Re: [Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal

[Nathan]

I believe because the ArbCom case regards the 'Gender Gap Task Force'

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 7:24 PM, JJ Marr  wrote:

> How does this relate to the gender gap on Wikimedia again?
>
> On 15 Jul 2017 6:00 PM, "Neotarf"  wrote:
>
> Just to follow up, the WMF has now responded.  I appreciate them taking
> time to review these concerns.
>
>
> >>>your best course of action is to discuss the PII situation with WMF
> Legal.
>
> Been and done, also involvement from C-levels, although that was some time
> ago
>
>
> >>>a few other remedies which could come into play, but they would almost
> certainly take longer and be more politically problematic than a minimal
> intervention
>
> If this is necessary, we should not shrink from it.  If this can happen to
> me, it can happen to anyone -- your students, your employees, or someone
> like Bassel Khartabil. The arbitrators should not be using dox as a tool to
> silence voices for diversity or as an arbitration outcome.
>
> The foundation lost social capital during the media viewer/visual
> editor/flow controversies, because the community went to a great deal of
> effort to document the problems with those products, and was not listened
> to.  But that was a long time ago, and the community has now lost the high
> ground, largely because of the gender issue. 640 people voted in the 2014
> arbcom election, but after this GGTF case, 2674 people voted in the 2015
> election. Is there any doubt that the arbcom is out of touch with the
> community, and that the community process is failing?  The arbitration
> committee was not established by the community, it was established by Jimmy
> Wales. Is there any doubt the foundation has the capability and the
> resources to step in and protect the long term interests of the movement if
> the arbcom and the community process can not?
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately I don't think there is much more I can do here. Based on
>> what you wrote, I think that your best course of action is to discuss the
>> PII situation with WMF Legal. There are a few other remedies which could
>> come into play, but they would almost certainly take longer and be more
>> politically problematic than a minimal intervention in which WMF Legal
>> clarifies to the Ombuds and Arbcom what is required under WMF's
>> interpretation of its privacy policy.
>>
>> Pine
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Neotarf  wrote:
>>
>>> The privacy policy as written certainly leads users to expect their PII
>>> is safe. There is nothing I can find in the written policy that would back
>>> the idea that the ombuds should refuse to remove PII if they think it might
>>> have been posted in good faith. If it could be used to identify someone, it
>>> should just be removed. That's just basic safety.  Maybe they are not
>>> allowed to go against arbitrators  I also don't understand why arbitrators
>>> would insist on posting PII over and over. We have seen too much what that
>>> can lead to. In all fairness, the gamergate sub-reddit was very
>>> professional and removed the dox within an hour of my request.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>>>
 Hmm. I'd like to take a closer look at this, but unfortunately I'm
 already backlogged with other projects. I wish I knew what to suggest here.
 If you have already been to the Ombudsman Commission and you disagree with
 their interpretation of WMF policies, then you might try to contact WMF
 Legal, although I don't know to what extent they will want to involve
 themselves.

 For what it's worth, if I had my way the OC would (1) have
 significantly more independence from the WMF Board and staff and (2) be
 issuing monthly or quarterly reports about its activities, but
 realistically the current setup is likely to continue for the foreseeable
 future.

 Pine


 ___
 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] Craigslist founder donates $500K to curb Wikipedia trolls - Email filters?

[Nathan]

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 4:44 PM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Christophe, Carol and Fae's notes have set me thinking as to what we could
> do with these funds,
>
> One of the areas that I understand has been a problem is email harassment,
> particularly of women and I believe particularly from throwaway accounts.
>
> I was wondering what people on this list would think of some possible
> changes we could make to the "email this user" system.
>
> The first would be to allow editors to set their email to only receive
> from confirmed or even extended confirmed accounts. This would be invisible
> to new editors, they'd just not see the *email this user *option for
> people they weren't entitled to email.
>
> The second would be an opt in Email moderation service. Similarly to only
> receiving email from confirmed or extended confirmed accounts, this would
> enable editors to opt all or parts of their email via the "email this user"
> function into a moderated stream. Much as with moderated posts to lists
> like this, a list admin would see the email and either approve it or take
> other action. You'd presumably need to having something on the send email
> screen to say that "this editor has opted into email moderation and your
> email will be delayed slightly before being screened and forwarded" You'd
> also need a group of volunteers to do the moderation, spot abusive emails
> and block abusers.
>
> The third would be an AI driven filter that people could opt into and
> which would screen emails going through this system and put high risk ones
> into a moderation queue.
>
> What do people think, if this existed would it help, would anyone have
> used any of it?
>
> WSC
>
>
>
Why not go a step further, and allow people to specifically permit which
users can contact them by e-mail? Anyone else can contact them on their
talkpage, the preferred method of communication in any case.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Marfan syndrome image

[Nathan]

The image was removed by Doc James with the edit summary "Prior person had
a lot more than marfans"
___
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] Defining harassment: the first empirical investigation into the nature of creepiness

[Nathan]

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Neotarf  wrote:

> I'm not quite sure how to answer JJ Marr and Nathan, but if you watched
> the Berkman panel I posted about earlier [1], the conclusion of the WMF
> harassment survey is that the effect of harassment on women in Wikipedia,
> is that they leave.
>
> And not to beat around the bush, for those who are not going to read the
> piece, the "certain topic" is sex, sex, and sex:
>
> "...behaviors that were seen as being sexual or having a sexual edge to
> them were far more likely to be creepy than more innocuous ones. Women,
> especially, noted that behaviors like unwanted sexual advances, constantly
> turning the conversation towards sex, requests for photos, dates and
> invading their personal space were signs that a person was creepy."
>
> So this goes back to defining harassment.  How do you tell the difference
> between someone who genuinely does not want to appear creepy, as in the
> hotel example, and someone who is deliberately skirting the boundaries, in
> order to harass people while flying under the radar.
>
> There is a long history of defining harassment and "hostile work
> environment" in employment situations.  For in-person interactions, there
> is a whole set of non-verbal signals that tell you when to back slowly
> away, the "odd smile" for example.  But obviously in online communications,
> you are not going to be able to see how someone smiles.  Harassment on the
> internet is something new, the old HR harassment definitions can't just be
> copy-pasted.
>
> And how far can you go in telling someone they have to adjust to something
> that creeps them out?  On enwiki, we have seen women advised to "keep a low
> profile" if they don't want to be photoshopped onto porn.  So the
> "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is now "the encyclopedia that anyone
> can edit as long as they don't mind potential employers finding
> non-consensual pornographic images of them on the internet".
> Paradoxically, the WMF has gone the opposite direction from arbcom,
> particularly in their recent safe space event policy, although the means of
> enforcement are not very evident.
>
>
Interestingly the WMF harassment survey didn't specifically call out sexual
harassment as a type. Male and female respondents reported roughly similar
levels of harassment experienced, although those who responded as "other
gender" experienced significantly higher rates. Of the examples of
harassment given, many (when they occur on-wiki) are of the "block on
sight" type - assuming they are reported. Many were also not overtly sexual
in nature, although some call out gender in a way that might not qualify as
sexual harassment per se (one example is "Die CIS Scum!").  If harassment
is indeed a significant factor in the gender gap - and I don't think that
has been established - its not clear what strategies could result in real
progress in preventing harassment or ameliorating its effects.
___
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] Defining harassment: the first empirical investigation into the nature of creepiness

[Nathan]

It boils down to "people with aberrant behavior or bearing produce anxiety
in women." This is drawn from a Facebook survey. It's interesting, even if
the "study" doesn't really produce any more knowledge than most other
Facebook surveys.

The link to the problem of addressing Wikipedia's gendergap seems tenuous;
are you suggesting that Wikipedia editors display aberrant behavior which
prospective female editors find creepy, making it less likely that they
will contribute?

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Neotarf  wrote:

> A study published in the journal New Ideas in Psychology, unfortunately
> behind a paywall, reviewed by Dr. NerdLove. [1]
>
> Some highlights:
>
> *"*So we’re not allowed to give women compliments?  – *No, telling a
> woman how sexy she is isn’t a compliment, especially when you don’t have
> that level of intimacy with her."
>
> *"One of the keys to what made someone creepy was the potential for
> ambiguity. The study’s authors suggest that because one’s creep-radar is
> keyed towards finding potential threats, the ambiguousness of somebody’s
> behavior could make people uncomfortable. After all, if you’re continually
> wondering if this person actually poses a threat to you, you’re left in a
> state of anxious paralysis; you’re continually on edge trying to determine
> just what the appropriate reaction to the situation is. Guessing wrong can
> have consequences, after all; misjudge a potential threat and now you’ve
> made yourself vulnerable to someone who means you harm."
>
> *"One of the most common ways guys are creepy is by ignoring issues of
> boundaries and demonstrating that they have more information about somebody
> than they should." Example from Instagram: He: "So I take it you're staying
> at the Excalibur?" She: "Excuse me, do you not seriously realize how
> f*cking creepy it is for a stranger to message a woman out of the blue
> insinuating he knows where she is?"
>
> *From the comments: "Someone who comes close to that line and manages not
> to cross it obviously knows where it is."
>
> [1] http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2016/05/the-science-of-being-creepy/
>
> ___
> 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] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)

[Nathan]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Risker  wrote:

>
>> If exactly the same article had been written by someone who has a long
> and colourful history of behaviour considered to be very uncivil, nobody
> would be thinking it was an okay article.  It's only okay because Keilana
> wrote it, it wouldn't be okay if someone with a history of alleged misogyny
> wrote it *using exactly the same words*. I doubt very much that the
> Signpost would have published it had it been written by any number of other
> people - in fact, I'm doubtful it would have been published if written by
> any male editor, though Rob could tell us otherwise - but even if they did
> publish it, the reaction would have been infinitely more severe if not for
> the name of the author.
>
> Risker/Anne
>


I think that is purely speculation. You may be right, but it seems like the
opposite could just as easily be true - that because it was written by a
woman, many people felt much more comfortable ignoring the substance of
what she wrote and attacking the attitude and tone she used to write it.

In any case, it seems like it has long been settled that the general use of
profanity on Wikipedia is accepted but not celebrated. Only in extreme
cases is it considered actionable when *actually directed at an individual*.
So it's hard to understand why many editors of long-tenure have reacted in
such a strongly negative manner to this op-ed; it may be the unique nature
of the Signpost, but like Gamaliel I would be surprised to learn that many
users regard the Signpost in the same way devotees do the New York Times.
The most likely conclusion is that profanity and vulgar language are almost
exclusively deployed by men on Wikipedia, and the difference here is that
readers were shocked --shocked!-- to read it from a woman.
___
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] Signpost op-ed (NSFW)

[Nathan]

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Risker  wrote:

> Give me a break, Neotarf. I am critiquing the article and the decisions by
> its author and its publisher.  It doesn't surprise me that having someone
> of Keilana's stature drop more f-bombs in a couple of paragraphs than I
> heard on a bus full of high school students this morning will change the
> climate to suggest that it is now perfectly acceptable to curse out people
> everywhere under every circumstance.
>
> For some strange reason, it appears the people on this list are
> celebrating that fact.  And it has nothing to do with gender, really, and
> everything to do with making Wikipedia a pleasant place to work.  Keilana's
> actions have encouraged people to make it less so.
>
> Risker/Anne
>


Keilana didn't curse anyone out. That should be kept clear. But it has been
commonplace and acceptable to curse in Wikipedia discussions for ages. You
have witnessed the failure of attempts to curtail cursing etc. first hand,
and "civility police" has at times been one of the worst insults slung
around on the English Wikipedia.  What is strange for some is that
Keilana's op-ed is an example of one of the most benign uses of strong
language, and yet it has garnered a stronger negative reaction than many
much more serious and damaging profane personal attacks.

Additionally, not only have I never heard "badass" used in a derogatory
way, I've never even once heard anyone suggest that it might be used as an
insult. In my experience it has only ever been a compliment. In the context
of Keilana's op-ed, it should be obvious to any reader that she used it
positively.
___
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] WP:Harassment finally links to solution for threats!

[Nathan]

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Neotarf  wrote:

> Could you post a link to one or two of the discussions, and how they went
> down?  I really need to read something like that right now.
>
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Nathan  wrote:
>
>>
>>
Hi Neotarf,

I'm not going to publicly post a list of people I know have been subject to
harassment. I would say that its been a persistent complaint from most or
all of the prominent female Wikipedians; if you can name a functionary,
admin, arbitrator or Board member who is a woman, it is likely that she has
been subject to sustained sexual harassment at some point during her
Wikimedia tenure.

But you could certainly say there is some division in how victims of this
type of harassment have reacted. Some small proportion have reacted in ways
that contradict project policies and have had bad outcomes, but I don't
think that is typical.
___
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] WP:Harassment finally links to solution for threats!

[Nathan]

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Neotarf  wrote:

> @Risker: "I have a simple question to ask:  How many people in this thread
> have publicly or privately requested to the Wikimedia Foundation ED that
> additional resources be assigned to trust and safety issues such as death
> threats?"
>
> Answer: 26.
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Community_discussion_on_harassment_reporting
>
> That said, everyone I know of who has ever publicly objected to sexual
> harassment has subsequently been indeffed.  Maybe that's what the essay
> should say.
>
>

Really? I can name a half dozen off the top of my head that became admins,
functionaries, arbitrators, etc. At least some are still active. I don't
think "if you report harassment you'll be blocked indefinitely" would be an
accurate thing to tell people.

I think Kerry's post sort of misses the point. No one will argue that even
"joke" death threats are acceptable or fine; there just is no point in
wasting police resources by reporting "threats" that turn out to be joke
memes or totally unserious. The police realize this and ignore most
threats; unfortunately, they don't have any reliable method for sorting out
the 1 threat in a million that represents real danger.
___
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] The (non-existent) Farkhunda Wikipedia article--victim or rallying point

[Nathan]

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Ryan Kaldari 
wrote:

> Is there an article on "vaginal fistula"? I would look it up myself, but
> I'm at work :)
>
>
There is indeed. And also "rectovaginal fistula" - its definitely a cluster
of articles that can use some TLC, but the coverage is there and fairly
broad and available.
___
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] The (non-existent) Farkhunda Wikipedia article--victim or rallying point

[Nathan]

It could just as easily be argued the other way, I think. It's presumptuous
and perhaps insulting to purport to create a biography on a person, under
her own name, while merely recounting a single tragic occurrence in her
life. Since there is often not enough verifiable information to create a
biography, it makes some sense to not assert that Wikipedia is doing so.
Moreover... It's generally bad practice to apply principles of search
engine optimization to editing an encyclopedia.

And as for fistula... That article isn't great, I agree. However, vaginal
fistulas are not the only or even the most common use of that term. Even in
medicine, they are a subset of the broader phenomena.

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Neotarf  wrote:

> Articles about women are getting lost.  Lost that is, to Google searches.
>
> For the last two days, Afghanistan has been exploding in demonstrations
> over Farkhunda, a Kabul woman who was beaten to death and torched by a mob.
> Even though every major news source has done a piece on her, I can't find
> an article for her yet in Wikipedia.  When it does get written, and finally
> starts showing up in the search engines, what will it say? "Farkhunda", the
> logical search term?  Or more likely, the more common format: "the
> murder/lynching/battering/victimization/humiliation of [insert woman's name
> here]".
>
>
> For quite some time, the article for Ozgecan Aslan was hidden from Google
> searches as well, because due to the English Wikipedia's unique naming
> conventions, the article was called "Murder of Özgecan Aslan".
>
>
> Maybe it's time to reconsider naming articles about women for the horrible
> things that were done to them, and give them the simple dignity of their
> own names.  I'm not sure the victimization narrative is the right one
> anyhow.  The Farkhunda story seems to be about her death becoming a
> rallying point for the way women are treated in Afghanistan, much as Aslan
> was in Turkey.
>
>
> What else?  Iraqi lawyer Samira Salih al-Nuaimi still comes up 6th in a
> Google search, *after* the entry for the Daily Mail, because of the
> idiosyncratic spelling of her name in the article title. But at least you
> can find her (very, very short) article now.
>
>
> And since I've already written this much, the article on fistula
> , a problem for a huge number of
> girls in parts of the Global South, is not very well explained.  Compare 
> Female
> genital mutilation or even Women's rights in 2014
> .
> (thx, SV).   Also reference the short article on Fatimata Touré
> , whose group in Mali
> works against fistula.
>
>
> Note: for Farkhunda, see Twitter photos
> https://twitter.com/hashtag/Farkhunda?src=hash and WaPo http://
> www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/23/afghan-woman-beaten-to-death-for-a-crime-she-didnt-commit-becomes-a-rallying-point-for-activists/
>
>
> ___
> 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

