Re: [Gendergap] Meeting at the Wikiconference?

[Katherine Casey]

I will be there in my WMF staff capacity and I would love for there to be a
gendergap meetup! I'm busy from dinnertime onwards on Saturday 10/10, but
other than that I can make time for whenever works for people. A lunchtime
meetup sounds like a good place to start.

-Karen/Fluffernutter

On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Francesca Tripodi 
wrote:

> Hello list members!
>
> I am not sure if any of you are planning on attending the upcoming
> conference in DC but it would be wonderful we we could organize a meet up
> for those who might be coming. In taking a look at the schedule it seems
> that lunch will be served on the first day. Perhaps we could plan to meet
> and eat together during this time (either at the conference or venturing to
> another location)?
> http://wikiconferenceusa.org/wiki/2015/Schedule
>
> I am a graduate student working on how women and minorities are silenced
> in participatory media spaces and I'd love the chance to speak with more of
> you "off line" about your experiences.
>
> Safe travels to those attending -
> --
> Francesca Tripodi, PhD Candidate (Sociology)
> PhD Intern | Office of the Dean of Students
> ftripodi.com
>
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
> visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>



-- 
Karen Brown
user:Fluffernutter

*Unless otherwise specified, any email sent from this address is in my
volunteer capacity and does not represent the views or wishes of the
Wikimedia Foundation*
___
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] Women's health articles

[Katherine Casey]

I'm in for copyediting any women's health articles that need it! Just give
me a ping via email or talk page.

-Fluffernutter

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Sydney Poore 
wrote:

> Set it up and sign me up, too.
>
> Sydney
> On May 14, 2015 8:39 PM, "keilanawiki"  wrote:
>
>> Let's do it - I'm happy to help set it up! :)
>>
>>
>> Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
>>
>>
>>  Original message 
>> From: Ryan Kaldari 
>> Date:05/14/2015 1:23 PM (GMT-06:00)
>> To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the
>> participation of women within Wikimedia projects." <
>> gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Cc:
>> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Women's health articles
>>
>> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Netha Hussain 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Ryan,
>>>
>>>  Thank you for bringing this to my notice! Could I get the link to the
>>> article?
>>>
>>
>> It's a little hard to find (which is actually the subject of the
>> discussion): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candidal_vulvovaginitis
>>
>> Wikiproject: Women's Health has been my personal dream for a long time,
>>> but I couldn't yet get myself working on it because of commitments
>>> elsewhere. :-(
>>>
>>
>> I would be happy to officially propose such a project (and help set it
>> up) if there is interest from people.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] A path back for day-two editors (was: Wikipedia Day NYC 2015 mini-conferenceh for te project's 14th birthday)

[Katherine Casey]

Hmm, I see what you were saying now, Neotarf. We're throwing time, effort,
and money at getting people in the door (or at least, an edit-a-thon's
door), and some at keeping the long-term editors around, but there's sort
of a "doughnut hole" between those two points where we expect people to
just sort of find something in the eleventy-million (...that moment when
you realize that a joke quantity like "eleventy-million" isn't that far off
the mark of reality...) pages on a project that interests them enough to
bring them back. With no help except maybe SuggestBot, if they manage to
find that.

But what brings people back for edits five through one hundred, at a
population level? Getting over the hurdle to showing up for a second day
(whether on-wiki or at an event) is often going to call for...let's call it
an attention bump. Something that drives people back to logging in even if
they'd closed that browser tab. We could stand, as a community, to
brainstorm ways to get people in for day two.

It's not enough to just not drive them off (though we struggle managing
even that, in some areas/communities), it's that, e*specially *in the case
of women, I would expect to see an increase in return traffic when there's
a path actively shouting "Hello! I am a path! A path that leads somewhere!
I would like you to follow me!" Some social media send "Hey, we missed you,
come log in again!" emails after X missed days, for example. That's a bit
on the creepy side for my taste, but something a bit less stalky that could
serve as a reminder of what's on Wikipedia to do, or how the community
appreciates people's efforts, or what the person started but didn't finish
while there...hm. Things like that could work.

Is anyone aware of any work that's been done in this "doughnut hole" area,
covering the period *after *outreach when someone's attention can be
captured or fail to be captured by a new hobby like Wiki[m|p]edia editing?


On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Neotarf  wrote:

>
>
> *"I doubt I'd attend any event purporting to recruit women that
> nevertheless limited itself to "people who were born female"; that's very
> much a type of exclusion I'm uncomfortable with. In general, however,
> there's nothing stopping you or anyone else from arranging a women-centric
> (or even women-only) edit-a-thon, or from reaching out to women in a
> certain field (via linkedin, maybe?) to urge them to get editing."*
> After what I've been through, I'm not likely to urge *anyone* to edit. My
> own opinion is that all Wikimedia spaces should be moving towards 50/50.
> But my point is, all of these people express an interest, come in for a
> day, sometimes in conjunction with a friend who is attending a similar
> event in another city, make their first edit, and then ...what?  There's no
> signing up for a mailing list, no newsletter, no invitations to log into a
> safe space for continued collaborations, in short, nothing to show them
> that Wikipedia appreciates them or considers their contributions to be
> valuable. And nothing to show them the next step along the way. People are
> walking in the door.  And then they walk out. Where is the infrastructure
> for making that second edit?  And for staying connected with the people
> they meet?
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Katherine Casey <
> fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I doubt I'd attend any event purporting to recruit women that
>> nevertheless limited itself to "people who were born female"; that's very
>> much a type of exclusion I'm uncomfortable with. In general, however,
>> there's nothing stopping you or anyone else from arranging a women-centric
>> (or even women-only) edit-a-thon, or from reaching out to women in a
>> certain field (via linkedin, maybe?) to urge them to get editing. Those are
>> both cool ideas, and I suspect you'd get a lot of support, both from the
>> WMF and from the gendergap community in general, in setting such things up.
>> NYC would be, I suspect, a particularly fertile ground for
>> gendergap-specific meetups; there's enough of nearly every demographic
>> around there to fill some seats for a moderately-sized edit-a-thon, and the
>> WMNYC board appears willing to work with minority-focused groups..
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Neotarf  wrote:
>>
>>> See also this article: "AfroCrowd: The Black Wikipedia For People of
>>> African Descent" http://kreyolicious.com/afrocrowd/17531/
>>>
>>> One of the drawbacks of GLAM is that people are just making a few edits,
>>> and leaving, rather than 

Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia Day NYC 2015 mini-conferenceh for te project's 14th birthday

[Katherine Casey]

I doubt I'd attend any event purporting to recruit women that nevertheless
limited itself to "people who were born female"; that's very much a type of
exclusion I'm uncomfortable with. In general, however, there's nothing
stopping you or anyone else from arranging a women-centric (or even
women-only) edit-a-thon, or from reaching out to women in a certain field
(via linkedin, maybe?) to urge them to get editing. Those are both cool
ideas, and I suspect you'd get a lot of support, both from the WMF and from
the gendergap community in general, in setting such things up. NYC would
be, I suspect, a particularly fertile ground for gendergap-specific
meetups; there's enough of nearly every demographic around there to fill
some seats for a moderately-sized edit-a-thon, and the WMNYC board appears
willing to work with minority-focused groups..

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Neotarf  wrote:

> See also this article: "AfroCrowd: The Black Wikipedia For People of
> African Descent" http://kreyolicious.com/afrocrowd/17531/
>
> One of the drawbacks of GLAM is that people are just making a few edits,
> and leaving, rather than becoming long-term editors. There may be chances
> for followup here that we are missing. Is the wiki-world ready for
> "WomanCrowd: The Women's Wikipedia for People Who Were Born Female"?  Or
> maybe more realistically, ways for women in a particular cluster of
> professions to network with other women in their field, not to mention
> professional men who are supportive enough of women to come to one of these
> events (and who also might just happen to control access to career
> advancement).
>
> I have to say, though, that I totally support the idea of a Haitian
> Creole-language Wikipedia.  This language barrier was a huge problem a few
> years ago, when there was an increased number of Haitians entering the U.S.
> after the earthquake in Haiti.  The problem is the same with other
> creoles--instruction is usually given in one of the prestige languages--in
> this case French--rather than the individual's native or local village
> language, which makes communication and learning extremely difficult.
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Pharos 
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, the idea is to be extra inclusionary by reaching out to all these
>> groups explicitly, and in particular to representing different cultural
>> identities in rather non-monolithic African American / African Diasporic
>> communities.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Pharos
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Jeremy Baron 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 23, 2015 11:25 AM, "Neotarf"  wrote:
>>> > I've never seen editithons that exclude people before.  I've been to a
>>> couple of black history events, and all were welcomed, although of course
>>> there was a very high proportion of African descent.
>>>
>>> I think the point was actually to be extra inclusionary: to cover all of
>>> the above not just a subset when recruiting new editors. So potential
>>> recruits don't think but I'm not really {{label}} and exclude themselves.
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure others won't be excluded but these events will be
>>> *focused* on topics related to those groups and editors with some sort of a
>>> connection to Africa. To address biases similarly to women focused outreach
>>> but with a twist thrown in: adding a new language to Wikipedia too, they
>>> started already Garifuna Wikipedia on incubator.
>>>
>>> https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/cab
>>>
>>> -Jeremy
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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] Wikipedia Day NYC 2015 mini-conferenceh for te project's 14th birthday

[Katherine Casey]

I recognize at least some of the names on the attendance list there as
people who don't, to the best of my knowledge, identify as being of African
descent, so it doesn't appear to have been an event that excluded anyone.
My guess would be that the "open to" bit is intended to bring in people who
might otherwise feel they're not welcome if they're not specifically
invited, more than it's intended to dis-invite people who already know
they're always welcome at Wikimedia events. The phrasing might be a bit
awkward, but most ways I can think of to express "...and seriously, we
would very much like those of African descent to fully participate at and
feel comfortable in this workshop" suffer from one tonal weakness or
another. At the end of the day, I can't say I resent specifically inviting
racial minorities to events any more than I would resent specifically
inviting women to events; given our demographics, it's probably better to
err on the side of not making minorities feel marginalized or like they're
being treated like tokens, than it is to err on the side of making sure
white males don't feel like there might be a space where they're not the
center of things.

