Re: [Gendergap] Thank someone today.

[WereSpielChequers]

Much of my editing on wikipedia is minor typo fixes, the sort that a normal 
spellchecker won't pick up. I secularised lots of sports teams from having 
mangers to managers and also dealt with the problem of rock stars preforming 
songs in sports stadiums. I used to be able to do hundreds of such edits 
without anyone seeming to notice any except where they had missed the l from 
public. But now I get thanked for several percent of my edits, I think that is 
a really positive change on the pedia, of course the metrics people will take 
it as a negative because some of those thanks will be replacing edits, so the 
short term effect on the editing level is likely to be slightly negative.

I do tend to check out who has thanked me and make sure the newbies who do so 
have had a welcome and give the ignored old hands reviewer status if I think 
they are ready for it.

One of the most dysfunctional bits of the project is the way that people can do 
huge amounts of uncontentious stuff with very little interaction with others. I 
sometimes trawl the accounts who have recently created their 100th article and 
where appropriate set them as auto patrolled, often when i look at their talk 
pages the interactions they've had have been minimal. 

Regards

Jonathan Cardy


> On 5 Feb 2015, at 00:11, Keilana  wrote:
> 
> I love the thanks button, it's such an easy way to add more positivity to the 
> wiki and the world. :)
> 
>> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Katherine Casey 
>>  wrote:
>> I have found myself using the "thank" button more than usual recently. In 
>> the middle of all the turmoil that goes on onwiki, a simple "hey, that thing 
>> you did that you thought no one noticed? Yeah, thanks for doing that" goes a 
>> long way toward cancelling some of it out.
>> 
>>> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 6:52 PM, LB  wrote:
>>> I agree, Kerry. I try to use the "thank" button at least once a day.
>>> 
>>> Lightbreather
>>> 
 On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Kerry Raymond  
 wrote:
 
 We talk a lot of about the culture of Wikipedia being negative, critical,
 abrasive etc; this is a turn-off to a lot of women (and also to a lot of
 men). But what can we do to change that? Well, I thought about the way that
 postings get Liked on Facebook. Indeed, most postings get many Likes on
 Facebook. It seems if you read something and appreciate the post in any way
 (which includes when you agree with the poster that it is unhappy matter 
 and
 hence unlikeable matter), you click Like.
 
 Well, I decided to try it on Wikipedia. Now, when I run through my 
 watchlist
 (which I do most mornings), instead of just looking for what's wrong and
 needs to be fixed, instead if I see a positive contribution to an article,
 even a small one, I "thank" the contributor for the edit.
 
 And if I notice I am thanking someone quite a bit, I send them some 
 Wikilove
 or a Barnstar. I notice a small increase in the number of thanks I am
 receiving. While I realise this may be simple reciprocation, I'd like to
 think I might be creating a small culture of appreciation in my topic 
 space,
 hoping that people choose to Pay It Forward.
 
 So, that's my suggestion. Try thanking people on-wiki in the various ways
 available.  Become part of the niceness culture that we'd like Wikipedia to
 become known for.
 
 Kerry
 
 
 
 ___
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
 To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please 
 visit:
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Gendergap mailing list
>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please 
>>> visit:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please 
>> visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> 
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please 
> visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Thank someone today.

[Jane Darnell]

Well Jonathan, thanks for doing that! I am not an administrator, so I
couldn't do those things you mentioned, but I often think that in some
cases I wish I could do more than just "thank" the person. I know however
that I was very suspicious of anyone posting on my talk page in the
beginning, so I feel like the generic "thanks" is the best way to approach
someone the first time. If someone comes across my watchlist a few times
with I perceive as a "theme", then I will tip them about how to do basic
things like create a category on commons for related images, or fill out
the Wikidata item, or browse similar items in Reasonator.