[Nathan]

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Sarah  wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Sarah Stierch 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> After reviewing the Arbcom case, I don't even know who got the idea that
>> any of the contributing editors are feminist, per se. No one even mentions
>> the word, except once, when describing a subject that was "slandered" in
>> the gamer gate article(s).
>>
>
> ​Hi Sarah, I think the point is that editors who were defending the rights
> and privacy of the women involved in Gamergate are being sanctioned because
> (I assume) they did it in some sense inappropriately, perhaps too
> aggressively, I don't know. (I don't know the details.)
>
> In that sense it looks like a repeat of the gender gap task force
> decision. In the latter, those trying to stop disruption were sanctioned
> even harder than those causing it.
>
> The message those cases send is that, if you're trying to protect women's
> interests, you have to creep around and not stick your neck out. The
> Chelsea Manning case had similar problems, and Sceptre recently expressed
> the same concern about the Sexology case.
>
> Another aspect of this is that we've been undermining admins for years so
> that they (we) are reluctant to act at an early stage to nip things in the
> bud. As Tony Sidaway wrote: "The administrator corps must be coaxed out
> of their inappropriate and destructive timidity." I was glad to see the
> ArbCom's proposed decision thank the admins who have worked on this.
>
> Sarah
>
>

I think the lesson it sends is that a righteous cause is not a defense
against accusations of disruption, nor a license to violate other policies.
I'm sure that among the restricted people are those with positions I'd
support along with many others, but that doesn't put their behavior above
reproach. Tony Sidaway was hardly the paragon of a calm and thoughtful
administrator - insightful as he often was, there was a reason he was fired
as a clerk and barred from simply requesting his bit back.
___
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] Stepping down as list mod - volunteers needed

[Nathan]

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Carol Moore dc 
wrote:

> On 1/25/2015 2:09 PM, Chris Keating wrote:
>
>>
>> I'd be happy to help, assuming another man doesn't imbalance things
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>  I definitely think we need another woman.  I'd step up, but as a "banned
> from wikipedia" feminist already, I won't embarrass anyone by doing so.
>
> CM
>
>
> _
>

I agree, I think the replacement list mod needs to be a woman. I wouldn't
object to it being Carol, despite the ban.
___
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

[Nathan]

You could just start over. Open a collab space in someone's userspace,
redirect WP:GGTF to that spot, and invite a few people to come collaborate.
Having it in userspace is probably the best (if still minimal) protection
against trolls and ne'er-do-wells.
___
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

[Nathan]

I've just read through the last few weeks of discussion on that talkpage,
and I can't blame anyone for abandoning it. Holy cow! What a mess. The last
thing I would ever recommend someone do is bring an article or discussion
there for feedback, support, assistance, etc. let alone any idea about the
actual gender gap.
___
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

[Nathan]

On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Risker  wrote:

> Carollet's just deconstruct what you're saying here.
>
> If we were to take the words "female" and "male" and "women" and "men" out
> of it entirely, would it sum up one of the major issues in editor
> retention?  I'm going to be honest, I've read a genuinely disproportionate
> number of insulting edits made by women (as a percentage of overall edits
> by editors I know to be women), and it's something that needs to be kept in
> mind; while the overwhelming majority of editors are male, I've not seen
> any evidence that a male editor is any more or less likely to behave badly
> than a female editor.  It's just more obvious because they outnumber us 10
> to 1.
>
>

On the subject of gender nomenclature, I continue to find it interesting
when for some writers males are "males" and females are "women" in normal
usage. Not just picking on Carol, because I've observed it on a
semi-regular basis - but almost exclusively where feminist topics are being
discussed.
___
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] Wikimedia Conference (was - Diversity training for functionaries)

[Nathan]

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Chris Keating 
wrote:

> Hi Anne, Kerry and Christina - and everyone else,
>
> So the Wikimedia Conference programme committee appears keen to do
> something useful in terms of creating space for gender - gap work. So I
> wondered if you had any further thoughts about what *might* work at the
> Wikimedia Conference.
>
> As Anne points out it is an audience of people from Wikimedia movement
> organisations - board members, executive directors (where they exist), and
> a smaller number of other staff. Compared to other Wikimedia events there
> is probably a greater language and geographical diversity. There is also a
> reasonable degree of awareness of the issue - better than one would find if
> you put english Wikipedia administrators in a room.
>
> The main focus for the conference is going to be on helping Wikimedia
> organisations grow, learn and improve - we are looking to give people
> practical outcomes, and are avoiding theoretical discussion as far as
> possible.
>
> Thoughts on what we can put in the programme on this issue are very
> welcome :) (I'll pass everything on to the programme committee, though I
> suspect I'm not the only member of it subscribed to this list).
>
> Thanks and happy new year!
>
> Chris
>

The simplest thing to do is to describe the gender gap related efforts that
other organizations have sponsored, urge the various movement entities to
consider their own initiatives and - especially - push them to innovate.
Few if any organized efforts have resulted in even small lasting change, so
brainstorming ways in which chapters etc. can put their resources - real
life organization and money - to use will be of greatest benefit.  This is
an area where a chapter or affiliate has the opportunity to be a global
leader and to have a high profile impact, and the more they understand that
the more likely they are to participate.
___
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] Iraqi human rights lawyer Samira Salih al-Nuaimi tortured and executed because Facebook; where is her Wikipedia article?