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Neotarf  wrote:

> That's interesting:
>
> "The workshops are open to all Afrodescendants including but not limited
> to individuals who self-identify as African, African-American, Afro-Latino,
> Biracial, Black, Black-American, Caribbean, Garifuna, Haitian or West
> Indian."
>
> I've never seen editithons that exclude people before.  I've been to a
> couple of black history events, and all were welcomed, although of course
> there was a very high proportion of African descent. Likewise, the women's
> editing events I have attended have been very welcoming to men, although as
> you would expect, there is a very high attendance level for women.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Carol Moore dc  > wrote:
>
>>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Wikipedia_Day_2015
>>
>> Wikipedia Day NYC 2015 is a celebration and mini-conference for the
>> project's 14th birthday,* to be held on Sunday March 22, 2015, hosted at
>> Barnard College starting at 10:00 am, and also supported by Wikimedia New
>> York City and fellow Free Culture Alliance NYC partners.
>>
>> There are various events, sessions, talks, etc. Nothing women oriented
>> but I do see involvement by a new  NYC meetup group:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/AfroCrowd";
>>
>> Talk page hasn't even been opened yet to comment on its goal: "to
>> increase the number of people of African Descent who actively partake in
>> the Wikimedia and free knowledge, culture and software movements."  I guess
>> meetups targeted on certain groups are less controversial than task forces.
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] FW: [Social-media] Blog post: Meet some of the women who contribute to Wikipedia

[Katherine Casey]

Oh, I'm sure it's not at all intended! It strikes me as one of those things
that would only be recognized as A Thing by someone who was already aware
of "meeting women" and PUAs as A Thing (google "meet women" for a sense of
what I mean. For bonus ick points, google " 'meet women' + PUA") .
Basically it's a phrasing which is much more commonly used in the context
of "acquainting oneself with women for sexual/romantic purposes" than it is
in the context of "women are people, let's meet some people!"

For other ideas: nearly any other phrasing - "Hear from some female
wikipedians", "Find out more about some of the women who edit Wikipedia",
"Female Wikipedians discuss why they do what they do!", "A survey of some
of Wikipedia's female editors" - would communicate "this is a blog post
about female wikipedians" without the sort of awkward implication of
"...presented here for men to examine and select from, as one does when one
'meets' women" that's part of the cultural baggage of the phrase.

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 7:52 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> I don't think that is Fabrice's intent. What edits would you suggest?
>
> Pine
> On Mar 6, 2015 4:46 PM, "Katherine Casey" 
> wrote:
>
>> I might be a little punch-drunk from all the gender drama lately,
>> but..."meet some of the women who edit Wikipedia!" sounds more like an
>> introduction to a speed-dating event to me than what is presumably intended
>> to be a demystification/de-othering blog post. "Come meet some women" isn't
>> exactly a phrase that comes without baggage, culturally speaking, and it
>> makes me wince to see female editors being announced in a tone that makes
>> them sound like exotic zoo animals.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>>
>>> Forwarding to the Gendergap list in case others are interested, and
>>> forwarding to Jason and Peaceray in case they want to share this blog post
>>> at the Art and Feminism event in Portland, Oregon (Cascadia territory!)
>>> this weekend.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Pine
>>> On Mar 6, 2015 4:24 PM, "Fabrice Florin"  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Looks like the link below still had the inspire story URL in the HTML.
>>>>
>>>> Here is the correct link in plain text:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/06/meet-some-women-who-contribute-to-wikipedia/
>>>>
>>>> Enjoy … and have a wonderful weekend!
>>>>
>>>> -f
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 6, 2015, at 4:22 PM, Fabrice Florin 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello social media team,
>>>>
>>>> We just published a roundup of some of the women who contribute to
>>>> Wikipedia on the blog:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/06/meet-some-women-who-contribute-to-wikipedia/
>>>> <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/04/inspire-campaign-funds-gender-diversity/>
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks to Andrew, Victor, Heather, and everyone who helped write
>>>> and edit this post — as well as the many profiles and videos featured in
>>>> it! :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here are proposed social media messages for this story:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Twitter (@wikimedia/@wikipedia):
>>>>
>>>> Meet some of the women who contribute to Wikipedia -- and find out why
>>>> they do it. (link) #genderdiversity
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Facebook/Google+
>>>>
>>>> Meet some of the women who contribute to Wikipedia: To celebrate
>>>> International Women’s Day, we've featured 11 different profiles and videos
>>>> of frequent editors and community leaders. Hear their inspiring stories and
>>>> find out why they keep editing. (link)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Feel free to tweak as needed.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for helping share this story with our community!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fabrice
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>>
>>>> Fabrice Florin
>>>> Movement Communications Manager
>>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fabrice_Florin_(WMF)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

Re: [Gendergap] FW: [Social-media] Blog post: Meet some of the women who contribute to Wikipedia

[Katherine Casey]

I might be a little punch-drunk from all the gender drama lately,
but..."meet some of the women who edit Wikipedia!" sounds more like an
introduction to a speed-dating event to me than what is presumably intended
to be a demystification/de-othering blog post. "Come meet some women" isn't
exactly a phrase that comes without baggage, culturally speaking, and it
makes me wince to see female editors being announced in a tone that makes
them sound like exotic zoo animals.

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Forwarding to the Gendergap list in case others are interested, and
> forwarding to Jason and Peaceray in case they want to share this blog post
> at the Art and Feminism event in Portland, Oregon (Cascadia territory!)
> this weekend.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pine
> On Mar 6, 2015 4:24 PM, "Fabrice Florin"  wrote:
>
>> Looks like the link below still had the inspire story URL in the HTML.
>>
>> Here is the correct link in plain text:
>>
>>
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/06/meet-some-women-who-contribute-to-wikipedia/
>>
>> Enjoy … and have a wonderful weekend!
>>
>> -f
>>
>>
>> On Mar 6, 2015, at 4:22 PM, Fabrice Florin  wrote:
>>
>> Hello social media team,
>>
>> We just published a roundup of some of the women who contribute to
>> Wikipedia on the blog:
>>
>>
>> https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/06/meet-some-women-who-contribute-to-wikipedia/
>> 
>>
>> Many thanks to Andrew, Victor, Heather, and everyone who helped write and
>> edit this post — as well as the many profiles and videos featured in it! :)
>>
>>
>> Here are proposed social media messages for this story:
>>
>>
>> Twitter (@wikimedia/@wikipedia):
>>
>> Meet some of the women who contribute to Wikipedia -- and find out why
>> they do it. (link) #genderdiversity
>>
>>
>> Facebook/Google+
>>
>> Meet some of the women who contribute to Wikipedia: To celebrate
>> International Women’s Day, we've featured 11 different profiles and videos
>> of frequent editors and community leaders. Hear their inspiring stories and
>> find out why they keep editing. (link)
>>
>>
>> Feel free to tweak as needed.
>>
>> Thanks for helping share this story with our community!
>>
>>
>> Fabrice
>>
>>
>> ___
>>
>> Fabrice Florin
>> Movement Communications Manager
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fabrice_Florin_(WMF)
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Social-media mailing list
>> social-me...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
>>
>>
> ___
> 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] Inspire Campaign launches today!

[Katherine Casey]

If memory serves, another survey (not sure if before or after the 9%, or
where to find it, off the top of my head - maybe someone else remembers?)
came up with something like 13% female. So my guess is they added in some
margin of error, and decided "less than 20%" was the most accurate way to
characterize "maybe 9% or 13% or something in that vicinity, give or take
some percentage points".