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 10:50 AM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Much of my editing on wikipedia is minor typo fixes, the sort that a
> normal spellchecker won't pick up. I secularised lots of sports teams from
> having mangers to managers and also dealt with the problem of rock stars
> preforming songs in sports stadiums. I used to be able to do hundreds of
> such edits without anyone seeming to notice any except where they had
> missed the l from public. But now I get thanked for several percent of my
> edits, I think that is a really positive change on the pedia, of course the
> metrics people will take it as a negative because some of those thanks will
> be replacing edits, so the short term effect on the editing level is likely
> to be slightly negative.
>
> I do tend to check out who has thanked me and make sure the newbies who do
> so have had a welcome and give the ignored old hands reviewer status if I
> think they are ready for it.
>
> One of the most dysfunctional bits of the project is the way that people
> can do huge amounts of uncontentious stuff with very little interaction
> with others. I sometimes trawl the accounts who have recently created their
> 100th article and where appropriate set them as auto patrolled, often when
> i look at their talk pages the interactions they've had have been minimal.
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan Cardy
>
>
> On 5 Feb 2015, at 00:11, Keilana  wrote:
>
> I love the thanks button, it's such an easy way to add more positivity to
> the wiki and the world. :)
>
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Katherine Casey <
> fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have found myself using the "thank" button more than usual recently. In
>> the middle of all the turmoil that goes on onwiki, a simple "hey, that
>> thing you did that you thought no one noticed? Yeah, thanks for doing that"
>> goes a long way toward cancelling some of it out.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 6:52 PM, LB  wrote:
>>
>>> I agree, Kerry. I try to use the "thank" button at least once a day.
>>>
>>> Lightbreather
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Kerry Raymond 
>>> wrote:
>>>

 We talk a lot of about the culture of Wikipedia being negative,
 critical,
 abrasive etc; this is a turn-off to a lot of women (and also to a lot of
 men). But what can we do to change that? Well, I thought about the way
 that
 postings get Liked on Facebook. Indeed, most postings get many Likes on
 Facebook. It seems if you read something and appreciate the post in any
 way
 (which includes when you agree with the poster that it is unhappy
 matter and
 hence unlikeable matter), you click Like.

 Well, I decided to try it on Wikipedia. Now, when I run through my
 watchlist
 (which I do most mornings), instead of just looking for what's wrong and
 needs to be fixed, instead if I see a positive contribution to an
 article,
 even a small one, I "thank" the contributor for the edit.

 And if I notice I am thanking someone quite a bit, I send them some
 Wikilove
 or a Barnstar. I notice a small increase in the number of thanks I am
 receiving. While I realise this may be simple reciprocation, I'd like to
 think I might be creating a small culture of appreciation in my topic
 space,
 hoping that people choose to Pay It Forward.

 So, that's my suggestion. Try thanking people on-wiki in the various
 ways
 available.  Become part of the niceness culture that we'd like
 Wikipedia to
 become known for.

 Kerry



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

Re: [Gendergap] Fwd: Request to mailing list Gendergap rejected

[Carol Moore dc]

On 2/4/2015 8:42 PM, George Herbert wrote:


Be aware - someone is forging mail to the list in members' names.

George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone

That's scary, cause it's so easy to do.  So beware questionable messages 
from

known and credible users...

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

Re: [Gendergap] Thank someone today.

[Risker]

Kerry, I'm pretty sure you didn't know this, but you are amongst the top 10
thankers on English Wikipedia - and THANK YOU for doing that.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:F%C3%A6/sandbox&oldid=149050523
- now being discussed on Wikimedia-L mailing list.

(This is the result of a script that Fae ran on enwiki and commons - it
would be really interesting to see how other projects do as well.)

I do confess that I've started to use the number of "thanks" and on- or
off-wiki positive messages about an action to reassure me that a chosen
comment is on-point (or sometimes to recognize that it's not on-point,
too).  This kind of feedback is a lot more useful than I'd initially
expected, and I'm working up to giving more of them.  My initial restraint
was probably linked to my unwillingness to use the Wikilove extension -
nothing wrong with it except for using the word "Wikilove" in every edit
summary, which I find really creepy.

Risker/Anne

On 5 February 2015 at 05:04, Jane Darnell  wrote:

> Well Jonathan, thanks for doing that! I am not an administrator, so I
> couldn't do those things you mentioned, but I often think that in some
> cases I wish I could do more than just "thank" the person. I know however
> that I was very suspicious of anyone posting on my talk page in the
> beginning, so I feel like the generic "thanks" is the best way to approach
> someone the first time. If someone comes across my watchlist a few times
> with I perceive as a "theme", then I will tip them about how to do basic
> things like create a category on commons for related images, or fill out
> the Wikidata item, or browse similar items in Reasonator.
>
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 10:50 AM, WereSpielChequers <
> werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Much of my editing on wikipedia is minor typo fixes, the sort that a
>> normal spellchecker won't pick up. I secularised lots of sports teams from
>> having mangers to managers and also dealt with the problem of rock stars
>> preforming songs in sports stadiums. I used to be able to do hundreds of
>> such edits without anyone seeming to notice any except where they had
>> missed the l from public. But now I get thanked for several percent of my
>> edits, I think that is a really positive change on the pedia, of course the
>> metrics people will take it as a negative because some of those thanks will
>> be replacing edits, so the short term effect on the editing level is likely
>> to be slightly negative.
>>
>> I do tend to check out who has thanked me and make sure the newbies who
>> do so have had a welcome and give the ignored old hands reviewer status if
>> I think they are ready for it.
>>
>> One of the most dysfunctional bits of the project is the way that people
>> can do huge amounts of uncontentious stuff with very little interaction
>> with others. I sometimes trawl the accounts who have recently created their
>> 100th article and where appropriate set them as auto patrolled, often when
>> i look at their talk pages the interactions they've had have been minimal.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Jonathan Cardy
>>
>>
>> On 5 Feb 2015, at 00:11, Keilana  wrote:
>>
>> I love the thanks button, it's such an easy way to add more positivity to
>> the wiki and the world. :)
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Katherine Casey <
>> fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have found myself using the "thank" button more than usual recently.
>>> In the middle of all the turmoil that goes on onwiki, a simple "hey, that
>>> thing you did that you thought no one noticed? Yeah, thanks for doing that"
>>> goes a long way toward cancelling some of it out.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 6:52 PM, LB  wrote:
>>>
 I agree, Kerry. I try to use the "thank" button at least once a day.

