Re: [Gendergap] coordination work off-wikie

[Kathleen McCook]

This is just opinion. Thank you for ending the conversation.

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Risker  wrote:

> Well, hold on.  The content dispute that is being described is one that
> rages within the feminist community (note the lack of gender there - it
> encompasses people of all genders), and is not a male vs female thing.
> Often as not, it is women disagreeing on the definitions amongst
> themselves.  The same is true of many topics of interest to women:
> abortion, marriage, gender identity, etc.  Let's not simply dump all of
> these in the "men vs women" drawer, please.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 30 November 2014 at 08:12, Kathleen McCook  wrote:
>
>> Yes, one can see easily how they move from topic to topic. Connected and
>> ensuring their POV dominates.
>>
>> The issue of feminism should not be defined by men whose motivation seems
>> to be to create an environment where  women are "free" to be what they (the
>> men discussed here ) imagine to us to be.
>>
>> I believe that Marie's statements about keeping these issues off one's
>> main course are the result of continuous attacks.
>>
>> Wikipedia needs a TAKE BACK THE NIGHT movement. In my days on campus
>> women attacked were  told they shouldn't be out at night.So marches began
>> to TAKE BACK THE NIGHT.
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 2:16 AM, JJ Marr  wrote:
>>
>>> To quote you in the context of your dispute over a video, you say "I
>>> dispute that it "makes little sense" and why does it even need to add
>>> informational value? Why can't it just be to add aesthetics to the article
>>> as pictures and videos often are?” I ask why don't you take that dispute up
>>> with the editor in question?
>>>
>>> Also, you need to be more clear in what you are saying. I have no
>>> context to this message, and I think it is a complaint about a content
>>> dispute.
>>>
>>> Please explain why this is relevant to the gender gap, since you are
>>> sending it out to everyone on the gender gap mailing list, and secondly,
>>> why a minor content dispute on enwiki is relevant to the  Wikimedia gender
>>> gap community as a whole.
>>> On Nov 30, 2014 1:47 AM, "Marie Earley"  wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Not sure if this will produce a new thread or attach to the existing
>>>> one (I've checked my spam folder, there's nothing there) but anyway
>>>>
>>>> Tim: I just wondered whether you regard this:
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force#Moving_forward
>>>>
>>>> ...as a lack of civility or a gender gap issue?
>>>>
>>>> In particular this comment:
>>>> "...As has been indicated on the talk page of the proposed decision,
>>>> *repeatedly,* there is some question as to exactly *which* women this
>>>> group seems to be reaching out toward, specifically, whether it is more or
>>>> less of a more or less radical feminist perspective"
>>>>
>>>> I thought it summed up in a nutshell what the GGTF was really up
>>>> against. It's a kind of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
>>>> * Are you now or have you ever been a feminist who believes that sex
>>>> work is the opposite of feminism?
>>>> Anyone who answers yes that question is judged to be a "radical", a
>>>> subversive who wants to push POV and therefore they are fair game.
>>>>
>>>> On WP's list of feminists there were a very odd mish-mash of categories
>>>> of feminist
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=544136790
>>>> and lots of names missing e.g. Gail Dines. I did a major rewrite to
>>>> organize it chronologically and it meant that "anti-pornography feminists",
>>>> "anti-prostitution feminists" and "socialist feminists" could go onto the
>>>> list
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=545667727
>>>>
>>>> The list has recently been changed to this:
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feminists and I'm working with a
>>>> couple of editors to see how we can improve it further.
>>>>
>>>> I've largely avoided trouble by sticking to admin based work such as
>>>> this, and similar work:
>>&

[Gendergap] coordination work off-wiki

[Kathleen McCook]

The only solution would be lack of anonymity. That won't fly, but it would
cause the creepiness to go away.

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:42 AM, JJ Marr  wrote:

> What do you propose a "take back the night" would be like?
> On Nov 30, 2014 8:12 AM, "Kathleen McCook"  wrote:
>
>> Yes, one can see easily how they move from topic to topic. Connected and
>> ensuring their POV dominates.
>>
>> The issue of feminism should not be defined by men whose motivation seems
>> to be to create an environment where  women are "free" to be what they (the
>> men discussed here ) imagine to us to be.
>>
>> I believe that Marie's statements about keeping these issues off one's
>> main course are the result of continuous attacks.
>>
>> Wikipedia needs a TAKE BACK THE NIGHT movement. In my days on campus
>> women attacked were  told they shouldn't be out at night.So marches began
>> to TAKE BACK THE NIGHT.
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 2:16 AM, JJ Marr  wrote:
>>
>>> To quote you in the context of your dispute over a video, you say "I
>>> dispute that it "makes little sense" and why does it even need to add
>>> informational value? Why can't it just be to add aesthetics to the article
>>> as pictures and videos often are?” I ask why don't you take that dispute up
>>> with the editor in question?
>>>
>>> Also, you need to be more clear in what you are saying. I have no
>>> context to this message, and I think it is a complaint about a content
>>> dispute.
>>>
>>> Please explain why this is relevant to the gender gap, since you are
>>> sending it out to everyone on the gender gap mailing list, and secondly,
>>> why a minor content dispute on enwiki is relevant to the  Wikimedia gender
>>> gap community as a whole.
>>> On Nov 30, 2014 1:47 AM, "Marie Earley"  wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Not sure if this will produce a new thread or attach to the existing
>>>> one (I've checked my spam folder, there's nothing there) but anyway
>>>>
>>>> Tim: I just wondered whether you regard this:
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force#Moving_forward
>>>>
>>>> ...as a lack of civility or a gender gap issue?
>>>>
>>>> In particular this comment:
>>>> "...As has been indicated on the talk page of the proposed decision,
>>>> *repeatedly,* there is some question as to exactly *which* women this
>>>> group seems to be reaching out toward, specifically, whether it is more or
>>>> less of a more or less radical feminist perspective"
>>>>
>>>> I thought it summed up in a nutshell what the GGTF was really up
>>>> against. It's a kind of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
>>>> * Are you now or have you ever been a feminist who believes that sex
>>>> work is the opposite of feminism?
>>>> Anyone who answers yes that question is judged to be a "radical", a
>>>> subversive who wants to push POV and therefore they are fair game.
>>>>
>>>> On WP's list of feminists there were a very odd mish-mash of categories
>>>> of feminist
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=544136790
>>>> and lots of names missing e.g. Gail Dines. I did a major rewrite to
>>>> organize it chronologically and it meant that "anti-pornography feminists",
>>>> "anti-prostitution feminists" and "socialist feminists" could go onto the
>>>> list
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=545667727
>>>>
>>>> The list has recently been changed to this:
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feminists and I'm working with a
>>>> couple of editors to see how we can improve it further.
>>>>
>>>> I've largely avoided trouble by sticking to admin based work such as
>>>> this, and similar work:
>>>> Cleaning up bibliographies, e.g. Joseph Schumpeter, from this:
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=633566034#Major_works
>>>> to this:
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=634343909#Major_works
>>>>
>>>> Creating an article for the International Association for Femin