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Neotarf  wrote:

> Where does the "less than 20%" number come from?  The last survey I see is
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/December_2011_Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_topline.pdf
> this one from 2011.  On page 34 the numbers break down to 90% male, 9%
> female, 1% transgender.
>
> Sure 9% is "less than" 20%, but it is also "less than" 70% or 100%.  This
> seems really misleading about the scope of the problem.
>
> Is there more recent research that has been released, that would justify
> the use of the 20% number? The last I heard, we were still waiting for the
> results of the 2012 survey.
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_2012
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Alex Wang  wrote:
>
>> Hello Wikimedians,
>>
>>
>> Today we are pleased to announce the launch of the Inspire Campaign in
>> IdeaLab!
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire
>> 
>>
>> This campaign aims to encourage, foster, and support new ideas for
>> improving gender diversity on Wikimedia projects. Less than 20% of
>> Wikimedia contributors are women, and many important topics are still
>> missing in our content. We invite all Wikimedians to participate in the
>> campaign on Meta-wiki by sharing your ideas, skills and feedback, and by
>> helping to spread the word in your local communities. The campaign runs
>> until March 31.
>>
>> All proposals are welcome - research projects, technical solutions,
>> community organizing and outreach initiatives, or something completely new!
>> Grants are available from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects developed
>> during this campaign that need financial support. Constructive, positive
>> feedback on ideas is appreciated, and collaboration is encouraged - your
>> skills and experience may help bring someone else’s project to life.  We
>> hope experienced community members will also watch the IdeaLab pages to
>> help keep the discussions positive and constructive. Join us at the Inspire
>> Campaign and help our projects better represent the world’s knowledge!
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Alex & the Inspire Team
>>
>> --
>> Alexandra Wang
>> Program Officer
>> Project & Event Grants
>> Wikimedia Foundation 
>> +1 415-839-6885
>> Skype: alexvwang
>>
>> ___
>> 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.

[Katherine Casey]

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

Re: [Gendergap] press coverage of Gamergate arbcom case

[Katherine Casey]

Fae, this is really very off-topic for this thread at this point. Would
mind going off-list if you want to discuss personal history with others?

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Fæ  wrote:

> I suggest that as a supporter and administrator of a website that
> labels me as a faggot, and a participant and advocate of another
> website that has been home to trolling me with homophobic language for
> years, you avoid finding silly reasons to pick tiny holes in my text.
>
> I am in a same sex marriage recognized by UK law. Being called /a gay/
> is the least of my worries. In comparison your access to OTRS and
> personal oversighted material on Wikimedia projects worries me and
> others greatly.
>
> Fae
>
> On 26 January 2015 at 19:02, Alison Cassidy  wrote:
> >
> >> On Jan 26, 2015, at 2:43 AM, Fæ  wrote:
> >>
> >> Tarc, I felt your "lipstick on a pig" comment about a transexual was
> >> not just disgusting, but was a key example of why we needed a WM-LGBT
> >> user group to both highlight and gradually improve a hostile culture
> >> on Wikimedia projects that appeared to allow blatantly anti-LGBT
> >> attitudes and language on its projects under the guise of "being a
> >> joke" or "teasing".
> >
> > Fæ, please don't refer to someone as "a transsexual"; it's objectifying
> and demeaning. Imagine someone calling you "a gay" - doesn't that just
> sound *wrong*? Adjective, not noun.
> >
> > -- Allie
> > ___
> > Gendergap mailing list
> > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
> visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
___
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] Test Kaffeeklatsch area for women-only

[Katherine Casey]

*"Also note many women consider "cis" to be an insult that eliminates
womens experience as women, who've been identified as and identify as women
from birth, and are happy and even proud to be women."*
...wha?

On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Carol Moore dc 
wrote:

>  On 1/16/2015 2:20 PM, LB wrote:
>
> Based on a discussion at the WikiProject Women IdeaLab talk page
> ,
> I have started a test Kaffeeklatsch
>  area for
> women (cis, lesbian, transgender) only. Participation of interested women
> would be welcome.
>
>  Lightbreather
>
> Since "cis" means non-trans male or female, where's the woman only?
>
> Also note many women consider "cis" to be an insult that eliminates womens
> experience as women, who've been identified as and identify as women from
> birth, and are happy and even proud to be women.
>
> CM
>
> ___
> 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] Strong support for grants directly related to addressing the gender gap

[Katherine Casey]

This is awesome! I can't wait to see what initiatives people come up with.

On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Risker  wrote:

> (Changing the perspective on the previous thread a bit)
>
> Well, it's official - the Individual Engagement Grants (IEG) and Project &
> Event Grants (PEG) will be focused almost exclusively for a 3-month period
> on providing financial support and mentorship for requests focused
> specifically at addressing the gender gap.  The funding allocated -
> $250,000, roughly equivalent to the annual budget of many large chapters -
> is very significant and should help to promote good experimentation
> throughout this area.
>
> If you've been thinking about a project you'd like to organize that is
> specifically gender-gap related, now's the time to start drafting your
> ideas and asking for support from the broader grants and GG community.
> You'll need to describe your idea, set some targets, and collaborate with
> others as a team for the best chance of success.
>
> In particular, IEGs are intended to be experiments, and there's a
> recognition that some are going to be successful, while others (even if
> they look good on paper) are not going to produce results.  The key is
> ensuring that there is some learning derived from the experiments.  Don't
> be afraid to try something!
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> ___
> 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] GGTF talk page

[Katherine Casey]

Well, how would you limit participation to just those people? There's no
page-protection option for "check person's gender, then allow edits only if
'female'," and Wikipedia doesn't currently have any policies that would
allow, like, topic bans from a Wikiproject based on gender rather than
problematic behavior. I imagine the community would be vehemently opposed
to such things, and for good reason. Forcing people to identify to
participate, or sanctioning people when they've done nothing but been the
wrong gender, are antithetical to Wikipedia's "anyone can participate"
ethos.

If you were setting something up offwiki, not in association with
Wiki[m|p]edia, you'd be as free as anyone else to set your own criteria for
membership, but the problem then becomes a) attracting enough high-quality
participation b) without becoming a "cabal" in the style of the EEML

that got people in so much trouble a few years ago.

On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 10:59 AM, LB  wrote:

> Well, I'm brainstorming, but yes... a project that is only open to women
> or those who identify as women. And yes, that would mean identifying (via
> one's "she edits" preference - as I know of no other ways to identify,
> right?) Hypothetically, is there anything to prevent us from doing it?
>
> (I just went and re-identified as "she edits." I had turned that off for a
> while when I first started getting harassed, but WTF. I'm tired of hiding.
> I'll bet other women are tired of hiding, too.)
>
>
> Lightbreather
>
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Risker  wrote:
>
>> Could you please clarify, Lightbreather?  Do you mean a wikiproject that
>> is *only* open to women/those who identify as women?  Because all
>> wikiprojects are open to all interested editors, generally speaking.
>>
>> Would that not require editors to have to publicly self-identify?  How
>> would that be done?
>>
>> Risker/Anne
>>
>> On 31 December 2014 at 10:31, LB  wrote:
>>
>>> Is it simply impossible to start a Wikipedia project that's open to
>>> women, or people who identify as women? (I'm sorry if I don't use the
>>> correct terms, but I haven't kept up with them in recent years.)
>>>
>>> I mean if we did it... what would the consequences be?
>>>
>>>
>>> Lightbreather
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Sarah  wrote:
>>>
 On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 7:43 PM, LB  wrote:

> Why abandon it? Let's reclaim it. Just ignore those who try to
> distract and derail. There are sanctions so no nastiness, but nastiness is
> not my usual style anyway.
>

 ​I don't know whether it's better to abandon, reclaim or move it. But
 it has been a lesson in how deep Wikipedia's sexism runs. Any journalists
 in future wanting examples of it need only read those archives and the
 dispute-resolution threads that failed to deal with it (which one of us
 ought to compile at some point).

 Marie, I saw the suggestion on GGTF that women might prefer to edit
 "[f]ashion, cookery, domestic affairs, childrearing". Is it worth
 continuing with it when that's what we have to deal with?

 Sarah

 ​


> On Dec 30, 2014 10:25 AM, "Marie Earley"  wrote:
>
>> We're abandoning the GGTF on Wikipedia? Fair enough.
>>
>> It was just that I had an editor accused me of radical feminism POV
>> pushing on GGTF via my talk page (I dared to say that it was 
>> "interesting"
>> that the example topics that he thought women would be interested in
>> editing, other than feminism, might be "*fashion, cookery, domestic
>> affairs and childrearing*" rather than "*science, business,
>> filmmaking or politics*"). There was then this follow-on swipe on
>> GGTF.
>>
>> > "...one of the reasonable first steps toward seeing what women in
>> wikipedia thinks needs to be done most would be to actively ask women who
>> have self-identified as women what content of particular interest to 
>> women
>> might be underrepresented or undercovered here. Those women would
>> presumably be in a better position to clearly state their concerns than
>> would be individuals who can only speculate on them or draw potentially
>> flawed assumptions based on limited previous personal experience."
>>
>> So, my potentially flawed assumptions and limited previous personal
>> experience are surplus to requirements at the GGTF. The plan now seems to
>> go out and find answers that fit a pre-existing narrative about what is
>> causing the Gender Gap.
>>
>> So...  "I believe the Gender Gap is caused by women who want to write
>> about knitting thinking that Wikipedia does not welcome articles about
>> knitting." I will create a skewed survey to fit this narrative and get 
>> the
>> "right kind of women" to fill it in and prove my pre-conceived notions
>>>

Re: [Gendergap] Arbcom election

[Katherine Casey]

What proportion of the rest had accounts explicitly marked as male? My
first thought is that most people of all genders probably get to that
section of Preferences, go "Why would mediawiki want to know my gender in
the first place? This is dumb" and skip it. Or they never fiddle with their
preferences to that extent in the first place.