 Lightbreather

 On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Kerry Raymond 
 wrote:

>
> We talk a lot of about the culture of Wikipedia being negative,
> critical,
> abrasive etc; this is a turn-off to a lot of women (and also to a lot
> of
> men). But what can we do to change that? Well, I thought about the way
> that
> postings get Liked on Facebook. Indeed, most postings get many Likes on
> Facebook. It seems if you read something and appreciate the post in
> any way
> (which includes when you agree with the poster that it is unhappy
> matter and
> hence unlikeable matter), you click Like.
>
> Well, I decided to try it on Wikipedia. Now, when I run through my
> watchlist
> (which I do most mornings), instead of just looking for what's wrong
> and
> needs to be fixed, instead if I see a positive contribution to an
> article,
> even a small one, I "thank" the contributor for the edit.
>
> And if I notice I am thanking someone quite a bit, I send them some
> Wikilove
> or a Barnstar. I notice a small increase in the number of thanks I am
> receiving. While I realise this may be simple re

[Gendergap] Who are the nicest people on our projects ?

[Fæ]

Hi,

After reading an interesting related discussion on GenderGap, I have
queried the top 10 users of the thanks feature last month, on both the
English Wikipedia and Commons. Snapshot image attached and report link
below.

Perhaps someone might think of a suitable barnstar and award these
folks for "being nice"? :-)

Link: 
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:F%C3%A6/sandbox&oldid=149050523

P.S. This is a long query to run, taking 20 to 30 minutes due to the
nature of the logging tables. However if someone wanted to make a
monthly summary on-wiki somewhere, part of an active "be nice"
campaign, I would be happy to set up an automated monthly report (if
someone discovers this is already reported somewhere, that's cool we
can use that).

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Who are the nicest people on our projects ?

[Daniel and Elizabeth Case]

After reading an interesting related discussion on GenderGap, I have
queried the top 10 users of the thanks feature last month, on both the
English Wikipedia and Commons. Snapshot image attached and report link
below.


I note that the Commons list is heavy with people like myself who nominate, 
and vote on, featured picture candidates. I have learned there that it is 
common to thank someone who votes in support of your nomination (nothing 
wrong with that). I put that practice to good use in thanking everyone who 
voted for my own recent nomination 
(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Chapel_ceiling_rosette,_Greenwich_Hospital,_London_version_2.jpg_), 
and was karmically rewarded with the first-ever featuring of an image I took 
myself (though I should also really thank another editor who did some late 
perspective correction on it).


Is it possible to break down the edits that get thanked by namespace, or 
even a particular page? That would be interesting.


And, overall, I am +1 to the idea that it makes Wikipedia a better place. My 
only suggested improvement would be a "you're welcome" button, since I 
receive more thanks than I generally give and that makes me look a little 
standoffish. (And while we're at that, is there a stat on which editors get 
thanked the most?)


Daniel Case


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

Re: [Gendergap] Thank someone today.

[Neotarf]

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and suggest that WikiLove Kittens are
not empowering.

I too find a creep factor with the thing, especially since it seems to be
popular with youngsters. This may not be the healthiest way for adults to
be interacting with children.

The nicest thank you I ever got was from someone at another language wiki
who took the time to come to the English wiki and write a note on my talk
page about a translation I did.  It seems they had always wanted to
translate that particular article to English, but didn't feel their English
skills were good enough.

