Re: [Gendergap] Changing the Chelsea Manning article (and how women were shouted down)

[Gayle Karen Young]

I think sometimes about the e.e. cummings quote "To be nobody but yourself
in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody
else means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight; and
never stop fighting" (citation needed) - that it also means that to support
others in being themselves is ALSO one of the hardest battles we fight. I
hear the exhaustion, the need to have a place to put forward ideas, where
one will experience support and not combat, and just want to say that I'm
proud of the extraordinary effort to date. As throw-things-at-the-wall
angry as the human rights fighting makes me, in all the places we fight
injustice, knowing there are allies out there willing to wade into the
shitstorms of things does help keep the flame a little kindled for me.

So to Carol and Helga, specifically, this is not a shout down, but a shout
out of "Thank you", for the courage to speak, for the resilience, and I'm
sending my wishes for a respite, a good night's sleep, a hearty meal, a
conversation with a friend, or whatever you may want or need to keep going.


On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Sue Gardner wrote:

> One thing I find interesting about the discussions on this is that people
> seem to be, sometimes, applying different standards from how we normally
> handle ourselves. So on WP normally, there is some deference paid to
> expertise (as distinct from credentials). Normally, editors will often
> defer to others who are known to have subject-matter expertise in a
> particular area. We express expertise through research: editors who have
> done a lot of reading and who cite reliable sources have more weight
> accorded to their views than those who have not done that reading and
> citing.
>
> It feels to me like on this issue people are often seeming to substitute
> "common sense" or "conventional wisdom" for expertise/knowledge. There has
> been lots of scholarly work on transgender issues, in the fields of
> psychology, gender studies, medicine, and so forth. So it surprises me to
> have editors making off-the-cuff comments, and expecting them to be taken
> seriously. A lot of people's expressed assumptions (that Chelsea may change
> her mind tomorrow, that Chelsea was a man and is now a woman, or even that
> a person's gender is easy to determine) are just flat-out wrong. It's okay
> for people to be wrong, but their wrong assumptions shouldn't determine
> what goes in an encyclopedia.
>
> (In saying this, I'm not responding directly to Helga or Carol. It's just
> something I've noticed on the enWP discussions that I think is interesting.)
>
> Thanks,
> Sue
> On Aug 24, 2013 6:18 AM, "Carol Moore dc" 
> wrote:
>
>> There have been similar problems at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**
>> Chelsea_Manning 
>> Obviously there have been a number of comments that are obviously
>> transphobic. However, there also have been repeated false charges of
>> transphobia against those who cite good policy reasons for not changing the
>> name.  I personally oppose the change to Chelsea as premature for a number
>> of reasons, FYI.
>>
>> And there are good reasons to question what happened at that article
>> process wise (the policy reasons for and against the change are discussed
>> ad nauseam at the talk page where editors are just trying to get it changed
>> back to Bradley Manning, though I think that's morphed into a final
>> discussion - hard to tell!! ):
>> * an admin changed the title to Chelsea Manning with no discussion on the
>> talk page, given it's a controversial move in such a high publicity figure
>> *the admin then spoke to the press about it, wrote a blog entry with
>> their opinion, tweeted about it, and got even more media publicity for
>> their blog entry and/or tweets
>> *I would not be surprised if a number of editors also alerted the media
>> to her writings and actions in order to try to influence the outcome of a
>> Wikipedia policy decision
>> *I don't know how much off wiki canvassing there was, but I did start a
>> list of wikiprojects alerted, so at least that aspect of WP:Canvass would
>> be covered
>> *an editor threatened anyone moving the title back would become a minor
>> celebrity for a few days, a threat only to those whose actual names were
>> used, which implied outing (there's a subsection of the larger ANI thread
>> on that threat and related insults)
>>
>> Wonder if I'll get shouted down *here* yet again for expressing my
>> opinions... sigh...
>>
>> CM
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/24/2013 7:34 AM, Helga Hansen wrote:
>>
>>> In the German Wikipedia a huge discussion has erupted over the question
>>> how to change the Wikipedia page for Chelsea Manning and it's another
>>> textbook example over how to drive women of Wikipedia. You can see the gory
>>> details here (in German of course): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/**
>>> Diskussion:Bradley_Manning
>>>
>>> 

Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap

[Gayle Karen Young]

One of the things I talked to one of the female admins about is figuring
out how to better support them in the stuff they have to deal with, and
it's on my radar. That's just an FYI.