Keep in mind also that "identifies in preferences as female" is not a
unified set with "is female", as you noted. Just glancing at a couple
screens' worth of the log I see a handful of users who I know to be, or
know probably are, female. So I'm hesitant to draw any gender-proportion
conclusions from whether or not people ticked a somewhat obscure box.

This doesn't mean that female voters probably aren't very much in the
minority in the election, but given what we already know about proportion
of females on Wikipedia as a whole, that's entirely consistent with what
expectations would be.

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Fæ  wrote:

> Checking the votes at
> <
> https://vote.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?limit=1000&title=Special%3ASecurePoll%2Flist%2F392&dir=prev
> >
> against the English Wikipedia database, shows an interesting
> statistic. Of the 590 votes cast only *one* voter has an account
> marked with their gender as female.
>
> Obviously many people prefer not to use the user preferences on-wiki
> to mark their gender, however it still seems a remarkably low figure
> for a project which has a strategic objective to be welcoming to users
> who identify as women.
>
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> 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] coordination work off-wiki

[Katherine Casey]

I am really not comfortable with this list being used to host or organize
opposition research or commentary against individual editors. I understand
that people are angry about the disposition of this case (and I agree that
it was pretty craptastic), but taking it as an opportunity to delve into
and opine on the real lives of those on the "other side" is as much
personalizing the dispute as anything else that happened in this case (and
is unattractively similar to doxxing-style intimidation in my mind, even if
you don't propose to explicitly list addresses or phone numbers). Speaking
as someone who has had similar done to me because in the other person's
mind I was wrong, evil, corrupt, etc: it's not any righter when we do it
because we think "I'm good and they're bad" than when someone else does it
to us because they think they're "good" and we're "bad".

-Fluffernutter

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 3:51 PM, marinka marinkavandam.com <
mari...@marinkavandam.com> wrote:

>  I'm new to this mailing list, so I may not be doing this right. Please
> let me know if I'm not. I wish to make a response to Carol's remarks on
> anonymity.
>
> I don't propose to doxx Corbett here, but I don't think there was ever any
> problem about his identity even when he was editing under the monniker
> Malleus Fatuorum ("hammer of men" - but originally it it was Malleus
> Fatuarum, "hammer of women"). His first few edits are classical in nature
> and then there is a hiatus of several months after which he resumes again
> and commences his familiar program of edits centered around his local
> history and things Northern in the UK. Should one have wished to identify
> him then, it really shouldn't have been difficult even in those early days.
> And of course he subsequently made, earlier this year, a remark about a
> dreadful family tragedy which certainly does serve to identify him should
> anyone wish to research it.
>
> My experience of life is that sexist men are generally unaware of their
> trait, would indignantly deny it if put to them, and thus don't necessarily
> feel the need to remain anonymous.
>
> What I find interesting about Corbett is his lack of notability when you
> go searching for him. Other than a couple of Amazon reviews (which appear
> to be his based on the subjects reviewed) I can't find a single blog,
> article or any other resource authored by him with a single exception
> pertaining to a charitable fund his family and associates  appear to have
> set up (for the welfare of ferrets). Otherwise the world outside Wikipedia
> is silent on him, and he in that wider world.
>
> I confess myself quite curious about Corbett and his Manchester circle,
> and not merely within the context of Wikipedia's gender gap but within the
> broader context of exercising power, and for that reason I am  making a
> preliminary study of his editing history with a view to discovering how he
> came to achieve his position of dominance in Wikipedia. If I have anything
> significant to say about that, I shall upload it to my website and let the
> list know. I don't expect that will be before next Spring,
>
> Marinka van Dam (a pseudonym)
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Survey re: gender gap

[Katherine Casey]

I just tried to take it and it ended abruptly with "You have already taken
this survey." after about five pages (the last button I filled in was
rating something like "I avoid certain areas of the community because I
have been harassed"). Does that mean the survey was complete, or did I hit
a bug?

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Amanda Menking  wrote:

>  Hi,
>
>  I’ve just activated a survey re: the gender gap, primarily on the EN
> Wiki: https://jfe.qualtrics.com/form/SV_cILwYSqJB58SgFn
>
>  This survey is a part of ongoing research related to an IEG:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_and_Wikipedia
>
>  If you have 10-20 minutes, I would greatly appreciate your
> participation. Also, please feel free to share the link to the survey to
> editors of all sexes and genders who are not on this mailing list.
>
>  This survey is open to ALL editors who contribute to the English
> language Wikipedia. It does not require or record your user name or real
> name.
>
>  If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to email me via
> amend...@uw.edu or reach out to User:Mssemantics.
>
>  Thanks!
> Amanda Menking
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Wikipedia and the war on women’s dignity

[Katherine Casey]

I don't think it's appropriate to use this list to link to pages that out
other users. I understand your frustration with nothing onwiki getting
done, Carol, I truly do, but part of the social contract of being a
Wikipedian is that we're expected to not attack the "real lives" of other
Wikipedians - even when we think they're terrible or totally wrong.

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Carol Moore dc 
wrote:

>  Wikipedia and the war on women’s dignity
>
> http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/09/07/wikipedia-and-the-war-on-womens-dignity/
>
> This article mentions an individual who's caused problems at the Gender
> Gap task force.
>
> Off wiki sites engaging in outing is, like hashtags, a two edged sword.
> It can be used against truly problematic individuals who troll behind
> anonymity.  But it also can be used against solid editors whose job or
> other situation necessitates anonymity but who have angered the wrong troll
> by trying to comply with policy.
>
> And the absurdities continue
>
> CM
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] A cautionary tale

[Katherine Casey]

Actually, I think there's something to be said for downvoting. Not in the
reddit "i disagree" sense, but in the slashdot/ meta filter "comments
downvoted/flagged past a certain point will be hidden/deleted" sense. It
would obviously take a lot of work to make that work within the media wiki
software *and* the Wikimedia ethos, but it would probably save tons of
grief and derails if the worst of the worst comments were limited by
crowdsourced review.
On Jun 23, 2014 12:47 PM, "Daniel and Elizabeth Case" <
danc...@frontiernet.net> wrote:

> MediaWiki's mostly impersonal interaction helps a lot here.
>>
>
> No image avatars, no upvoting or downvoting of comments (something I don't
> see the utility of on either Reddit or Quora, FTM). Maybe the features are
> what we *don't* have.
>
> Daniel Case
>
> ___
> 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] A cautionary tale

[Katherine Casey]

Responding to this on my phone, so please excuse what I assume will be
wonky formatting/quoting, but:

Derric, you say you hope your email didn't come across as shouting over the
women or generalizing about them,  but to me it did (and I say this not
just to make you feel bad - I see you've already apologized in another
thread - but to make a larger point). This is something women online In
general, and women on this list especially, in my experience, face very
often: a discussion about how we feel unwelcome and talked over is
responded to by a man saying, "now, now, let's not be mean and hurt men's
feelings" or "well that's not what I intended!"or all this argument won't
fix anything!" When was the last time someone stepped into a conversation
among men and said "Oh now boys, stop being so mean" or "you're hurting my
feelings by talking about something that needs to be fixed,  I insist you
stop"? It's a condescending approach that is pretty much only deployed
against women, this sense that fighting, or even disagreeing in a way that
makes men feel like imperfect allies, is somehow unseemly and should be
stopped. And again, I don't think you intended condescension,  but the
world condescends using those same terms/arguments.

Though the words may be the same, "i stopped posting because men started
shouting over me" and "i stopped posting because women started shouting
over me" come from very different places and mean very different thing to
the people involved  in those sentences.  Similarly, to respond to
something someone else said, is NOT an equivalent experience for two women
to be "vocal" in disagreement and a man to find it unattractive/annoying
and thus tune it out,  and for women to stop speaking because they feel
that whenever they share their experiences, men jump in to say "yes but"
and derail the conversation. One results in a man rolling his eyes; the
other results in women literally feeling unsafe and unwelcome in a
discussion space.