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Risker  wrote:

> Kerry, I'm pretty sure you didn't know this, but you are amongst the top
> 10 thankers on English Wikipedia - and THANK YOU for doing that.
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:F%C3%A6/sandbox&oldid=149050523
> - now being discussed on Wikimedia-L mailing list.
>
> (This is the result of a script that Fae ran on enwiki and commons - it
> would be really interesting to see how other projects do as well.)
>
> I do confess that I've started to use the number of "thanks" and on- or
> off-wiki positive messages about an action to reassure me that a chosen
> comment is on-point (or sometimes to recognize that it's not on-point,
> too).  This kind of feedback is a lot more useful than I'd initially
> expected, and I'm working up to giving more of them.  My initial restraint
> was probably linked to my unwillingness to use the Wikilove extension -
> nothing wrong with it except for using the word "Wikilove" in every edit
> summary, which I find really creepy.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 5 February 2015 at 05:04, Jane Darnell  wrote:
>
>> Well Jonathan, thanks for doing that! I am not an administrator, so I
>> couldn't do those things you mentioned, but I often think that in some
>> cases I wish I could do more than just "thank" the person. I know however
>> that I was very suspicious of anyone posting on my talk page in the
>> beginning, so I feel like the generic "thanks" is the best way to approach
>> someone the first time. If someone comes across my watchlist a few times
>> with I perceive as a "theme", then I will tip them about how to do basic
>> things like create a category on commons for related images, or fill out
>> the Wikidata item, or browse similar items in Reasonator.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 10:50 AM, WereSpielChequers <
>> werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Much of my editing on wikipedia is minor typo fixes, the sort that a
>>> normal spellchecker won't pick up. I secularised lots of sports teams from
>>> having mangers to managers and also dealt with the problem of rock stars
>>> preforming songs in sports stadiums. I used to be able to do hundreds of
>>> such edits without anyone seeming to notice any except where they had
>>> missed the l from public. But now I get thanked for several percent of my
>>> edits, I think that is a really positive change on the pedia, of course the
>>> metrics people will take it as a negative because some of those thanks will
>>> be replacing edits, so the short term effect on the editing level is likely
>>> to be slightly negative.
>>>
>>> I do tend to check out who has thanked me and make sure the newbies who
>>> do so have had a welcome and give the ignored old hands reviewer status if
>>> I think they are ready for it.
>>>
>>> One of the most dysfunctional bits of the project is the way that people
>>> can do huge amounts of uncontentious stuff with very little interaction
>>> with others. I sometimes trawl the accounts who have recently created their
>>> 100th article and where appropriate set them as auto patrolled, often when
>>> i look at their talk pages the interactions they've had have been minimal.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Jonathan Cardy
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5 Feb 2015, at 00:11, Keilana  wrote:
>>>
>>> I love the thanks button, it's such an easy way to add more positivity
>>> to the wiki and the world. :)
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Katherine Casey <
>>> fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 I have found myself using the "thank" button more than usual recently.
 In the middle of all the turmoil that goes on onwiki, a simple "hey, that
 thing you did that you thought no one noticed? Yeah, thanks for doing that"
 goes a long way toward cancelling some of it out.

 On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 6:52 PM, LB  wrote:

> I agree, Kerry. I try to use the "thank" button at least once a day.
>
> Lightbreather
>
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Kerry Raymond  > wrote:
>
>>
>> We talk a lot of about the culture of Wikipedia being negative,
>> critical,
>> abrasive etc; this is a turn-off to a lot of women (and also to a lot
>> of
>> men). But what can we do to change that? Well, I thought about the
>> way that
>> postings get Liked on Facebook. Indeed, most postings get many Likes
>> on
>> Facebook. It seems if

Re: [Gendergap] Who are the nicest people on our projects ?

[Fæ]

On 5 February 2015 at 18:14, Daniel and Elizabeth Case
 wrote:
...
> Is it possible to break down the edits that get thanked by namespace, or
> even a particular page? That would be interesting.
>
> And, overall, I am +1 to the idea that it makes Wikipedia a better place. My
> only suggested improvement would be a "you're welcome" button, since I
> receive more thanks than I generally give and that makes me look a little
> standoffish. (And while we're at that, is there a stat on which editors get
> thanked the most?)

For the first bit:
Yes, the relevant table is described at
 and includes
log_namespace. Lots of ways of slicing the data are possible, though I
suggest any metric for 'niceness' is kept very simple so that it is
well understood. I.e. 100 thanks messages to a user, is much easier to
understand than ratios of several different things because they are
there.