[Gendergap] coordination work off-wikie

[Kathleen McCook]

Yes, one can see easily how they move from topic to topic. Connected and
ensuring their POV dominates.

The issue of feminism should not be defined by men whose motivation seems
to be to create an environment where  women are "free" to be what they (the
men discussed here ) imagine to us to be.

I believe that Marie's statements about keeping these issues off one's main
course are the result of continuous attacks.

Wikipedia needs a TAKE BACK THE NIGHT movement. In my days on campus women
attacked were  told they shouldn't be out at night.So marches began to TAKE
BACK THE NIGHT.

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 2:16 AM, JJ Marr  wrote:

> To quote you in the context of your dispute over a video, you say "I
> dispute that it "makes little sense" and why does it even need to add
> informational value? Why can't it just be to add aesthetics to the article
> as pictures and videos often are?” I ask why don't you take that dispute up
> with the editor in question?
>
> Also, you need to be more clear in what you are saying. I have no context
> to this message, and I think it is a complaint about a content dispute.
>
> Please explain why this is relevant to the gender gap, since you are
> sending it out to everyone on the gender gap mailing list, and secondly,
> why a minor content dispute on enwiki is relevant to the  Wikimedia gender
> gap community as a whole.
> On Nov 30, 2014 1:47 AM, "Marie Earley"  wrote:
>
>>  Not sure if this will produce a new thread or attach to the existing
>> one (I've checked my spam folder, there's nothing there) but anyway
>>
>> Tim: I just wondered whether you regard this:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force#Moving_forward
>>
>> ...as a lack of civility or a gender gap issue?
>>
>> In particular this comment:
>> "...As has been indicated on the talk page of the proposed decision,
>> *repeatedly,* there is some question as to exactly *which* women this
>> group seems to be reaching out toward, specifically, whether it is more or
>> less of a more or less radical feminist perspective"
>>
>> I thought it summed up in a nutshell what the GGTF was really up against.
>> It's a kind of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
>> * Are you now or have you ever been a feminist who believes that sex work
>> is the opposite of feminism?
>> Anyone who answers yes that question is judged to be a "radical", a
>> subversive who wants to push POV and therefore they are fair game.
>>
>> On WP's list of feminists there were a very odd mish-mash of categories
>> of feminist
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=544136790
>> and lots of names missing e.g. Gail Dines. I did a major rewrite to
>> organize it chronologically and it meant that "anti-pornography feminists",
>> "anti-prostitution feminists" and "socialist feminists" could go onto the
>> list
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feminists&oldid=545667727
>>
>> The list has recently been changed to this:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feminists and I'm working with a
>> couple of editors to see how we can improve it further.
>>
>> I've largely avoided trouble by sticking to admin based work such as
>> this, and similar work:
>> Cleaning up bibliographies, e.g. Joseph Schumpeter, from this:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=633566034#Major_works
>> to this:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeter&oldid=634343909#Major_works
>>
>> Creating an article for the International Association for Feminist
>> Economics
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_for_Feminist_Economics
>>  and improving the article for the Human Development and Capability
>> Association
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_and_Capability_Association
>> then creating biographies for past presidents of IAFFE and fellows of the
>> HDCA.
>> Adding DOBs to notable scholars and then adding them to Wiki's calendar
>> (births).
>>
>> These organisations / individuals argues against sex work on the grounds
>> of the perception of women that is generated (i.e. as a thing / object).
>> The problem with the MRA, pro-porn, pro-sex work POV is they have no
>> problem with anti-porn etc. POV provided it is in a box labelled "mad" or
>> "religious" with a sub-text that the only people that could possibly
>> support that POV are from the moral right and are probably racist and
>> homophobic as well. The other problem that the MRA have is that, human
>> development and capability, which includes feminist economics / inequality
>> / care work etc. collectively constitutes a 'single broad topic'
>> (WP:SPATG), so they are unable to stop editors, who wish to edit in this
>> area, from doing so. The natural place for this work is within the Gender
>> Studies project. Which is why they write nonsense like this:
>> http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/fighting-wikipedia-corr

[Gendergap] x% female, y% male. ???

[Kathleen McCook]

At the end of this discussion is the query:

​
> we still do not seem to have the gender split from the 2012 editor survey.
> We have had excuses, promises and silences from the Foundation on this, but
> no data.
>
> What was the gender split in the 2012 survey? Donor money paid for this
> survey. Why is the information still not available, over two years after
> the survey ran?
>
>

Are there any results at all? Is a copy of the survey available?

