able to handle an inadvertent boys-zone atmosphere - I hang out on
enwp, after all - but my blood pressure just can't handle the level of
aggression Commons bring to bear on anyone who dares speak for the deletion
of potentially-damaging images.

Most days, it's hard to feel like it's worth it to join conversations that
are already immovable brick walls of a particular, usually-unconscious male
POV.

-Fluff

P.S. On re-reading the threads from my original email, I note that I was
wrong about the "100% male" thing - Beria Lima commented twice. So uh,
99.999% male?


On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Sarah Stierch wrote:

> Sorry if this gets a little off topic from the actual focus of the
> subjects. I just need to personally vent and this gives me a chance (thanks
> Katherine). I assume I can't be the only one who feels this way, and it
> seems you might also.
>
> I totally understand the "it depresses me" situation. I got involved in
> some of the discussions about the women's foo categories only to get
> bombarded with comments when I brought up "I don't know if anyone here is
> even a woman involved, from what I know, I think I might be the only woman
> here," and then to be snapped at "How do you know I'm not a woman?" by
> someone with a male user name (Jeremy). I felt like a total fail, and
> basically left the conversation only to get comments on my talk page. I
> have officially declared I'm "burnt out" on any and all gender
> conversations, specifically triggered by the recent category situation.
>
> 95% if not more of the people discussing all of these things are, from
> what I believe, identifying on Wikipedia as the masculine. It's really
> troubling for me, and right now I'm at the point where I just can't fight
> it right now. I'm feeling depressed about it, hopeless, and all of the
> other fun things that go with burn out. (Funny, I didn't suffer burn out
> this severe when I was a fellow, but I did have two minor bouts of burn out
> during that year, this is by far the worst)
>
> I basically had to stop doing the painful nomination and arguing about
> nudity and women's images on Commons. Part of this was because it was so
> demoralizing and depressing, and the other was the repeated "You'll never
> be an admin on Commons if you keep doing this," and I always wanted to be
> an admin on Commons. The fact that I let this argument - being made by male
> Commonists - trigger me to not participate in the conversations is an
> entirely different psychological issue in itself! Oy vey.
>
> Gah. :(
>
> -Sarah
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Katherine Casey <
> fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Came across this kerfuffle today. I'd love to see what more
>> gendergap-focused people think about the following progression of events
>> (note: the image is NSFW, but each of the links I'm providing are SFW if
>> you don't click through to the image/article):
>>
>>- 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Exhibitionism#Image_at_top_of_page<---discussion
>>  about whether to use an identifiable woman's topless photo
>>on the top of an enwp article. The person raising the discussion notes
>>that "*I find it hard to believe that this woman wants her picture on
>>WP,  and I don't think we have a right to show her because of a momentary
>>indiscretion in a public place."*
>>-
>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mardi_Gras_Flashing_-_Color.jpg#File:Mardi_Gras_Flashing_-_Color.jpg<---Same
>>  image is nominated for deletion on Commons, with similar rationale
>>- The image is kept.
>>- Discussion on enwp spins off from the same issue:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPN#Photos_of_privat

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention on Commons and use on enwp

[Sarah Stierch]

Sorry if this gets a little off topic from the actual focus of the
subjects. I just need to personally vent and this gives me a chance (thanks
Katherine). I assume I can't be the only one who feels this way, and it
seems you might also.

I totally understand the "it depresses me" situation. I got involved in
some of the discussions about the women's foo categories only to get
bombarded with comments when I brought up "I don't know if anyone here is
even a woman involved, from what I know, I think I might be the only woman
here," and then to be snapped at "How do you know I'm not a woman?" by
someone with a male user name (Jeremy). I felt like a total fail, and
basically left the conversation only to get comments on my talk page. I
have officially declared I'm "burnt out" on any and all gender
conversations, specifically triggered by the recent category situation.