For the last bit, here are the results:

Top 10 *most thanked* users in Jan 2015:

English Wikipedia:

351, Ryulong
212, Niceguyedc
151, Ssven2
119, Materialscientist
111, HJ Mitchell
100, Ser Amantio di Nicolao
89, GoingBatty
89, Drmies
87, John of Reading
79, Rocketrod1960

Wikimedia Commons:

47,  Steinsplitter
44,  INeverCry
44,  Thibaut120094
44,  1989
37,  Yann
32,  Medium69
27,  Be..anyone
26,  Brackenheim
22,  ArionEstar
21,  Marcus_Cyron

This was posted at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-February/076737.html
where you can find the report link.

Fae

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

Re: [Gendergap] Thank someone today.

[Emily Monroe]

>
> I'm going to go out on a limb here, and suggest that WikiLove Kittens are
> not empowering.
>
> I too find a creep factor with the thing, especially since it seems to be
> popular with youngsters. This may not be the healthiest way for adults to
> be interacting with children.


Speaking someone who is a young adult that is perhaps "young at heart", and
also as someone who is fond of animals, I don't exactly mind getting
Kittens as WikiLove. In other words, I don't find kittens creepy. I just
don't find it empowering, or really any WikiLove as empowering, because
I've received so much of it.

If you type WP:WIKITHANKS in the search bar, there is a template that's an
alternative to traditional WikiLove. The creator designed it as an
alternative to barnstars, and it's supposed to linger on the talk page and
archived instead of put on the userpage or "WikiLove" subpage.

From,
Emily

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Neotarf  wrote:

> I'm going to go out on a limb here, and suggest that WikiLove Kittens are
> not empowering.
>
> I too find a creep factor with the thing, especially since it seems to be
> popular with youngsters. This may not be the healthiest way for adults to
> be interacting with children.
>
> The nicest thank you I ever got was from someone at another language wiki
> who took the time to come to the English wiki and write a note on my talk
> page about a translation I did.  It seems they had always wanted to
> translate that particular article to English, but didn't feel their English
> skills were good enough.
>
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Risker  wrote:
>
>> Kerry, I'm pretty sure you didn't know this, but you are amongst the top
>> 10 thankers on English Wikipedia - and THANK YOU for doing that.
>>
>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:F%C3%A6/sandbox&oldid=149050523
>> - now being discussed on Wikimedia-L mailing list.
>>
>> (This is the result of a script that Fae ran on enwiki and commons - it
>> would be really interesting to see how other projects do as well.)
>>
>> I do confess that I've started to use the number of "thanks" and on- or
>> off-wiki positive messages about an action to reassure me that a chosen
>> comment is on-point (or sometimes to recognize that it's not on-point,
>> too).  This kind of feedback is a lot more useful than I'd initially
>> expected, and I'm working up to giving more of them.  My initial restraint
>> was probably linked to my unwillingness to use the Wikilove extension -
>> nothing wrong with it except for using the word "Wikilove" in every edit
>> summary, which I find really creepy.
>>
>> Risker/Anne
>>
>> On 5 February 2015 at 05:04, Jane Darnell  wrote:
>>
>>> Well Jonathan, thanks for doing that! I am not an administrator, so I
>>> couldn't do those things you mentioned, but I often think that in some
>>> cases I wish I could do more than just "thank" the person. I know however
>>> that I was very suspicious of anyone posting on my talk page in the
>>> beginning, so I feel like the generic "thanks" is the best way to approach
>>> someone the first time. If someone comes across my watchlist a few times
>>> with I perceive as a "theme", then I will tip them about how to do basic
>>> things like create a category on commons for related images, or fill out
>>> the Wikidata item, or browse similar items in Reasonator.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 10:50 AM, WereSpielChequers <
>>> werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Much of my editing on wikipedia is minor typo fixes, the sort that a
 normal spellchecker won't pick up. I secularised lots of sports teams from
 having mangers to managers and also dealt with the problem of rock stars
 preforming songs in sports stadiums. I used to be able to do hundreds of
 such edits without anyone seeming to notice any except where they had
 missed the l from public. But now I get thanked for several percent of my
 edits, I think that is a really positive change on the pedia, of course the
 metrics people will take it as a negative because some of those thanks will
 be replacing edits, so the short term effect on the editing level is likely
 to be slightly negative.

 I do tend to check out who has thanked me and make sure the newbies who
 do so have had a welcome and give the ignored old hands reviewer status if
 I think they are ready for it.

 One of the most dysfunctional bits of the project is the way that
 people can do huge amounts of uncontentious stuff with very little
 interaction with others. I sometimes trawl the accounts who have recently
 created their 100th article and where appropriate set them as auto
 patrolled, often when i look at their talk pages the interactions they've
 had have been minimal.