--Thank you, Kathleen McCook



On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:07 PM, George Herbert 
wrote:

>
> On the plus side, discretionary sanctions...
>
> George William Herbert
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 26, 2014, at 7:36 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Carol Moore dc 
> wrote:
>
>>  But thank you for the good comments below mine, but must reply to your
>> introductory remarks...
>>
>> On 11/26/2014 9:43 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>>
>>  ...
>> That's a slightly simplistic summary, eliding the fact that Eric C. is
>> also very often non-toxic, and has a long history of collaborating in a
>> very professional and respectful manner with many diverse women editors to
>> bring a large number of articles to good or featured status.
>>
>> **He still disrupted the GGTF with his friends in order to stop it having
>> an influencing in increasing civility or harassment enforcement.
>>
>
>
> That's why I agree with Newyorkbrad that he should be topic-banned from
> the GGTF pages. But really, if you want to have a meaningful discussion of
> this, on-wiki is not the right place, as it is with so many of these
> issues. The signal-to-noise ratio is appalling, and the end result is a
> waste of time.
>
>
>
>>   A good number of those women spoke up for him on the Proposed Decision
>> talk page. And even more women took issue with the way the gender gap is
>> often framed here.
>>
>> *Women editors will have different views, but if the main reason they
>> come is to support one or more males who call women cunts,
>>
>
>
> He didn't. I won't get into that whole long discussion here; all I had to
> say about this is on the proposed decision talk page, and anyone who is
> interested can read it up there.
>
>
>
>> sorry if they don't have much credibility.
>>
>
>
>> By here you mean this email list or GGTF?  If you study the GGTF timeline
>> and archives you'll see that some of the most rediculous proposals were
>> made by males and rejected, but thrown up as "typical" of what GGTF wanted;
>> there were three editors there just to harass two women editors; the
>> opponents kept knocking the project and everything said by good faith
>> participants to the point supporters either stopped commenting or got angry
>> and told them to quit it - over and over again.
>>
>
>
> I meant both here and at the GGTF. If you have a number of very capable
> women contributors – people who actually have contributed significant
> amounts of quality content – saying that they can't identify with the way
> the issue is being framed by the Foundation and those spearheading the
> gender gap effort, then not listening and entering a dialogue with those
> people is a missed opportunity.
>
>
>
>>Note also that when Eric spoke of alienating male contributors, this
>> was in the specific context of affirmative actions (which even those
>> proposing them warned carried a risk of provoking a backlash). Two
>> arbitrators had the decency to oppose that finding of fact based on the
>> omission of that context.
>>
>> *Yeah, a male came up with a proposal that two males had to OK and revert
>> of an (alleged) female editor. That didn't fly, but we kept hearing about
>> it and had to thrash the arbitrators with diffs til they realized it was a
>> strawman pushed by Corbett and crew.  You didn't get the memo?
>>
>> But the good news is if Corbett does it again, he's in trouble.  I have
>> predicted from the start I (and later Neotarf) would be the sacrificial
>> lambs offered up to keep Corbett's supporters from going crazy if even the
>> mildest of sanctions was imposed.  (I've heard that ast time Corbett got a
>> strong sanction several high profile admins quit, started petitions, all
>> sorts of shenanigans to disrupt the project.) I still think that is so and
>> told them so
>>
>
>
> I am a supporter of both Eric and you, inasmuch as you're both spirited
> people and I didn't wish to see either of you site-banned.
>
> The whole thing i

Re: [Gendergap] Encouraging in the paper!! :)

[Kathleen McCook]

I am going to share this with many women students. It gives courage. And it
is correct in the minimal way many women who are included may be covered.
Many can be upgraded.

Thank you for this.

--Kathleen

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Roberta Wedge <
roberta.we...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:

> What a lovely article, really well contextualised. Congrats to interviewer
> and interviewee.
> Are there any British (or UK-based) women on this list who'd like to talk
> to the press? WMUK can help put you in touch. Just let me know.
> Roberta
>
> 
> *Roberta Wedge*
> *Gender Gap Project, **Wikimedia UK*
> roberta.we...@wikimedia.org.uk
> 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
> +44 (0)20 7065 0921
>
> Wikimedia UK is the British chapter of a global movement. We support, but
> do not control, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and
> other related Wikimedia projects.
> Wikimedia UK is both a limited company (Registered No. 6741827) and a
> charity (Registered No.1144513).
>
> Visit wikimedia.org.uk  and @wikimediauk
>
> On 29 October 2014 22:55, Sarah Stierch  wrote:
>
>> The super awesome WikiWoman Christine Meyer is!
>>
>> This is a most excellent article - thank you Christine for your ongoing
>> work!
>>
>> http://www.inlander.com/spokane/writing-her-place/Content?oid=2372780
>>
>> Sarah
>>
>> --
>>
>> Sarah Stierch
>>
>> -
>>
>> Diverse and engaging consulting for your organization.
>>
>> www.sarahstierch.com
>>
>> ___
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Shining light on the gender gap by Twitter

[Kathleen McCook]

The *#WhyIStayed hashtag shows also applies to this discussion. *

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Gender Gap  wrote:

> Hey, I've been following this list for a while. I'm pretty sick of the
> constant sexism on Wikipedia, and depressed because it's not just a few
> users, but seen in the opinions and suggestions of so many. I've started a
> twitter account (https://twitter.com/SaidOnWP) to give some examples of
> what I think the most egregious things said are. This will probably upset
> some users, especially users that meant well, but many things that are said
> that are "well-meaning" have some offensive underlying ideas.
>
> I want to show the mass of evidence that sexism exists on WP in a venue
> where it doesn't have to be interrupted by users demanding proof. I know
> that this is more confrontational than some users will want, but I'm sick
> of the anti-interventionalist sentiment from different quarters in WP, with
> the attitude "oh! well it's up to what the community wants...!" This is a
> problem with the community and I hope to shed some light on it.
>
> I'm going to be posting things every day and have enough content planned
> for about a month, repost, send me examples or follow my twitter. I'm only
> posting content from this year, and include analyses, discussions,
> commentary and incidents.
>
> #saidonWP
>
> ___
> 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] Male, and geeky

[Kathleen McCook]

BBC article, Wiki wars: Do Wikipedia's internal tiffs deter newcomers?


http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28426674
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Tweet on Paula England

[Kathleen McCook]

I'll suggest that to him.