[Nathan]

On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Carol Moore dc 
wrote:
>
>
> http://www.examiner.com/article/wikipedia-biographies-favor-men
>
> http://www.examiner.com/article/jimmy-wales-shows-favoritism-on-wikipedia
> hmmm, interesting but dated...
>
> http://www.examiner.com/article/number-of-women-going-down-on-wikipedia
>
> Merry Solstice!
> See my video - http://merrysolstice.com
>
>
>
Carol, are you familiar with that author and his history with the projects?
He's not exactly an objective journalist (or a journalist of any kind,
actually).
___
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] Iraqi human rights lawyer Samira Salih al-Nuaimi tortured and executed because Facebook; where is her Wikipedia article?

[Nathan]

On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 1:44 AM, Leigh Honeywell  wrote:

> With my mod hat on, Neotarf, please cease the "you could"'s here. Further
> hypotheticals will get you modded.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Leigh
>

What about Neotarf's post, which you quoted, would merit moderation and
under what principle? It seemed perfectly civil and constructive to me,
even if Neotarf does miss the point a bit as Risker noted.
___
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] Gender gap emails Arbitrator doesn't like

[Nathan]

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:53 PM, GorillaWarfare <
gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 8:54 PM, Jim Hayes  wrote:
>
>> i do not appreciate being outed by an arbitrator
>> linking a private email message to a public talk page.
>>
>
> What?
>
> – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
>

Probably referring to the likely fact that most people on this list didn't
know he was Kumioko. Not sure if connecting two pseudonyms together counts
as outing.
___
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] a gender gap meet-up?

[Nathan]

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Carol Moore dc 
wrote:

> Speculation on the monetary gain definition of fraud is lots of
> fun. However,  we all know fraud has a wider meaning as
> two dictionary definitions show.
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud
> 1 a :  deceit, trickery; specifically :  intentional perversion of truth
> in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender
> a legal right
> b :  an act of deceiving or misrepresenting :  trick
> 2. a :  a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : impostor; also
> :  one who defrauds :  cheat
> b :  one that is not what it seems or is represented to be
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fraud?s=t
> noun
> 1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated
> for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
> 2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election
> frauds.
> 3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a
> waste of time.
> 4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.
>
> I think most people who were victim of some false
> email pretending they engaged in obnoxous or
> illegal behavior would say the email was a fraud
> and the person who sent it was one too..
>
>
>
>
 I suspect "Internet fraud" has a narrower definition. In any case, an IP
with a single edit removing information that someone else asked be removed
is not proof even of deception, let alone any definition of fraud. And as
convincing as LB's protests sound (and they do sound convincing), Risker
and other people with CU experience have declined to overturn or speak
against the block extension.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] a gender gap meet-up?

[Nathan]

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Carol Moore dc 
wrote:

>
>  How do you know?
>
> For example, maybe there are secretly for profit, paid editors
> on Wikipedia who feel threatened by more Admin and/or
> Foundation scrutiny of the kind that some editors have
> been promoting, sometimes for years.
>
> GGTF has too many snoopy, boat rocking editors.
> Getting rid of such editors allows them to continue to make
> money without pesky snoops. If faking IPs helps discredit those
> editors and get them blocked, so they can continue their
> secret paid editing, that's fraud.
>
> Or maybe someone who doesn't like GGTF or Lightbreather
> paid someone $50 to fake the IP and Lightbreather-like
> comments in order to cover their tracks.
>
> Maybe there's someone making a good living faking
> 3 or 4 IPs a week in some topic area where some
> organization wants to discredit some BLPs or
> companies or even a whole nation.  So they flood
> the topic area with socks from phony IPs
> and then it's easy to claim new editors are socks
> and get rid of them before they can learn
> the ropes and deal with POV edits.
>
> I'm sure there are all sorts of more examples
> of what might be happening we could come up with.
>
>  So don't claim there is no fraud when there could
> be fraud going on...
>
> CM
>
>
Those are some outlandishly unlikely scenarios, just as unlikely as you
being secretly an impersonator of the real Carol Moore hired to defame the
real Carol by getting banned on Wikipedia. As I said, outlandish and
unlikely. In the absence of evidence of fraud, concluding that fraud exists
("Let's call it what it is... Internet fraud") defies reason.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] a gender gap meet-up?

[Nathan]

No, nothing described below constitutes fraud of any kind.

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Carol Moore dc 
wrote:

>  Let's just call it what it is - internet fraud...
>
> On 12/10/2014 12:02 PM, regu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>  That is joe jobbing.
>
>
>
> Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Original message--
>
> *From: *LB
>
> *Date: *Wed, Dec 10, 2014 11:58 AM
>
> *To: *Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the
> participation of women within Wikimedia projects.;
>
> *Subject:*Re: [Gendergap] a gender gap meet-up?
>
>
> Is there a term (like "joe job") for when someone pretends to be you to
> get you into trouble? In my case, after I'd already been blocked for a
> week, an IP address deleted some info
> 
> that I'd asked to have revdeled. It's *possible* it was someone who
> thought they were helping me, but it's also possible - maybe probable -
> that someone did it maliciously so an admin would think I was dodging my
> block.
>
>
>  Lightbreather
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Gendergap achievement award (Second try)

[Nathan]

I was thinking of something maybe a little more formal and prestigious,
like a monetary award with a plaque, and a small committee reviewing
nominations to select a recipient. Never underestimate the power a formal
award has to both confer a sense of legitimacy and raise awareness of an
issue. I'd be willing to donate to the funding of such an award, if a
chapter or user group could be found to administer it.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] Gendergap achievement award

[Nathan]

So as I was replying to Tim, it occurred to me that there wasn't much
pleasure or recognition to be gained from working in the trenches on the
culture of Wikipedia or the gender gap problem as a whole. Individuals are
most likely to have bans, blocks and battle scars to show for their effort.