95% if not more of the people discussing all of these things are, from what
I believe, identifying on Wikipedia as the masculine. It's really troubling
for me, and right now I'm at the point where I just can't fight it right
now. I'm feeling depressed about it, hopeless, and all of the other fun
things that go with burn out. (Funny, I didn't suffer burn out this severe
when I was a fellow, but I did have two minor bouts of burn out during that
year, this is by far the worst)

I basically had to stop doing the painful nomination and arguing about
nudity and women's images on Commons. Part of this was because it was so
demoralizing and depressing, and the other was the repeated "You'll never
be an admin on Commons if you keep doing this," and I always wanted to be
an admin on Commons. The fact that I let this argument - being made by male
Commonists - trigger me to not participate in the conversations is an
entirely different psychological issue in itself! Oy vey.

Gah. :(

-Sarah


On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Katherine Casey <
fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Came across this kerfuffle today. I'd love to see what more
> gendergap-focused people think about the following progression of events
> (note: the image is NSFW, but each of the links I'm providing are SFW if
> you don't click through to the image/article):
>
>- 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Exhibitionism#Image_at_top_of_page<---discussion
>  about whether to use an identifiable woman's topless photo
>on the top of an enwp article. The person raising the discussion notes
>that "*I find it hard to believe that this woman wants her picture on
>WP,  and I don't think we have a right to show her because of a momentary
>indiscretion in a public place."*
>-
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mardi_Gras_Flashing_-_Color.jpg#File:Mardi_Gras_Flashing_-_Color.jpg<---Same
>  image is nominated for deletion on Commons, with similar rationale
>- The image is kept.
>- Discussion on enwp spins off from the same issue:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPN#Photos_of_private_people_doing_things_they_might_be_embarrassed_about_later,
>  splitting between one faction saying "It's legal, so it's fine" and
>another saying "It's a matter of ethics, not legality."
>
> Speaking personally, my takeaway from reading through this situation has
> gone through "mortification in empathy for the image subject, who was
> almost certainly drunk and unable to consent", "frustration with Commons's
> dismissive approach to the questioning of identfiable sexual images", and
> finally "realization that in all three discussions, I see *no *users who
> I know to be female. Not one. It seems quite likely that the issue of
> whether this woman's right to be protected by BLP extends to images of her
> breasts...is being discussed 100% by men."
>
> I don't quite know what my point is here, other than to note that to me,
> this feels very, very representative of the way women and women's issues
> are treated on WP and on Commons, even when we're supposed to be
> hyper-aware of the gendergap and its effects, and it depresses me.
>
> -Fluffernutter
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>


-- 
-- 
*Sarah Stierch*
*Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian*
*www.sarahstierch.com*
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] Topless image retention on Commons and use on enwp

[Katherine Casey]

Came across this kerfuffle today. I'd love to see what more
gendergap-focused people think about the following progression of events
(note: the image is NSFW, but each of the links I'm providing are SFW if
you don't click through to the image/article):

   - 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Exhibitionism#Image_at_top_of_page<---discussion
about whether to use an identifiable woman's topless photo
   on the top of an enwp article. The person raising the discussion notes
   that "*I find it hard to believe that this woman wants her picture on
   WP,  and I don't think we have a right to show her because of a momentary
   indiscretion in a public place."*
   -
   
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mardi_Gras_Flashing_-_Color.jpg#File:Mardi_Gras_Flashing_-_Color.jpg<---Same
image is nominated for deletion on Commons, with similar rationale
   - The image is kept.
   - Discussion on enwp spins off from the same issue:
   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPN#Photos_of_private_people_doing_things_they_might_be_embarrassed_about_later,
splitting between one faction saying "It's legal, so it's fine" and
   another saying "It's a matter of ethics, not legality."

Speaking personally, my takeaway from reading through this situation has
gone through "mortification in empathy for the image subject, who was
almost certainly drunk and unable to consent", "frustration with Commons's
dismissive approach to the questioning of identfiable sexual images", and
finally "realization that in all three discussions, I see *no *users who I
know to be female. Not one. It seems quite likely that the issue of whether
this woman's right to be protected by BLP extends to images of her
breasts...is being discussed 100% by men."

I don't quite know what my point is here, other than to note that to me,
this feels very, very representative of the way women and women's issues
are treated on WP and on Commons, even when we're supposed to be
hyper-aware of the gendergap and its effects, and it depresses me.

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