Part of being a productive ally is a willingness to listen to and believe
experiences people tell you about, even when hearing them feels like you're
being confronted about something you didn't personally do.
On Jun 23, 2014 11:47 AM, "Derric Atzrott" 
wrote:

> Moriel,
>
>
>
> I meant no offense.  My reason for posting that email was that I was
> feeling uncomfortable with the direction that the discussion was going.  I
> intentionally left my email non-specific in an attempt to prevent offense
> to anyone.  I think you may have misunderstood me.
>
>
>
> “A lot of women used to be outspoken about all this here when this email
> list started, but that stopped after a bunch of guys joined and started
> hassling them about it.  SURPRISE!!”
>
>
>
> This comment to me comes off as exactly the opposite of the sort of thing
> that I would want to see on this list.  We are here to cooperate on
> reducing the gender-gap and this means that we should all work civilly
> together to do so.  This comment to me sounds very similar to some of the
> common things that I see men say towards or around women.  I can understand
> the frustration that might be being felt in that comment.  I would love to
> see more outspokenness myself even.  The topic of the gender gap and the
> way that women are treated online, in person, and on Wikimedia is a real
> problem that a lot of people try to push under the rug.  I think that the
> majority of the men on this list though are here because we recognise it is
> an issue and would like to do something about it.  I felt that the comment
> was worded in such a way that it alienated the people like myself who are
> completely disturbed by the gender gap problem and are trying very hard to
> try to understand and work on fixing it.  To put it another way: “but that
> stopped after a bunch of women joined and started hassling them about it.
> SURPRISE!!” wouldn’t be appropriate on-wiki, and I don’t think that this
> comment was appropriate here.
>
>
>
> “By looking at this directory, I can tell that I mostly stopped reading
> this list in January 2012, one week after a fight between two vocal women.”
>
>
>
> This comment also creates a hostile environment that I don’t think is
> conducive to unsurprisingly is not conducive to resolving the hostile
> environment problem.  This reply reminded me of how shouting matches
> begin.  The thread is not an argument about which gender on-list makes the
> place the most hostile.  This comment made me just as uncomfortable as the
> one made before it.
>
>
>
> My intention was to remind everyone that this is a list for discussion of
> the gender gap and ways to fix it.  It is not a list for shouting at each
> other, which is what I felt was about to happen.  I was trying to diffuse a
> situation that in my mind could have gotten out of hand.  It appears
> instead I just managed to bugger things up, for which I apologise.
>
>
>
> “That is *not* to say they shouldn't participate: they absolutely should.
> But

[Gendergap] New York Magazine article summaries the gender gap issue in one conversation

[Katherine Casey]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/06/love-and-drama-at-the-wikipedia-conference.html

One quote, of many possible ones:

> “We're really the typical demographic, actually,” says Alex Stinson, back
> on the leather couches.
>
> “White, male techies with college degrees,” agrees Kevin Rutherford. “Not
> you, though,” he says, squinting at a young woman who has silently joined
> the group, pale with dyed black hair and a skeptical, Daria-like
> 
> expression. “Are you a contributor?”
>
> “Yes,” she says, her eyes narrowing.
>
> “Do you have a college degree?” Kevin asks.
>
> “Yes,” she says, a bit harder.
>
> “So you're like, completely out there,” he says, flustered. “In that
> you're not like us, but you have a college degree,” he adds hastily. “I
> mean, you are like us, but you’re not.” He sputters on for a few minutes.
>

I don't suppose anyone knows who the "daria-like" female editor was? I
think we collectively owe her an apology.

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

Re: [Gendergap] interviews for Women & Wikipedia IEG

[Katherine Casey]

I've looked into this a bit. The page history is difficult to interpret,
because it now shows non-contiguous edits as contiguous (a side effect of
the attending administrator trying to delete versions that contained
copyright violations and keep ones that didn't), but the upshot is that the
content of the article that was being reverted was an extremely close
paraphrasing of a 2009 book called *The Library: An Illustrated History *by
Stuart Murray (it's available in Google Books in the US, but I can't figure
out how to link directly to it). The article did cite this work as a
source, but represented the Wikipedia text as the article author's own (it
did not enclose any of the copied text in quotations, and even if it had,
we're not permitted to wholesale-copy others' work). That's a pretty clear
violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy (<
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COPYVIO>), and it looks like people
did try to explain that on the user's talk page but it just wasn't coming
through clearly, for whatever reason. I do not think the onwiki portion of
this situation had anything to do with the gender of the contributors.

All of that, however, is quite apart from Kathleen's point about how women
can be more easily driven away by criticism and aggression. Almost all of
us made mistakes as new editors (and continue to make mistakes as old
editors!), and how those mistakes are responded to - and how we, in turn,
interpret those responses - can very easily sway whether we stay or go.

-Fluffernutter


On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Derric Atzrott  wrote:

> >One especially disturbing event was a student editing the entry on the
> >national library of Pakistan. Someone claimed she was violating
> >copyright and deleted her work. it was even deleted from the history
> >logs somehow.  I went to the library and added a number of citations
> >to strengthen the entry. These, too, were deleted claiming copyright.
> >Someone just DID NOT want that entry edited. This kind of experience
> >discourages people and in my teaching it seems to discourage women
> >more than men.
>
> Do you know what admin it was?  I'd love to hear their rationale and
> perhaps bring up some type of discussion on-wiki about them if their
> deletions were inappropriate.
>
> Thank you,
> Derric Atzrott
>
>
> ___
> 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] can the Commons images thread move?

[Katherine Casey]

Phoebe, I would really suggest reading the emails if you're interested in
the discussion (or, conversely, not asking for a summary if you're not),
but here's a quick-and-dirty condensation off the top of my head:

I started the thread to discuss how disposition of topless photo of a woman
on Commons (being used on enwp), and that woman's right to consent or not
consent to the photo being used, was being discussed entirely by men. The
conversation then veered to how sexual images on Commons are a
nearly-intractable problem and how Commons can be unwelcoming to people who
try to discuss them, then to discussion of the Board's resolution that we
must be sensitive to people's identity rights when photos are from private
places, then to how Commons does or doesn't adhere to that resolution, then
to how to *make *Commons adhere (better) to that resolution. There is no
final result; there is only a general feeling that Commons's common
practice is in dispute with how some people interpret the Board's
resolution, that other people feel Commons is already making huge
concessions to the ideas in the resolution, and that some individual images
and categories of images are rather blatant violations of Commons's and/or
the Board's policies/resolutions.

Hope this helps.

-Fluff


On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:51 AM, phoebe ayers wrote:

> Well, I haven't read ANY of the emails in the thread, for the petty reason
> that the subject line makes me cringe every time I see it. And according to
> my gmail count there's something like 100 mails on the topic, so I'm
> probably not going to start now. So if indeed there is actual progress
> being made, if someone could post a 1-para summary of the discussion and
> what the conclusions are, that would be awesome!
>
> (seriously. Refactoring is almost always a helpful exercise when it comes
> to long discussions on complicated issues -- for both the participants &
> those who haven't been following the discussion).
>
> -- phoebe
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Sexuality-related userboxen: give me your thoughts!

[Katherine Casey]

(Correction: the first "abstinence" userbox reads "This user practices
abstinence", not ""This user practices abstinence but still has a healthy
sex drive thank you very much."")


On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Katherine Casey <
fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've noticed that enwp has a *lot* of sexuality-related userboxen. Some
> of these are innocuous or positive (i.e.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UBX/LGBTsupport), some seem to be a bit
> over-share-y (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UBX/abstinence_reluctant),
> and some seem downright creepy to me (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UBX/girlfriendwish). When you put them
> together (for example, as found on the - real but anonymized - userpage
> excerpt here <http://gyazo.com/fa31a70c0b5bf29600a3058ae6dc4d6e>), you
> can very easily end up with what feels like a very, very sexualized
> userpage, which means a very, very sexualized user experience for anyone
> who visits that page. Reading the userpage that screenshot came from, for
> example, gave me the feeling that anyone female who speaks to that user is
> going to be evaluated for their sexual usefulness to the user.
>
> Userboxen can be a sensitive issue, historically speaking, and everyone
> seems to draw the line differently between appropriate ones and
> inappropriate ones. I'm interested in getting some thoughts on where the
> line is, and on whether the ones that cross the line inappropriately
> sexualize the atmosphere on the project. My personal feeling is something
> along the lines of "Speaking out about your sexual identity is good, but I
> don't want to hear about what specific sexual characteristics you have or
> want your sexual partners to have". I'd welcome the lists's thoughts on
> whether any, some, or none of the following userboxen (not an exhaustive
> list of sexuality-related ones, just some I've pulled out as good examples
> of the question) are appropriate to have hosted and used on our projects:
>
>
>- Abstinence:
>   - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UBX/abstinence ("This user
>   practices abstinence but still has a healthy sex drive thank you very
>   much.")
>   - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UBX/abstinence_sex_drive ("This
>   user practices abstinence but still has a healthy sex drive thank you 
> very
>   much.")
>   - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UBX/abstinence_not_SRT ("This
>   user practices abstinence for religious reasons, but disagrees with the
>   Silver Ring Thing.")
>   - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UBX/abstinence_unsure ("This
>   user practices abstinence but is not sure whether through shyness or
>   through moral choice.")
>   - Fetishes/philias/sexual identity:
>   - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UBX/aquaphile ("This user is an
>   aquaphile.")
>   -
>   
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dark_Tichondrias/Userboxes/User_Cross-dressing("This
>  user enjoys cross-dressing.")
>   - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ISD/Userboxes/Dominant ("This
>   user is a dominant." - also available in sub)
>   -
>   
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oxguy3/myboxes/Straight_not_narrow("This 
> user is straight, but not narrow.")
>   - 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cadwaladr/Userboxes/Pornography("This user 
> enjoys pornography.")
>   - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UBX/slut ("This user is a
>   slut.")
>   - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UBX/swinger ("This user enjoys
>   a varied sex life.")
>   - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UBX/yiff ("This user loves
>   yiff, and is probably a furry.")
>   - Preferences for sexual partners:
>   - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bluedenim/Blondes ("This user
>   considers blond hair to be attractive." - also available for brunnettes,
>   redheads)
>   - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UBX/girlfriendwish ("This user
>   wishes [they] had a girlfriend")
>   - Miscellaneous sexuality-related:
>   - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UBX/safesex ("This user
>   supports and encourages the practice of safe sex.")
>   - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UBX/sex ("This user enjoys
>   sex.")
>   - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TBM10/Uncircumcised ("This user
>   is proudly uncircumcised")
>   -
>   
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sugar_Bear/Userboxes/User_varied_sex("This 
> user enjoys a varied sex life. (Alternating between hands
>   constitutes varied, right?)")
>   - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_Single ("This user is
>   single")
>
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] Sexuality-related userboxen: give me your thoughts!

