Re: [Gendergap] Joseph Reagle on Wikipedia's category taxonomy
Interesting commentary as far as it went. I wish he'd delved a little further into what he was saying. Perception is important. I think people can act in good faith (for instance to reduce the size of a massive category) without realizing the effect of how the result looks. It may not be meant in a sexist way, but if the effect is ghettoization, it looks sexist, and that does matter. There is the real need though to find women novelists, male nurses, etc. for studies. Apparently German WP has a system whereby one can query category intersections that are defined by the end user. ?This souns like a plausible solution, but I haven't used it myself (and do't speak German). Just thinking out loud here... Lady On 4/29/13, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote: Sparked by the recent...situation.. http://reagle.org/joseph/pelican/social/wikipedia-and-gendered-categories.html Sar -- *Sarah Stierch* */Museumist and open culture advocate/* Visit sarahstierch.com http://sarahstierch.com ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Joseph Reagle on Wikipedia's category taxonomy
Thanks for your reply, Joseph - fair enough! :) I agree with you - I think there have been some major lapses of assumption of good faith from both (all?) sides. (Ouch looking back at my post, I'm wishing I could hit edit. The edit summary would be something along the lines of typo fixing.) On 4/29/13, Joseph Reagle joseph.2...@reagle.org wrote: On 04/29/2013 10:03 PM, Lady of Shalott wrote: Interesting commentary as far as it went. I wish he'd delved a little further into what he was saying. ... Just thinking out loud here... I'm actually on this list :) and was just thinking out loud as well to see if I could understand the incident since I was seeing pretty strong claims (both Wikipedia is sexist and this is journalism run amok.) For instance, people continue to report that Filipacchi is a reporter for NYT when these were op-eds. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Article for deletion Fanny Imlay
I have to say that I think a topic such as Imlay, with literally centuries of scholarship is not really comparable to the recentism that is an article on a Twitter account, whether Bieber's or Gaga's. LadyofShalott/ Aleta Turner On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com wrote: Been there. Done that. It isn't only women's topics. Because Justin Bieber is unpopular and actively disliked by some people, (Though I guess you could argue this example relates to a topic of interest to many young girls) there was an attempt to merge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber_on_Twitter in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber , with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Justin_Bieber#Merger_proposal making it clear the reason is I don't like this. The article had about 100 sources around the time the article was nominated for merge. Lady Gaga, the most followed person on Twitter and woo hoo female to boot! has had other people ask why the article isn't deleted. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lady_Gaga_on_Twitter#Request_for_deletion:_Is_this_page_really_relevant.3F. I have another topic I wrote on where the regional women's stuff should be generic to all women playing the sport or to the region. If neither article currently exist, [[WP:SOFIXIT]] by creating the new and relevant articles. Information is power and what is on Wikipedia has the potential to shape greater understanding around issues. Thus, a battle for what should and should not be there. Wow, YMMV, but I think it's really odd to have whole long articles devoted to a Twitter account. What is and isn't broken out from main topic articles is often controversial, whether criticism sections or detailed information on specifically consequential periods, but an article on a Twitter account is an outlier in my reading experience. One of the arguments on the talk page for Fanny Imlay was that the sources cited included information about her only incidentally in the course of covering other people, as opposed to being primarily about her (presumably with the exception of the biography). I don't know enough about the subject or the sources to know if this is the case, but it's an argument that might apply to Justin Bieber on Twitter. The articles discussing his Twitter usage are really about Justin Bieber and his behavior, not his Twitter account. See for example[1], a short mention in Ashton Kutcher's bio about his Twitter use. Kutcher is also among the most prominent users of that service in its history, but there is no article devoted to it. Rather than seeing the merge proposal as an example of I don't like it, I think the fact that it failed demonstrates the power of a gigantic fanbase to distort normal practice on a wiki. ~Nathan [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashton_Kutcher#Twitter_presence ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- Sometimes a tree is actually a deer with twelve horns, standing on a hillock that houses a bird's nest. from _The Night Life of Trees_, by Bhajju Shyam, Durga Bai, and Ram Singh Urveti, Tara Publishing, 2006 ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] civility/behavioral standards
I have to agree with Risker here. Laura, it sounds as if perhaps you want a woman-only space, but this is list for discussion by all, of any gender, who are interested in the issues. That doesn't mean we need to dump on men, any more than they should dump on women. LadyofShalott/Aleta On 5/6/12, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Laura, I'm the one who's called you out here. I don't think it is any more tolerable for sexism to be directed toward men as when it is directed toward women, and I am reasonably certain that is the case with many (present and former) subscribers to this list. There are two active moderators for this list, one male and one female. When one moderator has attacks directed at her, it is up to the other moderator to address them. List moderation is list moderation, and it doesn't have a gender. If anything, I would prefer that this list be *more heavily* moderated than other WMF lists. In particular, I do not want to see people denigrated for coming up with ideas and brainstorming on this list, which I believe is where this post about moderation has come from. It's not acceptable, regardless of whether it comes from a woman or a man. Risker/Anne On 6 May 2012 18:37, Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com wrote: Thanks. It really makes me as a women expressing concerns about feeling unsafe and unable to talk about issues in terms men on the list feel unimportant and resolved because a man has said they do not care who moderates. Clearly the fact that a man has stepped up to enforce civility on women and other men do not care about the moderator's gender means my concerns are over blown. Thank you. As a woman interested in the gendergap, as one who feels like her voice is silenced by men, I am ecstatic that you have spoken up on my behalf. I will now go silently sit in my corner, because my voice and the voices of other women are clearly being tended to by men. On Monday, May 7, 2012, Ryan Kaldari wrote: I don't care who is moderating, but it would be nice to have more civility on this list. When I resigned as moderator, I invited several people to take my place (all women). They all declined citing the contentious nature of the list, except for SlimVirgin. SlimVirgin, unfortunately, was not able to moderate for very long due to health issues. That leaves us with Sue, SarahS, and Kevin. Sue is far too busy to actually moderate the list and SarahS often has a COI in moderating since she is frequently the target of attacks. So that leaves Kevin. Now that SlimVirgin has rejoined the list, perhaps she would be interested in helping to moderate again? Ryan Kaldari ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] the state of civility on en.wiki
While I understand the frustrations in this thread, it does us no good to resort to incivil behavior here, even regarding a person who is [most likely] not part of this list. I respectfully ask that we refrain from comments like By god, I hate that man. Thank you, LadyofShalott P.S. I realize this is somewhat belated relative to the particular post I am referencing, but I felt it needed to be said. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Am I crazy?
Well, it's not rectified yet. The one source I've given thus far is not enough apparently. I have to add more. The see also was not merely questioned before, it was removed (with one edit summary being seriously, wtf?) LoS On 10/24/11, Daniel and Elizabeth Case danc...@frontiernet.net wrote: It seems this has been rectified the way it should be, IMO: a separate section about date rape has been added to the article, with a short, reliably sourced graf. This is perfectly in keeping with WP:SEEALSO's dictum that such links are fine in a less-developed article as long as the intention is to eventually incorporate them into the article (in fact, I would amend that passage slightly to suggest that it's even better to start such a section yourself or at least bring it up on the talk page in conjunction with such an addition). 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