On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Sarah Stierch 
wrote:

> There is a place for requesting (I can't post it right now) but it will
> take less time for someone here or via Twitter to make a stub with multiple
> reliable sources of course.
>
> But seriously - the requested article pages on Wikipedia are not a hot
> spot for article creation...
>
> Sarah
> On Aug 2, 2014 1:20 PM, "Kathleen McCook"  wrote:
>
>> I saw this tweet Philip Cohen. from
>> https://twitter.com/familyunequal/status/495662217149546496
>>
>>
>>
>> ​Attention, gender sociologists: Paula England has no Wikipedia page.
>> Someone should make one before she becomes president of @ASAnews
>> <https://twitter.com/ASAnews>.​
>>
>> 
>> What do we do when someone thinks someone should have a page? Is there a
>> place he can request?
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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

[Gendergap] Tweet on Paula England

[Kathleen McCook]

I saw this tweet Philip Cohen. from
https://twitter.com/familyunequal/status/495662217149546496



​Attention, gender sociologists: Paula England has no Wikipedia page.
Someone should make one before she becomes president of @ASAnews
.​


What do we do when someone thinks someone should have a page? Is there a
place he can request?
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] Re Government-Funded Study: Why Is Wikipedia Sexist?

[Kathleen McCook]

It is my perspective that working through the processes on Wikipedia are
too democratic for most academics. It is easier to get a  grant and become
the defacto expert  than to be part of the conversation. What I went
through last week trying to get support for the South African novel,
October, by Zoe Wicomb is a lot more than most professors could bear.

But it seems to me that the group process, while more inclusive, can be
obscured when experts study us. I have found this to happen to many grass
roots efforts when studied. (labor union actions, migrant worker
initiartves, etc.)

--Kathleen


Kathleen de la Peña McCook
Distinguished University Professor of Librarianship
USF/SI: http://si.usf.edu/faculty/kmccook/
Academia.edu: https://usf.academia.edu/KathleendelaPe%C3%B1aMcCook
Library Thing:: http://www.librarything.com/catalog/klmccook/allcollections




Zandt argues that Wikipedia is biased because the majority of its editors
are “young, white, child-free men.”

“There’s nothing inherently wrong with a young, white, child-free man’s
perspective, of course—it’s just that there are tons of other perspectives
in the world that should influence how a story gets told,” Zandt wrote

in
an editorial for *Forbes* last year, entitled, “Yes, Wikipedia Is
Sexist—That’s Why It Needs You.”


On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Sarah Stierch 
wrote:

> This is amazing.
>
> That's a lot of money.
>
> Sarah
> On Aug 1, 2014 6:04 AM, "Carol Moore dc"  wrote:
>
>>
>> http://freebeacon.com/issues/government-funded-study-why-is-wikipedia-sexist/
>> Government-Funded Study: Why Is Wikipedia Sexist?
>> $202,000 to address ‘gender bias’ in world’s biggest online encyclopedia
>> BY: Elizabeth Harrington
>>
>> Coincidentally(?) even as we're trying to get the Task Force more
>> together, there have been raging discussions on WP:ANI and Jimmy Wales talk
>> page about this issue.  Someone posted this article link on the talk page.
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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

[Gendergap] c*nt talk

[Kathleen McCook]

These words do cause concern..this is an interesting essay on Bill Maher's
use of the word...and the author ends by stating:
Someone as clever as Maher, who writes and talks for a living, also
probably has other words in his vocabulary that he could use, if he needs
to express his contempt for Sarah Palin—words that aren't inherently
misogynistic, words that don't demean other women in the process of
discussing a particular woman.

I challenge him to use those words, and prove to us he's actually as smart
a guy as he thinks he is.

[more here]
Last week, I mentioned
 that
Bill Maher had called Sarah Palin a "dumb twat" on his show. On the next
episode, he called

Palin
and Rep. Michele Bachmann "bimbos." Then, Sunday night, during a comedy
show in Dallas, he reportedly

called
Sarah Palin a "cunt," because "there's just no other word for her."
​
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/542786/unacceptable%3A_sexist_bill_maher_calls_sarah_palin_the_c-word
​


On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Michael J. Lowrey 
wrote:

> My British contacts insist that the term "cunt" as an insult is not
> sexist in usage or intent. Vulgar, but not sexist.
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 4:02 PM, LB  wrote:
> > One of my hurdles as an editor is incivility: a deficiency of it in
> others
> > and, according to some of them, too much of it in me - or too much
> > sensitivity. I started a discussion "Where and how to request a Civility
> > board"
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Where_and_how_to_request_a_Civility_board
> > and there seems to be some strong resistance to the idea.
> >
> > Disappointingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, the third person to reply
> > dragged gender into it, with this comment:
> >
> > "Besides, the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act
> > like one."
> >
> > I would surely like some feedback - here and there - about this.
> >
> > Lightbreather
> >
> > ___
> > Gendergap mailing list
> > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey
>
> "When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food
> and clothes."
>  --  Desiderius Erasmus
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Novel by Woman-Notability

[Kathleen McCook]

She's an African woman. She's won Yale's big prize. She is  notable except
this guy thought she wasn't.The I LOVE THIS book site mean to show she also
had a general appeal.
I see how they expect so much more to justify notability for a woman of
color than a male author of potboilers.
It's discouraging and the gender list even more so.
Thanks for your input. I just don't think the wikipeople feel women count.
They have to show so much more than the men.
Thank you for taking the time.

-K


On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Jodi Schneider 
wrote:

> Hi Kathleen,
>
> I suppose you are writing about this revision (or thereabouts):
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=October_(novel)&direction=next&oldid=617753940
>
> A notability tag is not a "Scarlet A": it is merely a sign that the
> notability of the topic hasn't been sufficiently asserted.
>
> The best way to avoid it?
>
> Choose multiple, clear, independent sources.
> Check the subject-specific notability guidelines. For books, for instance:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(books)
>
> Given a revision with two sources, one from a little-known site called "we
> love this book", it's unsurprising! Remember that editors come from all
> backgrounds and we don't all know as much as/the same things as you!
>
> I've thought a lot about notability, as a researcher, so if you want to
> talk more about it, let me know!
>
> -Jodi
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Kathleen McCook 
> wrote:
>
>> The reason I asked to discuss here is to ascertain whether or not there
>> seems to be a different set of notability standards by gender.
>>
>> I encourage students to contribute to Wikipedia.
>> But when notability is an editor's decision with so many exceptions...how
>> do you encourage?
>>
>> Really, I am careful and if a book by a brilliant woman like Zoe Wicomb
>> causes notability queries..how, on earth, can this gender gap be addressed?
>>
>> Here is Ms. Wicomb's prize announcement at Yale.
>> http://windhamcampbell.org/2013/winner/zo%C3%AB-wicomb
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Pete Forsyth 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case <
>>> danc...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On what basis in Clive Cussler notable?
>>>>>
>>>> That he’s a regular denizen of the bestseller lists in many countries
>>>> who’s had works adapted into major motion pictures (To be honest, I think
>>>> we should say that “all published works by authors who have their
>>>> paperbacks displayed prominently in the racks near the front of bookstores
>>>> at airports are notable [image: Smile]“).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, I don't know. I had never heard of Cussler before today (don't
>>> spend a lot of time in airport bookshops), but I did look at a couple of
>>> his novels' Wikipedia articles, and they didn't indicate significance any
>>> better than the October article. (One of them had a single, ephemeral
>>> reference; the other had 7 that seemed pretty thin.)
>>>
>>> I can see how Kathleen would be frustrated by what surely appears from
>>> her perspective to be a double standard.
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> ___
> 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] Cussler comparison

[Kathleen McCook]

My intention was to point out that a series of novels (Cussler's) that
don't meet the criteria applied to __October__ have full pages. The two
authors are in no way similar. In fact, they are as far apart as they could
be. However, the male author has complete coverage of every jot and tittle.




On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Risker  wrote:

> I believe what caused the more in-depth examination was the creation of a
> brand new, otherwise unlinked category for the book, which drew the
> attention of a very different group of editors than the ones who pay
> attention to works of fiction.  You've got the category-interested editors
> looking at the article, instead of the fiction-interested editors.
>
> It's just a notability tag, it's already been removed, and I'm sure folks
> will be able to find some more reviews about October (novel).
>
> I don't think it has anything at all to do with the fact that the author
> is a woman.  As best I can tell, the only person comparing this novel to
> Cussler books is you.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
>
> On 22 July 2014 13:39, Kathleen McCook  wrote:
>
>> The reason I asked to discuss here is to ascertain whether or not there
>> seems to be a different set of notability standards by gender.
>>
>> I encourage students to contribute to Wikipedia.
>> But when notability is an editor's decision with so many exceptions...how
>> do you encourage?
>>
>> Really, I am careful and if a book by a brilliant woman like Zoe Wicomb
>> causes notability queries..how, on earth, can this gender gap be addressed?
>>
>> Here is Ms. Wicomb's prize announcement at Yale.
>> http://windhamcampbell.org/2013/winner/zo%C3%AB-wicomb
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Pete Forsyth 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case <
>>> danc...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On what basis in Clive Cussler notable?
>>>>>
>>>> That he’s a regular denizen of the bestseller lists in many countries
>>>> who’s had works adapted into major motion pictures (To be honest, I think
>>>> we should say that “all published works by authors who have their
>>>> paperbacks displayed prominently in the racks near the front of bookstores
>>>> at airports are notable [image: Smile]“).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, I don't know. I had never heard of Cussler before today (don't
>>> spend a lot of time in airport bookshops), but I did look at a couple of
>>> his novels' Wikipedia articles, and they didn't indicate significance any
>>> better than the October article. (One of them had a single, ephemeral
>>> reference; the other had 7 that seemed pretty thin.)
>>>
>>> I can see how Kathleen would be frustrated by what surely appears from
>>> her perspective to be a double standard.
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> ___
> 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] Novel by Woman-Notability

[Kathleen McCook]

The reason I asked to discuss here is to ascertain whether or not there
seems to be a different set of notability standards by gender.

I encourage students to contribute to Wikipedia.
But when notability is an editor's decision with so many exceptions...how
do you encourage?

Really, I am careful and if a book by a brilliant woman like Zoe Wicomb
causes notability queries..how, on earth, can this gender gap be addressed?

Here is Ms. Wicomb's prize announcement at Yale.
http://windhamcampbell.org/2013/winner/zo%C3%AB-wicomb





On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case <
> danc...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> On what basis in Clive Cussler notable?
>>>
>> That he’s a regular denizen of the bestseller lists in many countries
>> who’s had works adapted into major motion pictures (To be honest, I think
>> we should say that “all published works by authors who have their
>> paperbacks displayed prominently in the racks near the front of bookstores
>> at airports are notable [image: Smile]“).
>>
>
> Well, I don't know. I had never heard of Cussler before today (don't spend
> a lot of time in airport bookshops), but I did look at a couple of his
> novels' Wikipedia articles, and they didn't indicate significance any
> better than the October article. (One of them had a single, ephemeral
> reference; the other had 7 that seemed pretty thin.)
>
> I can see how Kathleen would be frustrated by what surely appears from her
> perspective to be a double standard.
>
> 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

[Gendergap] Zoë Wicomb or Clive Cussler?

[Kathleen McCook]

Thank you. But I do not believe these Guidelines are used fairly when it
comes to author's gender. Again..why would every novel by Clive Cussler get
its own page but there be a notability query about one by  Zoë Wicomb??

This seems to me pure gender bias.




On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Nathan  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Kathleen McCook 
> wrote:
>
>> I took off the scheduled for deletion notice or maybe it was lack of
>> notability he put up. I couldn't bear. I am fearful he will put it back.
>>
>> This is the issue--how can a male editor decide a woman's novel is not
>> notable. on what basis? On what basis in Clive Cussler notable?
>>
>>>
>>>
>
> Hi Kathleen, in answer to your question, the notability guideline is the
> basis by which both male and female editors should assess articles. You can
> find it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
>
>>
>
> ___
> 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] Novel by Woman-Deletion

[Kathleen McCook]

I took off the scheduled for deletion notice or maybe it was lack of
notability he put up. I couldn't bear. I am fearful he will put it back.

This is the issue--how can a male editor decide a woman's novel is not
notable. on what basis? On what basis in Clive Cussler notable?