[Katherine Casey]

I've noticed that enwp has a *lot* of sexuality-related userboxen. Some of
these are innocuous or positive (i.e.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UBX/LGBTsupport), some seem to be a bit
over-share-y (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UBX/abstinence_reluctant),
and some seem downright creepy to me (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UBX/girlfriendwish). When you put them
together (for example, as found on the - real but anonymized - userpage
excerpt here ), you can
very easily end up with what feels like a very, very sexualized userpage,
which means a very, very sexualized user experience for anyone who visits
that page. Reading the userpage that screenshot came from, for example,
gave me the feeling that anyone female who speaks to that user is going to
be evaluated for their sexual usefulness to the user.

Userboxen can be a sensitive issue, historically speaking, and everyone
seems to draw the line differently between appropriate ones and
inappropriate ones. I'm interested in getting some thoughts on where the
line is, and on whether the ones that cross the line inappropriately
sexualize the atmosphere on the project. My personal feeling is something
along the lines of "Speaking out about your sexual identity is good, but I
don't want to hear about what specific sexual characteristics you have or
want your sexual partners to have". I'd welcome the lists's thoughts on
whether any, some, or none of the following userboxen (not an exhaustive
list of sexuality-related ones, just some I've pulled out as good examples
of the question) are appropriate to have hosted and used on our projects:


   - Abstinence:
  - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UBX/abstinence ("This user
  practices abstinence but still has a healthy sex drive thank you very
  much.")
  - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UBX/abstinence_sex_drive ("This
  user practices abstinence but still has a healthy sex drive
thank you very
  much.")
  - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UBX/abstinence_not_SRT ("This
  user practices abstinence for religious reasons, but disagrees with the
  Silver Ring Thing.")
  - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UBX/abstinence_unsure ("This user
  practices abstinence but is not sure whether through shyness or through
  moral choice.")
  - Fetishes/philias/sexual identity:
  - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UBX/aquaphile ("This user is an
  aquaphile.")
  -
  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dark_Tichondrias/Userboxes/User_Cross-dressing("This
user enjoys cross-dressing.")
  - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ISD/Userboxes/Dominant ("This
  user is a dominant." - also available in sub)
  - 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oxguy3/myboxes/Straight_not_narrow("This
user is straight, but not narrow.")
  - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cadwaladr/Userboxes/Pornography("This
user enjoys pornography.")
  - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UBX/slut ("This user is a slut.")
  - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UBX/swinger ("This user enjoys a
  varied sex life.")
  - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UBX/yiff ("This user loves yiff,
  and is probably a furry.")
  - Preferences for sexual partners:
  - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bluedenim/Blondes ("This user
  considers blond hair to be attractive." - also available for brunnettes,
  redheads)
  - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UBX/girlfriendwish ("This user
  wishes [they] had a girlfriend")
  - Miscellaneous sexuality-related:
  - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UBX/safesex ("This user supports
  and encourages the practice of safe sex.")
  - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UBX/sex ("This user enjoys sex.")
  - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TBM10/Uncircumcised ("This user
  is proudly uncircumcised")
  -
  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sugar_Bear/Userboxes/User_varied_sex("This
user enjoys a varied sex life. (Alternating between hands
  constitutes varied, right?)")
  - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_Single ("This user is
  single")
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] can the Commons images thread move?

[Katherine Casey]

I'm not sure I see the pressing reason why this thread needs to go on-wiki.
Commons doesn't have a venue for discussing problems this fundamental with
it as far as I know, and people have spoken in this thread who either do
not or will not participate on-wiki on Commons. Moving the thread on-wiki
would mean scattering it to some random page, losing the voices of the
people who aren't on Commons for whatever reasons, and subjecting everyone
else to the defensiveness that's the reason this thread grew traction here
instead of the dozens of times it's been brought up on various wikis.

This mailing list was never intended to be a "ooh happy!"-only venue where
we only post announcements about courses and case studies - one-liners
about positive steps are good, but so are tough discussions like this one,
 and given that this is one of the very, very few "safe" venues for that
type of discussion, I'm saddened to see people trying to shove this off the
list.

-Fluff


On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> I agree with Sarah: the thread should stay, tagged with [Commons] as Erik
> has suggested.
>
> We are actually making progress – painful progress at times, but
> significant progress nevertheless.
>
> Andreas
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Sarah  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
>>
>>> Sumana,
>>>
>>> Yes, gladly. I feel that thread has served a good purpose, but it's
>>> true, it's been at the expense of flooding the list with a lot of noise,
>>> and I've contributed some of it. I do think that after a prolonged long dip
>>> into less productive discussion, in the last exchange we have arrived at a
>>> point where there is some consensus about what the problems are and how to
>>> attack them, and hopefully we can leverage that into some policy reform
>>> that moves the project forward. But you're right, it would be better at
>>> this point to move that activity onto a wiki.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Sumana and Pete, I would object to closing any thread down. If people
>> don't want to read the thread, that's fine, but if others are discussing
>> it, please allow that.
>>
>> The presence of this kind of material on Commons is directly related to
>> the whole issue of sexism on Wikipedia and the lack of women editors, and
>> that makes it a very valid topic for the gender-gap list. I can't imagine a
>> more valid topic than women being represented sexually without their
>> consent on Wikimedia projects. If discussing it on this list brings people
>> together and edges us closer to a solution that would surely be a really
>> good outcome for the list.
>>
>> Sarah
>>
>> ___
>> 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] avoiding another categorygate

[Katherine Casey]

Allegations of prostitution are allegations of illegal activities in many
jurisdictions, which makes any unsourced edits accusing people in
those jurisdictions of prostitution potentially libelous. I'm going to look
over the category myself, but please please, anyone else who does so (or
already has...Kaldari), please report specific articles/edits that have
this issue to the oversight
team
(or
just send them to me at this email address) so we can deal with them from
that angle.

-Fluffernutter


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_**
> Feminism#Help_cleaning_up_**Category:Prostitutes
>
> Ryan Kaldari
>
> __**_
> 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 -don't give up

[Katherine Casey]

Russavia and Andreas, I want to take this opportunity to point out that the
style of argument the two of you have been engaged in since last night is
exactly what some of us mean when we refer to an "aggressive" atmosphere
that makes us uncomfortable on the projects. Turning a disagreement over
how to apply policy into "you are" this, and "two years ago you said" that,
and "your friend's boss once did" this other thing, all in an attempt to
discredit the other person, is not a constructive way to make one's own
point. It doesn't actually strengthen either side's argument; it only
escalates the entire dispute.

It is entirely possible to disagree - vehemently - without the ad hominems,
the "dirt digging" background research, and general aggressive posturing
we're seeing here. In an atmosphere where one doesn't feel one can disagree
with someone without being subjected to those things, the idea of speaking
up, or even of participating silently, becomes increasingly unattractive.

-Fluff


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:09 AM, Russavia wrote:

> Hello again Andreas
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
> > If you look at the upload stream, they come up quite regularly, including
> > images of minors, uploaded again and again under different user names,
> > according to a mail I received from Philippe a couple of months ago. I'm
> > told Flickr delete those within two hours; if true, that is significantly
> > faster than the Wikimedia response.
>
> You are wrong yet again. I am speaking from experience here, and
> "inappropriate" images have been removed within minutes of them being
> brought to our attention. Odder, a Commons oversighter also verifies
> this at
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Making_it_easier_for_problematic_files_to_be_brought_to_our_attention
> where he states:
>
> "as all reports of potentially illegal content are responded to within
> a few hours (sometimes even minutes), which is much better than the 12
> hours than Flickr takes pride in."
>
> 12 hours being the length of time it was quoted by one of your cohorts.
>
> Also, Andreas, for someone who is so interested in Commons and having
> images removed and having a streamlined reporting process, it is most
> curious as to why you haven't commented in that thread above, and
> added your support to it.
>
> Or is it easier to ignore the fact that we on Commons are being
> pro-active in issues such as this and keep peddling "OMG COMMONS IS
> BROKEN" in venues such as this.
>
> Any other reports you have to make are also best done on Commons, so
> that our admins can deal with them within our processes. I believe
> this has been told to you on numerous occasions now, amirite?
>
> Your contribs (
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jayen466)
> and deleted contribs
> (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:DeletedContributions/Jayen466)
> clearly demonstrate that it is more important for you to troll off the
> project, than it is do anything remotely useful on the project.
>
> Regards,
>
> Russavia
>
> ___
> 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 -don't give up

[Katherine Casey]

Alas no, I'm not up to your challenge. I'm subject to quite enough
aggression and strange sexualization of situations on enwp; I don't have
the energy to dive headfirst into an even worse atmosphere of those things
on Commons. I'm much more comfortable speaking here, in an environment of
respect and support, than I would ever be there, in an environment where my
right to my opinions would be challenged and I'd be shouting into a void
while thinking that at any moment someone was going to ask me to show my
"tits".