 Regards

 Jonathan Cardy


 On 5 Feb 2015, at 00:11, Keilana  wrote:

 I love the thanks button, it's such an easy way to add more positivity
 to

Re: [Gendergap] Thank someone today.

[Kerry Raymond]

Wow, if I am in the top 10, there's not much thanking happening. Those are
some *very low* numbers compared with the "undo" option that is also
available for every edit. Here's a thought. Let your karma be the number of
thanks minus the number of undos. Do not allow your karma is not allowed to
go negative, so you must thank more than you undo. What a positive culture
change that would be! I note it is also a culture change that could be
enforced within the platform - hmm.

 

Still, a new league table, we must compete! C'mon, Team Gendergap, let's get
our people to the top of this league table! Thank, thank, thank .
(seriously!)

 

Kerry

 

  _  

From: gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Risker
Sent: Friday, 6 February 2015 2:44 AM
To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the
participationof women within Wikimedia projects.
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Thank someone today.

 

Kerry, I'm pretty sure you didn't know this, but you are amongst the top 10
thankers on English Wikipedia - and THANK YOU for doing that.  

 

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:F%C3%A6/sandbox
 &oldid=149050523 - now being discussed on Wikimedia-L mailing
list. 

 

(This is the result of a script that Fae ran on enwiki and commons - it
would be really interesting to see how other projects do as well.)

 

I do confess that I've started to use the number of "thanks" and on- or
off-wiki positive messages about an action to reassure me that a chosen
comment is on-point (or sometimes to recognize that it's not on-point, too).
This kind of feedback is a lot more useful than I'd initially expected, and
I'm working up to giving more of them.  My initial restraint was probably
linked to my unwillingness to use the Wikilove extension - nothing wrong
with it except for using the word "Wikilove" in every edit summary, which I
find really creepy.  

 

Risker/Anne

 

On 5 February 2015 at 05:04, Jane Darnell  wrote:

Well Jonathan, thanks for doing that! I am not an administrator, so I
couldn't do those things you mentioned, but I often think that in some cases
I wish I could do more than just "thank" the person. I know however that I
was very suspicious of anyone posting on my talk page in the beginning, so I
feel like the generic "thanks" is the best way to approach someone the first
time. If someone comes across my watchlist a few times with I perceive as a
"theme", then I will tip them about how to do basic things like create a
category on commons for related images, or fill out the Wikidata item, or
browse similar items in Reasonator.

 

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 10:50 AM, WereSpielChequers
 wrote:

Much of my editing on wikipedia is minor typo fixes, the sort that a normal
spellchecker won't pick up. I secularised lots of sports teams from having
mangers to managers and also dealt with the problem of rock stars preforming
songs in sports stadiums. I used to be able to do hundreds of such edits
without anyone seeming to notice any except where they had missed the l from
public. But now I get thanked for several percent of my edits, I think that
is a really positive change on the pedia, of course the metrics people will
take it as a negative because some of those thanks will be replacing edits,
so the short term effect on the editing level is likely to be slightly
negative.

 

I do tend to check out who has thanked me and make sure the newbies who do
so have had a welcome and give the ignored old hands reviewer status if I
think they are ready for it.

 

One of the most dysfunctional bits of the project is the way that people can
do huge amounts of uncontentious stuff with very little interaction with
others. I sometimes trawl the accounts who have recently created their 100th
article and where appropriate set them as auto patrolled, often when i look
at their talk pages the interactions they've had have been minimal. 

Regards

 

Jonathan Cardy

 


On 5 Feb 2015, at 00:11, Keilana  wrote:

I love the thanks button, it's such an easy way to add more positivity to
the wiki and the world. :)

 

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Katherine Casey
 wrote:

I have found myself using the "thank" button more than usual recently. In
the middle of all the turmoil that goes on onwiki, a simple "hey, that thing
you did that you thought no one noticed? Yeah, thanks for doing that" goes a
long way toward cancelling some of it out.

 

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 6:52 PM, LB  wrote:

I agree, Kerry. I try to use the "thank" button at least once a day.




Lightbreather

 

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Kerry Raymond 
wrote:


We talk a lot of about the culture of Wikipedia being negative, critical,
abrasive etc; this is a turn-off to a lot of women (and also to a lot of
men). But what can we do to change that? Well, I thought about the way that
postings get Liked on Face

Re: [Gendergap] Who are the nicest people on our projects ?