On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Nathan  wrote:

> Hi Kathleen,
>
> The only thing that I can see that is being considered for deletion is the
> Category:Novels set in Namaqualand (which currently contains only the
> article for [[October (novel)]]. The article about the novel itself does
> not seem to be in danger of deletion. How can we help?
>
> ~Nathan
>
> ___
> 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] Novel by Woman-Deletion

[Kathleen McCook]

All, I started a page about Zoe Wicomb's new novel, October. It is a
beautiful novel and had great literary merit.

I received a message is it being considered for deletion. I wrote the
editor and gave him reasons not to delete and added another review.

The author has won the inaugural Windham-Campbell Prize. She South African,
from Namaqualand. (The editor also wants to delete Fiction from
Namaqualand, but it is a region w/o boundaries like the Arctic).

Every Clive Cussler Dirk Pitt adventure novel has its own page.

I am at a loss.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Addressing incivility (was: men on lists)

[Kathleen McCook]

I have a class of many women who  have an optional editing
assignment,. Many try to edit but leave out of concern about bullying
by (probably) male editors. You are right that they are lost before
they get here. My attrition rate is 70%. I do not want women to go
where they do not feel safe.

I do not see any problem in identification. It would help a great deal
to diminish the  aggression.

Kathleen McCook

On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 7:12 PM, Kerry Raymond  wrote:
> Being relatively new to this list, I dip my toe into what seems to be a
> somewhat fraught mailing list with some trepidation. (Read: please don’t
> bite this newbie).
>
>
>
> I think we need to understand where the problems lie and therefore what
> problem(s) we are seeking to solve. If I understand it correctly, we are
> looking at the low proportion of female editors. Presumably we need to
> understand what is happening to women in different phases of the lifecycle,
> noting that not all of these phases may occur for any individual woman
>
>
>
> Initial recruitment – women clicking “edit” for the first time – what
> does/doesn’t motivate?
> Newbie phase as anonymous editor (may or may not occur)
> Newbie phase as registered user
> Active editor
> Active editor self-identifying as female (can take many forms)
> Editor taking wiki-stress break
> Blocked editor
> etc
>
>
>
> I note that a major difficulty in working at the earlier stages of the
> lifecycle is that we simply do not know whether the editor is male or female
> until there is some self-identification. Other than the choice of a
> obviously-gendered user name, we often have no way of guessing the sex of
> the user until they are experienced enough (e.g. know about User page, etc)
> *and* choose to self-identity in some form.
>
>
>
> A second and not-entirely-dependent but not-entirely-independent set of
> issues relates to “gender” of articles. There is data to suggest that
> certain topics are more of interest to women and therefore less
> well-developed on WP because of there being fewer women editors. Therefore,
> there is the possibility of slicing the problem on another axis in relation
> to:
>
>
>
> Ungendered article, by which I mean there is nothing ”gendered” about the
> subject matter nor any reason to think it is more likely to interest editors
> of either sex
> Gendered-topic article, by which I mean the subject matter has “gender” but
> this doesn’t necessarily alter relative editor interest
> Gender-attracting topics, which disproportionately attract editors of one
> sex
> Gender-controversial topics, which I draw out because this seems to be a
> particular battleground, by which I mean articles about feminism, women’s
> rights, abortion, etc and other issues which are real-world controversial
> topics that have definite gender issues and create major POV issues.
> etc
>
>
>
> I note that a machine-analysis of the edits of self-identified male/female
> editors we can identify those articles/categories which appear to be neutral
> or biased in terms of editor interest. Machine-analysis can also show us
> which articles/categories have high levels of activity (in particular high
> levels of reverts and low levels of text survival and probably high levels
> of Talk page activity and User Talk page of editors involved) that suggest
> they are “controversial” (although “breaking news” can manifest similar
> activity patterns without being controversial in the real world) and how
> self-identifying editors fare during these processes (simply, do female
> editors exhibit different patterns of behaviour to male editors?).
>
>
>
> And there are probably other criteria by which we can slice this issue up. I
> think we have to recognise this is not just “one problem” requiring “one
> solution”. But rather that there are potentially many scenarios where we may
> have a problem and, if we do have that problem, we need a solution
> appropriate to that lifecycle phase and that kind of article. Or to put it
> another way, there is a world of difference between the anonymous female
> editor who attempts her first edit on a living person biography, has it
> reverted because there is no citation, and can’t understand why her edit
> disappeared (noting she probably doesn’t even know that she can view the
> edit summary that may explain why, assuming she can figure out what the
> cryptic letters WP:BLP means if she did) and the experienced female editor
> harassed on a talk page in a “sexualised” picture-of-the-day dispute. Both
> situations could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back and both women
> might never edit again, but clearly the problem is different and the
> solution has to be too.
>
>
>
> Solutions like

[Gendergap] men on lists

[Kathleen McCook]

There is a tendency of men to disregard women's discussion of issues
that affect them so, yes, men on a  list like this can undermine its
purpose.