Not everyone has unlimited tolerance for doing things that make them very
uncomfortable; as someone whose tolerance for that is perhaps lower than
some other people's, my hope is that my voice here, where I *am *comfortable
speaking, will be heard - as it seems to be, given this thread and the
inroads that have been made on Commons as a result of it - and that my
speaking here it will provide support to the people who *are *willing to
brave that environment.

-Fluff


On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Russavia wrote:

> Hey Fluff,
>
> Indeed we did have a conversation on IRC the other day. You and I may not
> agree on numerous things, and in many instances we have very similar views
> (but perhaps you just aren't aware of it), but one thing we surely can
> agree on is that by only commenting on this list is not having your voice
> heard in the place where it matters -- and that is on Commons.
>
> I urged you the other day to come and join us on the project, noting that
> you don't have many contributions there (
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fluffernutter),
> and I am again urging you to come and join us.
>
> Are you up for that challenge?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Russavia
>
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Katherine Casey <
> fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Russavia, from the perspective of many people here, "blowing hot air" on
>> Commons is the least likely to bring about change of any of the options you
>> mention. I know you don't agree with that (you and I had quite a long IRC
>> conversation the other day where you made that clear), but it is the
>> genuine impression many, many of us have been left with after watching how
>> discussions tend to go there.
>>
>> -Fluff
>>
>>
>>
> ___
> 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 -don't give up

[Katherine Casey]

Russavia, from the perspective of many people here, "blowing hot air" on
Commons is the least likely to bring about change of any of the options you
mention. I know you don't agree with that (you and I had quite a long IRC
conversation the other day where you made that clear), but it is the
genuine impression many, many of us have been left with after watching how
discussions tend to go there.

-Fluff


On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Russavia wrote:

> You may argue for all of the below on the project, and involve the
> community-at-large. But you should know, that much of what you describe
> below is covered by http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Personality
> .
>
> If there are refinements that could be made, can I suggest you stop
> talking on this list (and elsewhere) and make proposals on Commons instead
> for full community input.
>
> I hate to tell you this, but blowing hot air on this list or on other
> websites will not bring about change. As I've stated, it's all about the
> venue.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Russavia
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:48 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> Here is an example of a recent deletion request that was closed as Keep.
>> (While the image is not safe for work, the following link to the deletion
>> discussion is. The deletion discussion does not show the image, only a link
>> to it.)
>>
>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Labret_phallic_coddling.jpg
>>
>> The image discussed on that page shows a young woman caressing her
>> partner's erect penis with her lips, hands and cheek. Most of her face is
>> visible. The image is tagged with a personality rights warning, saying that
>> "This work depicts one or more identifiable persons." Further photographs
>> showing the woman's full face are included in the same Flickr stream.
>>
>> The image has undergone four deletion requests over the years. All were
>> closed as Keep. The most recent one was in March of this year and reads:
>>
>> ---o0o---
>>
>>  File:Labret phallic 
>> coddling.jpg
>>
>> To quote a previous nomination: "No model age, or consent given in
>> source." This has not been addressed *at all*, as you can see above. We
>> need more information than a random CC tag before we use images like these.
>> Conti 
>> |✉
>>  19:36,
>> 11 March 2013 (UTC)
>>
>>- Photo has been publicly available on Flickr since early 2008, and
>>on Commons since late 2009, with no evidence of any "consent" problem.
>>Given that and 3 previous keep votes, [image: Symbol keep vote.svg] *
>>Keep*. -- 
>> Infrogmation
>> (talk )
>>02:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
>>
>> Also, looking at other photos in the uploader's Flickr photo stream,
>> person shown appears to be the the woman who appears in multiple photos,
>> some of which describe her as the photographer's wife. -- 
>> Infrogmation
>>  (talk )
>> 02:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Shouldn't we default to requiring consent,
>> instead of defaulting to assuming that consent was given? Especially when
>> it comes to identifiable people in sexually explicit images? 
>> --Conti
>> |✉  12:10, 12 March
>> 2013 (UTC)
>>
>> [image: Symbol keep vote.svg] *Keep*: For the first concern (model age),
>> please see {{2257 }}.
>> For the other (consent of the depicted), the flickr account identifies the
>> depicted person as the photographer's wife and contains pictures over a
>> number of years (flickr 
>> set),
>> some taken by herself. Consent is only implied here, and it is assumed, but
>> justifiably in my opinion 
>> --moogsi
>>  (blah ) 18:31, 25
>> March 2013 (UTC)
>>
>> [image: Symbol keep vote.svg] *Keep* I absolutely agree with Moogsi.
>> This deletion request should be closed. --Ladislav 
>> Faigl
>>  (talk )
>> 01:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
>> --
>>
>> Per above, subject identified as uploader's wife, available across many
>> photos. -*mattbuck * (
>> Talk ) 02:00, 1
>> April 2013 (UTC)
>>
>> ---o0o---
>>
>> The following passage from Erik Möller's recent post here on this list is
>> particularly relevant in this reg

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

[Katherine Casey]

>From a common-sense perspective, Pete, I'd say that if the image was taken
in a private place, shows an identifiable person, and that person does not
give permission for us to be using their likeness, it should be a
no-brainer that we don't have the right (ethically, at least, in light of
the board resolution) to continue using their photo in defiance of that. So
a "good outcome" to my mind would have been asking the person to verify
that they are who they say they are, and if that checks out, deleting the
image. "In scope", which is the content of the actual close there, is
pretty much a non-sequitur (and is yet another example of why Commons
adminning is sometimes viewed as completely...shall we say tone deaf?...to
actual concerns about images), as it fails to address that issue.

Or, to tl;dr it: As far as I'm concerned, if the person had an expectation
of privacy and didn't consent to public distribution of their image, it
doesn't matter whether it's their breasts or just their face that's
featured - we should not be hosting it.

-Fluff


On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Pete Forsyth wrote:

> I think it's easier to discuss the challenges associated with the board
> resolution in question, if we can leave aside the question of nudity for a
> moment. Here is a simple example of an ordinary portrait taken in a
> (presumably) private setting in a library:
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Karen_Stollznow_2.jpg
>
> The subject of the photo (as far as we know) explicitly stated she did
> *not* give consent. But the closing administrator didn't consider that
> compelling enough.
>
> What would be a good outcome in this case?
>
> And, more generally, how can resolution language be structured in a way
> that best achieves desirable outcomes, and doesn't have undesirable ones?
> That's the core question here, and the way this discussion is heading isn't
> getting us closer to an answer.
>
> Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> ___
> 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 -don't give up

[Katherine Casey]

Oh dear, I'm not sure there's enough vodka in the universe for us all to
play that drinking game, Daniel! Especially given that "closed by Mattbuck
as delete" probably ought to be a "finish your drink" qualifier...

-Fluffernutter


On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case <
danc...@frontiernet.net> wrote:

>   >It took me one minute to find the uploads of this user:
>
> >http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Austin_photoguy50
>
> >Please nominate all of them for deletion. I will be interested in
> watching how what goes.
>
> Done. With the WMF resolution linked and quoted at length.
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_Austin_photoguy50
>
> Maybe we should have a drinking game based on this:
>
> One drink:
>
> Keep !vote saying all that matters is that it’s a free image
> Keep !vote saying it’s censorship
> Delete !vote from a regular participant on this list
> User who !votes keep following up every delete vote with a comment.
> Claim that someone has the subjects’ permission on OTRS if we all just
> wait a while.
> Closed by Mattbuck as keep.
>
> Two drinks:
>
> User who !votes keep following up every delete !vote with a comment that
> actually makes a legitimate counterargument to the delete !vote.
> Keep !vote from regular participant on this list.
> Keep !vote that trashes the Foundation and/or board in the "I just like
> sticking it to the Man!” vein.
> Keep !vote arguing that society is too prudish and subjects need to get
> over that.
> Closed by another admin as keep.
>
> Three drinks:
>
> Closed by Mattbuck as delete.
>
> Daniel Case
>
>
> ___
> 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] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap

[Katherine Casey]

What you're describing sounds a lot like Citizendium, which is about as
much of a failure as it's possible to get in the crowdsourcing world. Users
who were told they couldn't contribute unless they turned over their
real-life details mostly just opted to not sign up. The ones who did sign
up found themselves mercilessly sorted by an imposed pseudo-meritocracy of
real-life credentials, and what's left now is a a handful of "editors" who
rule now-empty topic kingdoms.