So perhaps the task force, the list, or a willing chapter could establish
an award or two to be given to those who invest their volunteer time on
this issue? It would be nice if folks like Sarah or Carol or others could
point to real life recognition to say "this is a real problem, I'm doing
real work, and real people and organizations recognize and respect what I'm
doing."

Perhaps such awards already exist?
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Moving Forward

[Nathan]

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Tim Davenport  wrote:

>
>
> (1) Political organizing should happen off wiki, not on wiki. This is just
> as true for WikiProject Conservatism as it is for WikiProject Gender Gap
> Task Force. Wikipedia is not the place. Go for it, just not there.
>
>
It's not political organizing and the two projects you identify are
fundamentally different. A conservatism wikiproject is aimed at ensuring
complete coverage of topics related to political conservatism; its an
encyclopedic, content project. The GGTF is a very different project, with
content development as *a* goal but the primary objective is addressing the
identified and well supported gender gap in the editing population.
Developing a more diverse and representative body of editors is not a
*political* goal.


> (2) GGTF misfired by obsessively identifying with civility patrolling as
> its primary function. At a minimum, that is putting the cart before the
> horse. Going further: I would argue that it is an an absolutely misplaced
> predilection, that a very low-importance contributing factor to WP editor
> gender disparity has been elevated into The Main Reason without statistical
> evidence. It's a hot-button topic at WP and it was a fight poorly chosen.
>
>
Someone else will chime into citations but certainly it is commonly
reported by users, and in the press, that the sometimes toxic cultural
atmosphere on Wikipedia contributes to deterring female editors. With this
conclusion in hand, it is completely reasonable for a task force trying to
make the project more comfortable for women to address instances of sexist
language and sex-related incivility.


> (3) Here's what needs to happen:
>
> *A. Quantify and track the actual gender gap at WP over time.*
> Anecdotally, female participation at events like Wikimania is significantly
> greater than the 1F:7M ratio that would be anticipated from the estimated
> ratio of registered editors. Does this mean that the differential is
> exaggerated due to an undercount or under-self-reporting of female editors?
> Why are there not annual estimates made and tracked by WMF or by GGTF
> itself?
>

The ability of any outside group to do mass surveys on Wikipedia or any
Wikimedia project is limited, but the WMF has done several surveys which
have included gender statistics. They have consistently shown a massive
gender disparity; whether the ratio is 9% or 10% or 13%, it is far away
from the gender split of the Internet as a whole or other Web 2.0
properties. The surveys may have problems, some may be old, there may be an
issue with people who decline to identify. But regardless, and despite your
repeated requests for an accurate count, there is and can be no question
that a very large gender gap does exist.



>
> *C. Coordinate pro-active recruitment.* Edit-a-thons, university
> outreach, etc. targeting new female participants. This is the main way that
> gender disparity will be overcome — one new editor at a time.
>

Edit-a-thons and university outreach have been done by chapters and the
WMF, as well as other groups of users, for years. None have shown a
sustained impact around developing new editors, and certainly none can
scale enough to address the gender gap.

>
> *D. Targeted, organized mentoring.* Watch the new editor pool and target
> female newcomers. Help them through the learning curve. Too often newcomers
> of both genders are left isolated; bring them into the community.
>

As above. It's nice that you extend the benefit of doubt to Eric Corbett
(or Mr. Corbett, as you say), and presume to his credit that his use of
some words is down to ignorance or provincialism. I only wish that you
might extend the same benefit to those you label "disruptionists", or at
least merely consider that they have been hounded and pressured by critics
into the sort of frustration that might provoke outbursts by anyone.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Relevant election questions for Arbcom

[Nathan]

I'm not sure I love the idea of asking people to identify with a gender or
sexuality when they haven't done so already. If they have already done so,
then the question is superfluous. Better to ask them their position on the
actual issue, and if they think there is anything arbcom or the project as
a whole can do better.

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Fæ  wrote:

> In the light of the contentious Gender Gap Task Force case, I have
> raised the following question for candidates in the current election:
> "I'm having difficulty visualizing how Arbcom today represents the
> diversity of our community. Would you like to identify yourself as a
> woman or LGBT, and explain what life experience and values you would
> bring to the committee when these become topics or a locus of
> dispute?"
>
> I will be voting for women and open LGBT candidates that bring some
> relevant and diverse life experience to committee, and against
> everyone else. I am sure they will get enough votes from the majority
> viewpoint anyway.
>
> You can find all candidate questions and their answers at
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2014/Questions
> >.
> Don't forget to vote - there are 6 days left!
>
> 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] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Nathan]

It's really two issues - one, there was some disruption and misconduct
around the Gender Gap wikiproject that really got overblown a bit and never
needed to be an arbitration case to begin with. Granted that some of the
participants weren't really contributing in good faith, and that there was
a little bit of misunderstanding and overreaction on the part of some who
were.