--Kathleen

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Risker  wrote:
> I'm sorry Derric, but I think the topic of this thread is the notion that
> many men, including those in administrator roles (e.g. list moderators)
> simply don't even recognize misogyny, and don't recognize the importance of
> providing systems by which women (and others, for that matter) can easily
> limit the ability of people who have caused them problems from continuing to
> communicate with them.
>
> The focus on technology here is very important.  Right now, there is no way
> for Wikimedians to control from whom they receive "email this user" emails,
> or pings through the notification system. We know that both have been, and
> continue to be, vectors for harassment and trolling.  There's never, to my
> knowledge, been any consideration given to including these features.  We
> keep being told we're going to get this wonderful new communication system
> called "Flow"  to replace talk pages.  Features that allow users to control
> who posts to their "page", or even to let non-admin users remove individual
> threads or posts from their "stream", aren't included - and I'm not sure
> they're even under consideration.
>
> And I'm going to be honest - I've seen more people blocked for "homophobic"
> comments than "misogynistic" ones.
>
> Nemo, your "Hm, we've discussed that author before... oh well." is really
> unhelpful and dismissive - and is pretty much exactly the kind of statement
> that Violet Blue is talking about in her article.  It comes across as "She
> wrote something I didn't agree with in the past, so there's no reason to
> ever pay attention to her again". I am really hoping you didn't intend that.
>
> And Carol has a point.  There are now more men posting to this thread than
> there are women.  And most of you have missed the point entirely.  Heaven
> help us from those who see themselves as our saviours.
>
> Risker
>
>
> On 23 June 2014 09:57, Derric Atzrott  wrote:
>>
>> >> Carol Moore dc, 23/06/2014 06:34:
>> >> 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!!
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>> > Nemo
>>
>> Nemo and Carol both, I really don't like the direction that this
>> discussion is
>> going.  Can we please steer it back on topic and remember why we are all
>> here?
>>
>> From the Mailing list signup page:
>> "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation
>> of
>> women within Wikimedia projects.
>>
>> Wikimedia Foundation surveys show that the participation of women in
>> Wikipedia
>> and related projects are between 9 and 13 percent. This mailing list is
>> provided by the Wikimedia Foundation as a communication tool to
>> collectively
>> address the realities of the gender gap within our projects. We are
>> focused
>> on discussing solutions and exploring opportunities that may serve as a
>> starting point to improve gender equity, increase the participation of
>> women
>> and trans women, and reduce the impact of the gender gap within Wikipedia,
>> Wikimedia Commons, and the 'free knowledge movement'. We want to encourage
>> you
>> to engage with others in this effort. Your thoughts and opinions in this
>> regard matter to us and to the community."
>>
>> 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
>

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

Re: [Gendergap] Karen DeCrow has died

[Kathleen McCook]

Thank you for the suggestions. I will work on these.
I could not find anything freely available. Maybe the Women's hall of
Fame might help.

On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
> Hi Kathleen,
>
> Sad news.
>
> In a case like this, there are three possibilities for adding a photo on
> English Wikipedia:
>
> Find a suitably licensed (or public domain) photo. I have done a quick
> search on Google and Flickr, which both offer (hooray!) an easy way to
> search for freely licensed material (in their "search tools" and "advanced
> search" menus, respectively.) Unfortunately, nothing useful seems to come
> up.
> Find a photo that is not suitably licensed, and request of the copyright
> holder that they release it under a suitable free license. This is something
> many of us have done, and there are some sample emails online (and in many
> of our "sent messages" folders) that could be used as a template. If you
> have a photo in mind and want to reach out, let me know if you want some
> help writing the note. (It's important to cover a number of details, but
> also do it in a friendly and approachable way...it can be a tricky balance.)
> Once someone is deceased, on the English language Wikipedia (unlike most
> Wikipedias), it is possible to include a low-resolution photo, even if it's
> covered by copyright, with a "non-free use rationale." If it's impossible to
> get a free photo, this may be the best approach. But I bet #2 could work
> with enough diligence.
>
> Do you have a specific photo in mind? What kind of help would be most
> useful?
> Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Kathleen McCook  wrote:
>>
>> Karen DeCrow has died. I was sad to see how minimal her Wikipedia
>> entry was given how much she has done. I have added an info box.
>>
>> I am having trouble adding a picture. Can anyone help? There does not
>> seem to be one in WikiCommons.
>>
>> If any entry shows what a gender gap there is...Karen DeCrow shows it.
>>
>> Kmccook
>>
>> ___
>> 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

[Gendergap] Karen DeCrow has died

[Kathleen McCook]

Karen DeCrow has died. I was sad to see how minimal her Wikipedia
entry was given how much she has done. I have added an info box.

I am having trouble adding a picture. Can anyone help? There does not
seem to be one in WikiCommons.

If any entry shows what a gender gap there is...Karen DeCrow shows it.

Kmccook

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

Re: [Gendergap] interviews for Women & Wikipedia IEG

[Kathleen McCook]

Here is one piece of information that a different stduent added that
went missing from the logs:

The National Library of Pakistan is establishing regional offices in
four provincial capitals. Clauses to include electronic publications,
as deposit material, are also being added to the Copyright  Law.
Muhammad Waris, Bhatti. 2014. "National Library of Pakistan as Legal
Depository." Pakistan Library & Information Science Journal 45, no. 1:
18-23.


I have jsut added it again.

Let's see if it sticks. Any additions made from sources after 2010
were stricken AND disappeared from the history and logs.

I did not keep a record

On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Katherine Casey
 wrote:
> 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
> (), 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
>

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

[Gendergap] interviews for Women & Wikipedia IEG

[Kathleen McCook]

I teach librarianship and have a course," Knowledge Management and
Wikipedia."  Most of my students are women. We discuss the Gendergap
and some students have made this a focus.

However, in reviewing the class results I found that men in the class
were more active than women. Several of the men did 3x the work
requested and were quite vocal about their enthusiasm--far more than
the women tho the students did the same assignments...and I certainly
made every effort to treat them equitably.


The only difference I could find was that the treatment by editors was
received with more angst by women than men. The women expressed
discouragement. The men expressed belligerence. I do think that a lot
of the drop off of women is hasty deletion.

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.

--Kathleen

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Amanda Menking  wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I recently received a Wikimedia Individual Engagement Grant (IEG) to
> continue research re: the gender gap. As a part of the IEG, I’ll be
> attending Wikimania in London this August, and I’d love to start scheduling
> interviews to take place during Wikimania.
>
> You can review my IEG proposal here, and you can take a look at my project
> plan for the work I’ve been doing since January (16 interviews completed
> thus far; thanks to all who have helped) here.
>
> My primary goal is to interview en.wikipedia editors who self-identify as
> women, but I’d also love to talk to editors who edit other languages and who
> do not self-identify as women. Please note: I want to collect a diverse
> range of stories and voices, so please consider!
>
> You can reach me via amend...@uw.edu or via Mssemantics on en.wikipedia and
> meta. I haven’t booked my travel arrangements yet, so my schedule for
> interviews is pretty flexible.
>
> Best,
> Amanda/Mssemantics
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Topless image retention -don't give up

[Kathleen McCook]

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

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

it is a long slow fight.