On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:57 PM, phoebe ayers  wrote:

> (changing the topic back)
>
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Sylvia Ventura wrote:
>
>> Anne, you're absolutely right on the 'high profile'. The broader the
>> reach, impact, exposure, the more likely you are to become the target of
>> good and bad 'attention'. The question is, much like in real-life, the
>> higher up you are in an organization the more 'support' and/or protection
>> you will likely need/get, as a community  should we be able to insure a
>> similar mechanism. This community resilience won't be built on a MadMax
>> fighting-your-way-through model (I know it's rather dramatic :)
>>
>>
> From all the stories I've heard over the years, admins and arbitrators get
> the worst of it -- being in a position where you delete articles or mediate
> disputes on the project (and let's face it, the folks who get into
> arbitration-type situations on wikipedia are often not the most stable or
> reasonable people on earth) seems to be the most direct way to potentially
> exposing yourself to lots of harassment. And if you're identified as
> female, it's way worse.
>
> Conversely from my experiences being pretty visible on the
> *organizational* side of things (and talking to colleagues), there is a low
> level of harassment that comes with that gig, but *nothing* like the horror
> stories I've heard from some admins.
>
> This is clearly untenable; the projects need to grow experienced
> contributors who can serve in positions of leadership and as mentors on the
> projects, and we can't expect everyone to just suck it up ("so sorry, you
> will have to work with crazy people"). I worry that folks often just find
> themselves unsupported. I don't know what the answer is.
>
> -- phoebe
>
> --
> * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
>  gmail.com *
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>


-- 
Gayle Karen K. Young
Chief Talent and Culture Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
415.310.8416
www.wikimediafoundation.org
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] civility/behavioral standards

[Gayle Karen Young]

I think it would be wise to NOT engage in the conversation about who
deserves respect and why/why not. I keep looking at the potential outcomes
for this conversation and see all the ways it could go poorly. :)

My recommendation is that we focus on behaving respectfully rather than
judging or questioning the judgement of others as worthy or not, including
behaving respectfully in the way we judge each other's recommendations.

Warm regards,
Gayle

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 12:26 PM, wrote:

> Send Gendergap mailing list submissions to
>gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>gendergap-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>gendergap-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Gendergap digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: civility/behavioral standards (B?ria Lima)
>   2. Re: civility/behavioral standards (George Herbert)
>   3. Re: civility/behavioral standards (Nathan)
>   4. Re: civility/behavioral standards (Emily Monroe)
>   5. Re: civility/behavioral standards (B?ria Lima)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 16:27:03 -0300
> From: B?ria Lima 
> To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
>
> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] civility/behavioral standards
> Message-ID:
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Why do you write in capitals letters?
> _
> *B?ria Lima
>
> **Imagine um mundo onde ? dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> livre acesso ao somat?rio de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
> construir esse sonho. *
>
>
> On 8 May 2012 16:19, Emily Monroe  wrote:
>
> > Okay. Why DOESN'T Sarah deserve your respect?
> >
> > From,
> > Emily
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:18 PM, B?ria Lima  >wrote:
> >
> >> Obviously not from me, or we would not having this talk.
> >> _
> >> *B?ria Lima*
> >>
> >> *Imagine um mundo onde ? dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> >> livre acesso ao somat?rio de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
> >> construir esse sonho. *
> >>
> >>
> >> On 8 May 2012 16:02, Emily Monroe  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sarah has earned respect. Please give it.
> >>>
> >>> From,
> >>> Emily
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:01 PM, B?ria Lima  >wrote:
> >>>
>  And who will make me Emily? How old are we that we need to have people
>  sitting on the corner?
> 
>  And authority and respect is not something that is there for miracle,
>  you need to earn it.
>  _
>  *B?ria Lima*
> 
>  *Imagine um mundo onde ? dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
>  livre acesso ao somat?rio de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
>  construir esse sonho. *
> 
> 
>  On 8 May 2012 12:46, Emily Monroe  wrote:
> 
> > You know what, Beria? At the very least, you will have to respect
> > Sarahs' authority. You're going to have the respect the authority of
> every
> > moderator, male, female, or other, and respect the right of
> *everyone* to
> > participate on this list.
> >
> > From,
> > Emily
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 10:42 AM, B?ria Lima  >wrote:
> >
> >> Well, people like her are the only one i will respect to moderate
> me.
> >> For obvious reasons, I will not accept any moderation coming from
> Sarah and
> >> I don't think that list should be dominated by a men.
> >>
> >> Btw, if someone do more for women than Laura, who had the very idea
> >> of a Woman's Camp (WikiWomenCamp - who already got a daugther - The
> >> AdaCamp) I don't know who should. The fact you like her or not is
> >> irrelevant. (Will you remove Sarah or Sue based on that?)
> >> _
> >> *B?ria Lima*
> >> *
> >> Imagine um mundo onde ? dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de
> ter
> >> livre acesso ao somat?rio de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
> >> construir esse sonho. *
> >>
> >>
> >> On 8 May 2012 10:52, Thomas Morton  >wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 8 May 2012 14:42, B?ria Lima  wrote:
> >>>
>  I still waiting for see someone else other than him on moderation.
>  Did you already invite Laura?
>  _
>  *B?ria Lima*
> 
> >>>
> >>>  I'd suggest that Laura is possibly not a good moderator candidate
> >>> given her extremely strong viewpoint; I'd be concerned she would
> moderate
> >>> posts, for example, on the basis they came from a man, rather than
> on
> >>