The second issue is that there is a particular person who is an absolutely
outstanding article writer, but has a longstanding habit of acting like a
jerk on a regular basis. The community and the committee have repeatedly
shown themselves to be incapable of finding a solution to that problem, and
this is no exception.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

[Nathan]

ArbCom is weak, and loathe to make any decision that might trigger a
backlash. They are incapable of dealing with serious, long-term problems
and seem able only to address minor issues that would otherwise resolve on
their own. The English Wikipedia is ungoverned and ungovernable, and the
norms of behavior are too palsied to make enforcement of policy even
slightly consistent. The whole endeavor makes more sense if we simply
accept that it exists in a state of anarchy and that this will likely not
change.

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:09 PM, LB  wrote:

> This is what is about to happen at the English Wikipedia ArbCom re
> disruption at the Gender Gap Task Force:
> *Five men and two women were involved parties in the case.
> *One women is about to be site banned.
> *The other woman is about to be topic banned from the GGTF.
> *All five men are going to be free to edit.
>
> It is noteworthy, IMO, that only 1 of the 12 arbitrators is a woman
> (GorillaWarfare, bless her, who is not for giving WP's #1 trouble-maker,
> Eric Corbet, yet *another* chance). Here is a link to the Proposed
> decision page:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision
>
> And to the talk page:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision
>
> Lightbreather
>
> ___
> 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] [arbcom-appeals-en] [Child Protection Policy]Gender Gap issues

[Nathan]

Hello the moderators, I think the legal threats implied in this e-mail (and
the other) are sufficient to warrant moderating the sender.

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Romana Busse 
wrote:

> Dear Mr. Davies
>
> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee#Members
> I observe you are an "inactive" Member of this alleged committee. I
> hence suspect that your email is bogus.
>
> Accordingly I would appreciate receiving a signed email, or even a
> scanned signed email clearly given on behalf of the Arbitration
> Committee listing its physical address for service of legal process.
>
> I am shocked by the casual and secretive approach adopted to such
> concerns of child pornography, especially when it was previously made
> on another website http://wikipediocracy.com, naming 2 of your users
> "Sitush" and "Bishonen" using sexually colored language and referring
> to child pornography on your website. This Sitush is a serial stalker
> and harasser of female Wikipedia editors as your Arbcom knows well..
>
> It is certainly strange that I was blocked as a sock puppet at the
> instance of these same 2 users (1 of whom is your Admin) when I
> brought that message to their attention.  It seems Wikipedia actively
> discourages reporting such sexual harassment to Admins and wipes out
> all trace of it from public gaze, to the extent of terminating the
> account of the person who reported me for being an alleged
> sockpuppet..
>
> It is even stranger that you will not disclose / specify the multiple
> accounts and IPs I am accused of using as an alleged sock puppet or
> why I am accused of being an India Against Corruption sockpuppet when
> I have never edited any page concerned with that body. It is very
> strange that Arbcom will not comply with its own policies for this. .
>
> It is clear that the Arbcom is covering up the actions of its
> anonymous users implicated in child pornography by another website.
>
> I urge you to reconsider as I firmly intend to pursue this matter and
> investigate all your own antecedents on your inactions..
>
> On 11/19/14, Roger Davies  wrote:
> >
> > Romana Busse:
> >
> > This is to acknowledge receipt of your emails of yesterday and today.
> >
> > The Arbitration Committee is unable to assist you further in this
> > matter. Any further communications should be sent to:
> >
> > le...@wikimedia.org
> >
> > Roger Davies
> > Arbitration Committee
> >
> >
> >
> > On 18/11/2014 15:41, Romana Busse wrote:
> >> Dear Anthony (AGK)
> >>
> >> I'm very sorry to bother you, but could I have a timeline with respect
> >> to deletion, or not, of those images ?
> >>
> >> With the welfare of the children in mind, I feel that the school, the
> >> children's parents and the local child welfare committees, magistrates
> >> and police should be properly sensitized  to the incidents of that
> >> day, and to ensure it cannot reoccur
> >>
> >> I'm sure the police and the Indian Govt Cyber Advisory Committee would
> >> be interested in learning from you or NYBrad  the finer points of law
> >> whereby Citizendium encyclopedia decides to completely wipes out the
> >> images within 12 hours but Wikipedia has not done anything till now on
> >> identical complaint.
> >>
> >> I would also like to know by when you will publish across all
> >> Wikipedia projects the complete list of accounts and IPs I have
> >> allegedly used, and also if I am a sockpuppet of User:MehulWB as
> >> alleged or not. This is required by your same policy WP:SOCK under
> >> which was blocked.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> On 11/18/14, Romana Busse  wrote:
> >>> This is about a potential threat to clearly identifiable Indian minor
> >>> school children whose images are retained on WMF servers in USA and
> >>> India despite legal notice to remove them.
> >>> Taken within their school (where their parents expected the same
> >>> degree of privacy as they enjoy at home) and uploaded without their
> >>> permission, consent or knowledge, at a location where they allegedly
> >>> viewed grossly obscene pornography accessed on a Wikimedia Foundation
> >>> service which has now been disabled on complaint by a body called
> >>> [[India Against Corruption]].
> >>
> >> ___
> >> ArbCom-appeals-en mailing list
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BASC
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-appeals-en
> >>
> >
>
> ___
> 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] [arbcom-appeals-en] [Child Protection Policy]

[Nathan]

Why has this e-mail been crossposted to the gender gap list?