[Kerry Raymond]

Hmm, I think the list of most-thanked people actually tells us more about
who is doing the thanking. I see at least 5 names on that list that I
recognise from my watchlist and therefore I may have thanked (statistically
unlikely I would recognise 5 out of 10 random Wikipedia user names) and 2 of
them I know I have thanked many times as we interact regularly in two
different topic areas.

Kerry

-Original Message-
From: gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Fæ
Sent: Friday, 6 February 2015 4:31 AM
To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the
participationof women within Wikimedia projects.
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Who are the nicest people on our projects ?

On 5 February 2015 at 18:14, Daniel and Elizabeth Case
 wrote:
...
> Is it possible to break down the edits that get thanked by namespace, or
> even a particular page? That would be interesting.
>
> And, overall, I am +1 to the idea that it makes Wikipedia a better place.
My
> only suggested improvement would be a "you're welcome" button, since I
> receive more thanks than I generally give and that makes me look a little
> standoffish. (And while we're at that, is there a stat on which editors
get
> thanked the most?)

For the first bit:
Yes, the relevant table is described at
 and includes
log_namespace. Lots of ways of slicing the data are possible, though I
suggest any metric for 'niceness' is kept very simple so that it is
well understood. I.e. 100 thanks messages to a user, is much easier to
understand than ratios of several different things because they are
there.

For the last bit, here are the results:

Top 10 *most thanked* users in Jan 2015:

English Wikipedia:

351, Ryulong
212, Niceguyedc
151, Ssven2
119, Materialscientist
111, HJ Mitchell
100, Ser Amantio di Nicolao
89, GoingBatty
89, Drmies
87, John of Reading
79, Rocketrod1960

Wikimedia Commons:

47,  Steinsplitter
44,  INeverCry
44,  Thibaut120094
44,  1989
37,  Yann
32,  Medium69
27,  Be..anyone
26,  Brackenheim
22,  ArionEstar
21,  Marcus_Cyron

This was posted at
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2015-February/076737.html
where you can find the report link.

Fae

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


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

Re: [Gendergap] Who are the nicest people on our projects ?

[Daniel and Elizabeth Case]

Hmm, I think the list of most-thanked people actually tells us more about
who is doing the thanking. I see at least 5 names on that list that I
recognise from my watchlist and therefore I may have thanked (statistically
unlikely I would recognise 5 out of 10 random Wikipedia user names) and 2 
of

them I know I have thanked many times as we interact regularly in two
different topic areas.


My takeaway from that list, for enwiki at least, is that at least a few of 
the names on it are admins very active in anti-vandalism work, so I would 
guess a fair amount of the thanks they get are from people who've made 
reports to AIV and are thankful for the ensuing block of the vandal (based 
on my experience from when I was doing that heavily).


Daniel Case 



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

Re: [Gendergap] press coverage of Gamergate arbcom case

[Andreas Kolbe]

David Auerbach in Slate on "The Wikipedia Ouroboros":

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/02/wikipedia_gamergate_scandal_how_a_bad_source_made_wikipedia_wrong_about.single.html