As far as safety, knowing what I know about the number of violent threats
and libelous statements that are directed at Wikipedians quite regularly
(and to which, I think it could be argued, female editors can
be disproportionately subjected), I don't think there's much ground to
stand on when it comes to assuring people that somehow they'll be *more *safe
when the people who hate them have access to their real names, phone
numbers, and addresses. I mean, I see how you could come to the conclusion
that anonymity gives the trolls another weapon to use against the
non-trolls, but unless you first do something about the threats, etc,
you're going to have a hell of a time convincing anyone it's in their best
interest to give the people threatening them their name and home address.
Keeping ourselves as safe as possible is not a "game" we play for fun; it's
literally a survival strategy when you know there are people out there
trying to physically harm Wikipedians.

Rather than forcing contributors to give up their personal details in
exchange for being allowed to edit, why not focus on strengthening the
harassment policies and the WMF's relationships with law enforcement, and
maybe create relationships with some counselling services, such that anyone
who makes another editor feels threatened or harassed is no longer welcome,
and anyone who is threatened or harassed is completely supported?


On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Sylvia Ventura wrote:

> I command Sarah, Sarah, Anne and few other women and men commenting on
> this list for their tireless work trying to move the needle. I wish I had
> seen more movement/women coming forward and stepping up – but I would not
> be surprised if many of us were…. uncomfortable. I know I am.
>
> or simply burned out … which seems to be the case.
>
>
>
> I had to think long and hard about writing this. Sarah, once again is
> trying to be constructive by creating momentum and a page
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_gap/Policy_revolution to capture
> and focus conversations. I think it's a great initiative but I also think
> the problem we're dealing with is more systemic and might need
> a tougher conversation.
>
>
> How can we 'speak openly' in a forum like "Policy Revolution" when a few
> of us are playing a different game – most folks here use their real
> identities, take their contribution work at heart, we know who we are. But
> then we have the Ghosts, those hiding behind the cloak of “Privacy”
> (perverse effect of a well-meant policy I am sure) while
> trolling, harassing, messing with images/content with impunity. If we are
> serious about creating a broader more sustainable more representative
> participation to the projects the WMF folks (those with some level of
> mandate) need to seriously revise the community’s rules of engagement and
> stand behind it.
>
>
>
> A have been sitting on this note (below) for a while, I understand the
> need for privacy in the context of political/individual/speech freedom and
> to insure personal safety in some cases. This group is composed of some of
> the smartest people on the planet, we surely can come up with some
> mechanism to protect those who need protection (anonymity) while creating a
> healthy, open, constructive, environment.
>
>
>
> == NB: this was written shortly after Hersfold resignation, focuses on
> harassment but its relevant to all questionable behavior.==
>
>
> Accidental troll policy
>
>
>
> My ID was recently deleted on Meta-Wiki, the reason given was: wait for
> it… Vandalism. Little than I knew I had breached protocol – as a newbie I
> had created a page on Meta and had clearly broken the rules. Or was it,
> since then, I learned that your individual history (been banned/suspended,
> etc…) determines your capacity of progressing in the ranks of WP – so this
> might have been purely accidental or not.
>
>
>
> But back to my point, after being notified of my ban, as a good citizen
> and a steward of open-culture I felt it was my duty to get educated. I
> checked the Wikipedia’s user policy. What I found was lengthy, detailed but
> overall clear.  Except for a portion that was particularly unsettling. The
> one about “Use of Real Name and Harassment”. [[excerpt: use of real name
> may make a contributor more vulnerable to issues such as 
> harassment,
> both on and off Wikipedia]]
>
>
>
> After reading the posting about the Resignation of arbitrator 
> Hersfold

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 <http://ted.coe.wayne.edu/ele3600/mcintosh.html> 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 m

[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

Re: [Gendergap] I f***ing love science

[Katherine Casey]

Having an ungendered username gets me some interesting interactions when
people assume that because I'm not explicitly female, I must be male. Had a
fun experience on IRC last night where I asked someone to stop making jokes
about women's "boobs" because it sounded pretty creepy toward all women,
and got the reply "well, it's not like there's any women active in here,
but sure I guess [...]" When I kind of went "uh...ahem" in reply, they were
aghast that they'd been talking to a woman all this time and not realized
it.

Which sort of neatly encapsulates two sides of the problem - when people
assume the a female name is female, their actions change to suit that
(whether "suiting" it in their mind is being kinder, making boob jokes,
being more dominant, whatever). When they assume that everyone is the
"default" gender unless otherwise specified, though, or that women aren't
and couldn't be present for whatever reason, it doesn't even cross their
minds to change their actions.

-Fluffernutter

On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 5:00 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:

> That is interesting! Of course according to the latest stats, chances
> are 87% that any Wikipedian on the English Wikipedia is male (and we
> just found out this month that in the Dutch Wikipedia, 94% are male).
> It would be definitely interesting to fund some research on this
> specific issue (how people react in AfD discussions to
> girlish-named-Wikipedians based on female gender assumptions). This
> week similar research was published on the use of the Wikipedia
> "Ignore all rules" policy in AfD's:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-03-25/Recent_research
>
> 2013/3/31, Risker :
> > On 30 March 2013 22:39, Daniel and Elizabeth Case
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>  >Thank you for sharing this Jane. It's amazing that it's still such an
> >> issue but yeah, a great example of how deeply >rooted our presumptions
> >> are.
> >>
> >> This actually happened to me, in a way, with one now long-departed
> >> Wikipedia editor. Despite a female-suffixed username*, I assumed this
> >> editor was a male because she was a flagrant asshole in some AfDs in a
> >> way
> >> that (in my experience) only men ever are. I was actually stunned to
> find
> >> out she was indeed a she.
> >>
> >>  Daniel Case
> >>
> >>  *As most of us know, username-based gender assumptions cut both ways.
> >> Users Hersfold and Nancy (see the explanation on his userpage) are both
> >> men, yet regularly deal with new editors assuming based on their names
> >> that
> >> they’re female. And I know they’re not the only ones.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > Hersfold and Nancy aren't the only ones.  I've almost come to assume that
> > if a username "sounds" feminine, it's probably attached to a man. Almost
> > every editor I know whose username ends in an "a"  is male.  And many
> > female editors have "male" sounding usernames.
> >
> > If Wikipedia has taught me one thing, it is never to assume anything
> about
> > the identity of the person on the other side of a username: not age, not
> > gender, not orientation, not geographical location, or a million other
> > things that we tend to use to categorize people.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
>
> ___
> 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] Please remember your words here are publicly viewable

[Katherine Casey]

Hi all,

I'm not a listmod, so this is no sort of an official communication, but I
want to remind everyone that this is a publicly-archived mailing list under
the umbrella of the WMF. This means that what you say here can, and
probably will, be seen by people not involved in the list, including other
Wikipedians, news organizations, and probably sometimes the people who are
being discussed here. Think before you hit "send" whether what you've said
is something that's appropriate to be saying in the manner you are, or in
any manner at all offwiki. This is a hugely supportive mailing list, and
that's awesome, but it's not the place to badmouth others or recruit
friends to help in a dispute.

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

Re: [Gendergap] My second Wikipedia article: Sarah Stierch

[Katherine Casey]

While I mostly agree with your take about the judgment being shown around
this article, Risker, it bears noting that Sarah seems more than happy to
have the article - indeed, she's contributing sources to it to make sure it
stays kept.

-Fluff

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Risker  wrote:

> I find my thoughts about this heading in so many different directions, I'm
> not really sure where to start.
>
> Of all the people on Wikipedia, I would have thought that people on this
> list would be intensely aware of the hazards of having a biographical
> article about oneself on Wikipedia, particularly one that will likely be
> little-watched, and for whom huge numbers of editors will have significant
> conflicts of interest in editing. This is particularly true of articles
> about women, it seems, and especially women of borderline notability. This
> is a target painted on Sarah's back.  She may not realise it yet, but
> having spent a good chunk of the last several years dealing with "vandals
> and trolls", she's a really juicy target.
>
> Indeed, one could easily say that the creator of this article had a
> significant conflict of interest in writing an article about someone who is
> an advisor to the author's non-profit, AND who has made significant edits
> to the author's article. Imagine if Jimmy Wales went around writing
> biographical articles about the WMF Board's advisory council members - we
> all know what digestive products would hit the oscillating ventilator. (Of
> course, the major variable is the quality of writing - I am happy to grant
> that it's well written.) Conflict of interest is already a very major
> battleground on the project, although we've not really discussed it much on
> this list.
>
> I'm sorry but I think this was a bad idea. It seriously increases the risk
> that other wikimedians will find themselves with an unwanted biography that
> will be pretty well impossible to remove from the project.  That might be
> fine for some, but it's a significant concern for a lot of others, and I
> know of several wikimedians who are similarly borderline notable but who go
> out of their way to avoid media or turn down speaking engagements because
> they do not want a Wikipedia article about them.  I'm afraid this low bar
> to notability is so unhealthy that it's had an effect on our own
> community.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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