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

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

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

Re: [Gendergap] inspired me

[Kathleen McCook]

Thank you. I had someone help me this morning. The covers were made
available under creative commons when we first used them--we the
editorial board who put together each issue.
This somehow  reminds me, when  people give people overly complicated.
directions when they don't really want them to find where they want to go.
A common enough practice. Then you figure it wasn't worth the trip.Glad to
know there are helpful people.Appreciate it.

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Ryan Vesey  wrote:

> Hi Kathleen,
> I'm sorry you've had so much difficult uploading this journal cover.
> There's a couple options we can take to make this easier.  First, to upload
> the cover of the journal on commons, you'll need to make sure that the
> designer of the cover not only permits you to upload it, but also permits
> it to be released under a valid creative commons license.  That would mean
> that anybody could use that image, even for commercial purposes.  If that
> permission is granted, you can upload the image and have a completed
> version of this 
> form<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries>sent
>  to
> permissions-comm...@wikimedia.org  You can leave a note at my Wikipedia
> talk page here <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ryan_Vesey> and I
> can help you tie up any loose ends.  A more detailed description can be
> seen on this 
> page<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials>.
> Another option, if the journal has a website, would be to have a disclaimer
> on the website stating that the cover is released under a valid license.
> If the copyright owner is unwilling to release the cover under such an open
> license, or wants to release the image to "Wikipedia only" it can be
> uploaded locally to English Wikipedia with this 
> link<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard>under a fair 
> use claim.
> Here <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Acr_cover.jpg> is an example of a
> journal using a fair use claim.
> I hope this helps,
> Ryan Vesey
>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Kathleen McCook wrote:
>
>> I have read this list with great care. I am a senior faculty member in
>> what used to be a library school but is now an iSchool. Most of our new
>> hires have been men who try very hard to pretend that the librarian legacy
>> is disappearing. In my classes (one is the History of Libraries) my
>> students are 60% female. All of my assignments are to edit and contribute
>> to Wikipedia from the scholarship students uncover in archives and local
>> histories. 35 years ago I chaired the American Library Association
>> Committee on the Status of Women in Librarianship--baffled that a field of
>> women was dominated by men. It was a long effort to isolate factors that
>> resulted in status differential but the factors were 1)publishing;
>> 2) professional involvement; 3) willingness to relocate.
>>
>> So, the issue of women's opportunity for full participation continues. I
>> will do my best to encourage women to be involved in Wikipedia and thus
>> help to broaden the perspective. Reading this list has been very
>> inspirational. In the past ten years my efforts to edit in Wikipedia were
>> very discouraging in spite of a doctoral degree in my subject field. I know
>> there were many nameless boys delighting in destruction. I have completely
>> given up trying to post images as the image watchers delight in making this
>> near to impossible even if one is trying to upload one's own pictures. The
>> cover of a journal I edit, that is in the commons that I had full editorial
>> board approval to upload has never been allowed. But a boy in pajamas beat
>> me every time
>> .
>> This group has shown that that is so and must be fought--before I
>> encountered this group I was more and more discouraged. Don't back down.
>>
>> Kathleen de la Peña McCook, Librarian
>>
>> 
>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:47 AM, Sarah Stierch 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Don't we know by now not to read the comment sections?  ;)
>>>
>>> I gave that up a while ago. If I read the comment sections I would have
>>> quit my fellowship months ago and given up the fight.
>>>
>>> -Sarah
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Jan 25, 2013, at 12:32 AM, Ole Palnatoke Andersen 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I thought of sharing the article, but then I read the comment. :-(
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> Ole
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 

[Gendergap] inspired me

[Kathleen McCook]

I have read this list with great care. I am a senior faculty member in what
used to be a library school but is now an iSchool. Most of our new hires
have been men who try very hard to pretend that the librarian legacy is
disappearing. In my classes (one is the History of Libraries) my students
are 60% female. All of my assignments are to edit and contribute
to Wikipedia from the scholarship students uncover in archives and local
histories. 35 years ago I chaired the American Library Association
Committee on the Status of Women in Librarianship--baffled that a field of
women was dominated by men. It was a long effort to isolate factors that
resulted in status differential but the factors were 1)publishing;
2) professional involvement; 3) willingness to relocate.

So, the issue of women's opportunity for full participation continues. I
will do my best to encourage women to be involved in Wikipedia and thus
help to broaden the perspective. Reading this list has been very
inspirational. In the past ten years my efforts to edit in Wikipedia were
very discouraging in spite of a doctoral degree in my subject field. I know
there were many nameless boys delighting in destruction. I have completely
given up trying to post images as the image watchers delight in making this
near to impossible even if one is trying to upload one's own pictures. The
cover of a journal I edit, that is in the commons that I had full editorial
board approval to upload has never been allowed. But a boy in pajamas beat
me every time
.
This group has shown that that is so and must be fought--before I
encountered this group I was more and more discouraged. Don't back down.

Kathleen de la Peña McCook, Librarian


On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:47 AM, Sarah Stierch wrote:

> Don't we know by now not to read the comment sections?  ;)
>
> I gave that up a while ago. If I read the comment sections I would have
> quit my fellowship months ago and given up the fight.
>
> -Sarah
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 25, 2013, at 12:32 AM, Ole Palnatoke Andersen 
> wrote:
>
> I thought of sharing the article, but then I read the comment. :-(
>
> regards,
> Ole
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
>
>>  Myself and Joseph Reagle were interviewed by the Daily Dot about the
>> gender gap.
>>
>> You can read it here:
>> http://www.dailydot.com/society/wikipedia-gender-gap-sarah-stierch/
>>
>> Probably one of my favorite articles thus far about the gender gap.
>> Beware, dorky photograph of yours truly at the top, so if you haven't had
>> your coffee this morning it'll surely startle you. ;)
>>
>> -Sarah
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Sarah Stierch*
>> *Museumist and open culture advocate*
>> >>Visit sarahstierch.com <<
>>
>> ___
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> http://palnatoke.org * @palnatoke * +4522934588
>
> ___
> 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