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 1:40 PM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Marie,
>
> Surely this would cover more than just examples where both parties were in
> the UK? For example if the victim was anywhere in the world but the
> offender was in the UK, wouldn't the UK law apply?
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan Cardy
>
>
> On 30 Jan 2015, at 16:46, Marie Earley  wrote:
>
> There is something I thought I should mention as a UK member of this list.
>
> Hate speech (including online) is illegal in the UK.
>
> When the Bank of England announced that Elizabeth Fry would be dropped
> from the new £5 notes and replaced with Winston Churchill, it meant that
> there would be no women on sterling bank notes (apart from the Queen).
>
> Caroline Criado-Perez successfully campaigned for Jane Austin to be added
> to £10 notes and received threats of rape and death.
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/10207231/Woman-who-campaigned-for-Jane-Austen-bank-note-receives-Twitter-death-threats.html
>
> That instigated an online campaign which resulted in Twitter adding its
> 'report' button.
>
> Isabella Sorley, 23, of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, tweets included: "die you
> worthless piece of crap", "go kill yourself" and, "I've only just got out
> of prison and would happily do more time to see you berried!!"
>
> John Nimmo, 25, of South Shields, made references to rape and added: "I
> will find you (smiley face)".
>
> Sorley was sentenced to 12 weeks in prison, and Nimmo was jailed for 8
> weeks. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25886026
>
> The law they broke was Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127
>
> If UK-based Wikipedian 'X' breaches s.127 of the Comms. Act due to
> something they said on Wikipedia about UK-based Wikipedian 'Y' then they
> face criminal prosecution and possibly jail.
>
> The litmus test is whether what they have said is not only 'offensive'
> but, 'grossly offensive'. Wikipedia's internal systems and thresholds would
> make no difference to the authorities in the UK. It would be interesting to
> see what the public fall-out would be if Wikipedia decided that no action
> should be taken against X whilst the UK jailed him / her.
>
> Marie
>
>
> --
> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 11:41:36 -0500
> From: neot...@gmail.com
> To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] press coverage of Gamergate arbcom case
>
> Double standard.  Where are all the usual voices protesting about
> "civility police"?  Where are all the arbitrators opining that they cannot
> set objective standards for language?
>
> Beeblebrox used to have an article about "fuck off" in his user space.  It
> didn't get him banned. In fact, he went on to become an administrator and
> arbitrator.
>
> In the absence of objective standards, subjective standards are emerging,
> based on gender.  Using the f-word, or even criticizing male users, is
> becoming a male privilege on en.wp.  Anyone else who uses the word is
> "hostile" and exhibiting "battleground behavior". I must also say I am very
> disappointed in GorillaWarfare's role here.
>
> Maybe, just maybe, instead of just dismissing anything that is said by a
> woman editor, the arbitration committee should investigate it. I am looking
> in particular at this one
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=631322169
> If it is true, there are a huge number of users recruited on external
> sites, who are not there to build an encyclopedia, that will have huge
> implications for the survival of women editors on Wikipedia. The
> arbitration committee is looking at WP:SPA, they should look at WP:MEAT.
> And they should pay attention to who the ringleaders are, not just the
> throwaway accounts.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/WikiProject_Women&diff=next&oldid=10928257
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/WikiProject_Women&diff=10938964&oldid=10936831
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/WikiProject_Women&diff=10952260&oldid=10951344
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:IdeaLab/WikiProject_Women&diff=10991140&oldid=10979378
>
>
> But, as has been pointed out on the current RFC,
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#RfC:_should_the_policy_extend_harassment_to_include_posting_ANY_other_accounts_on_ANY_other_websites.3F
> that would change the WP:OUTING policy to prohibit all mention of outside
> accounts, including Reddit Men's Rights and Reddit Gamergate, "trying to
> address the issues without being able to talk openly about the evidence is
> difficult".
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Mar

Re: [Gendergap] Who are the nicest people on our projects ?

[Alison Cassidy]

> On Feb 5, 2015, at 12:41 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case 
>  wrote:
> 
>> Hmm, I think the list of most-thanked people actually tells us more about
>> who is doing the thanking. I see at least 5 names on that list that I
>> recognise from my watchlist and therefore I may have thanked (statistically
>> unlikely I would recognise 5 out of 10 random Wikipedia user names) and 2 of
>> them I know I have thanked many times as we interact regularly in two
>> different topic areas.
> 
> My takeaway from that list, for enwiki at least, is that at least a few of 
> the names on it are admins very active in anti-vandalism work, so I would 
> guess a fair amount of the thanks they get are from people who've made 
> reports to AIV and are thankful for the ensuing block of the vandal (based on 
> my experience from when I was doing that heavily).

For an interesting twist, the #1 on the most-thanked list for the English 
Wikipedia is a previously banned editor who was unbanned and allowed back in. 
He has since become a superb editor. Goes to show … :)

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

Re: [Gendergap] Who are the nicest people on our projects ?

[Alison Cassidy]

> On Feb 5, 2015, at 1:35 PM, Alison Cassidy  wrote:
> 
> For an interesting twist, the #1 on the most-thanked list for the English 
> Wikipedia is a previously banned editor who was unbanned and allowed back in. 
> He has since become a superb editor. Goes to show … :)

Actually, the most thank-y :) My bad!

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

Re: [Gendergap] Who are the nicest people on our projects ?

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Alison Cassidy  wrote:
>
> On Feb 5, 2015, at 1:35 PM, Alison Cassidy  wrote:
>
> For an interesting twist, the #1 on the most-thanked list for the English
> Wikipedia is a previously banned editor who was unbanned and allowed back
> in. He has since become a superb editor. Goes to show … :)
>
>
> Actually, the most thank-y :) My bad!

Phew, I was wondering if we were looking at the same list.  Worth
noting that the most thanked on en.wp in Jan 2015 is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ryulong

who was recently banned by ArbCom 's close of the GamerGate case.

It would be interesting to see who has been most thanked / thank-y for
each month of 2014.

--
John Vandenberg

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

Re: [Gendergap] Thank someone today.

[Carol Moore dc]

I just took a look and two of the editors were big
critics of GGTF on my talk page, it's talk page
and during arbitration and big defenders of the
individual best known for using the C word
including supporting him on his talk page...

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