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Romana Busse 
wrote:

> Dear Anthony (AGK)
>
> I'm very sorry to bother you, but could I have a timeline with respect
> to deletion, or not, of those images ?
>
> With the welfare of the children in mind, I feel that the school, the
> children's parents and the local child welfare committees, magistrates
> and police should be properly sensitized  to the incidents of that
> day, and to ensure it cannot reoccur
>
> I'm sure the police and the Indian Govt Cyber Advisory Committee would
> be interested in learning from you or NYBrad  the finer points of law
> whereby Citizendium encyclopedia decides to completely wipes out the
> images within 12 hours but Wikipedia has not done anything till now on
> identical complaint.
>
> I would also like to know by when you will publish across all
> Wikipedia projects the complete list of accounts and IPs I have
> allegedly used, and also if I am a sockpuppet of User:MehulWB as
> alleged or not. This is required by your same policy WP:SOCK under
> which was blocked.
>
> Thanks
>
> On 11/18/14, Romana Busse  wrote:
> > This is about a potential threat to clearly identifiable Indian minor
> > school children whose images are retained on WMF servers in USA and
> > India despite legal notice to remove them.
> > Taken within their school (where their parents expected the same
> > degree of privacy as they enjoy at home) and uploaded without their
> > permission, consent or knowledge, at a location where they allegedly
> > viewed grossly obscene pornography accessed on a Wikimedia Foundation
> > service which has now been disabled on complaint by a body called
> > [[India Against Corruption]].
>
> ___
> 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] WikiWomen's Collaborative Social Media + some other stuff

[Nathan]

Hi Sarah,

I don't see you as an outsider at all, and I hope most others don't either.
I'm happy to see some of your energy and dedication return to these efforts
;)
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

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

[Nathan]

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Sarah Stierch 
wrote:

> Hi. Some people can't speak up about what happened for legal reasons.
>
> I do think there is a double standard. But I have before my involvement in
> wiki. Living in the US it's a way of life.
>
> Some women who were impacted by those posts were harassed by people
> involved way prior to making their own minor and harmless in the end game
> errors which got them "in trouble." Women just did not take action or make
> it public. No one should have to post on a public website that they have
> been sexually harassed to get help. And "bad people on the internet are
> common" is the general response.
>
> There are also male staff members who did things considered illegal in the
> US courts who still have their jobs (some don't work there anymore but it
> shocked many of us women they were allowed to stay so long given their
> behaviors). Amazing how that works.
>
> But, some of us can't and are afraid to talk about it. Some of us just
> want closure but the trolls and internet won't give it to us. (And it's not
> just me...)
>
> And no I am not elaborating on or offlist. So don't ask. I gave up
> fighting after I lost my job. So I commend those who still care.
>
> I love the Twitter feed, by the way.
>
> Sarah
> On Sep 10, 2014 8:41 AM, "Nathan"  wrote
>


Hi Sarah, I'm sorry if I was unclear. I was understanding Carol as saying
that there were sexist comments in the ANI she linked (where Andreas'
quoted comment was found). I read the entire AN/I thread and the editor
review and found none.

Of course I realize that there are many, many instances of terrible sexual
harassment on the Internet and throughout the history of Wikipedia. My
point about muddying the waters is that these examples are enough to
convince anyone open to being convinced that there is a problem. It is
unnecessary to attach these real issues to examples that don't reflect
sexism or gender-related harassment.

That said, even though I don't see sexism or gender in the example, it is a
good example of the spiteful, bitter, battlefield atmosphere that
characterizes disputes on Wikipedia.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

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

[Nathan]

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 8:46 AM, Carol Moore dc 
wrote:

>  On 9/9/2014 7:51 PM, LB wrote:
>
> I'm going to keep at it, for now. Honestly, I'm tired of it being a mostly
> internally discussed problem... Perhaps I'll change my mind at some point,
> but that's my thinking on it at this time.
>
>  Lightbreather
>
> You are braver than I!  On the other hand this is what
> [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]]  wrote when I complained the woman editor was
> being harassed off line:
>
>
>
> *Criticising the quality of an editor's work, whether here or
> elsewhere, is not harassment. This is not a private project, but a public
> one, with a significant impact on public life. Any such public project
> should be prepared to be criticised. If someone writes nonsense in a
> science article read and relied on by a million people a year, that is a
> matter of public interest, just like stories like
> [http://twkozlowski.net/the-pot-and-the-kettle-the-wikimedia-way/
>  this],
> [http://twkozlowski.net/paid-editing-thrives-in-the-heart-of-wikipedia/
> 
> this],
> [http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/
> 
> this],
> [http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/is-the-pr-industry-buying-influence-over-wikipedia
> 
> this] or
> [http://www.dailydot.com/politics/croatian-wikipedia-fascist-takeover-controversy-right-wing/
> 
> this]. If you would like to curtail editors' freedom to speak out about
> Wikipedia's failings in public, this in itself will be a media story, and
> rightly so. Such ideas belong to places like Azerbaijan and North Korea. *Thus
> one would think quoting nasty sexist things, especially when an editor's
> name not mentioned should be ok. This really was a test case, wasn't it?
> (Or not in a community that still applies double standards to male vs.
> female actions.)
>
> Here's the link to the ANI in question:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive835#Harassment
>
>
>
Where were the sexist comments? The user complaining of harassment and the
user accused of harassment were both women, and I see no comments about
gender in either the AN/I or the extensive editor review. The harassment
complained of was the persistence of an editor in following another editor
around and pointing out errors in many of her articles, and the
argumentative and derisive attitude of the first towards the latter.
Andreas' point is that criticism, by itself, is not harassment. Many agreed
with the criticism but advised the critic that she needed an attitude
adjustment. At that point she disengaged.

So it's a problem when we conflate circumstances which do not implicate
gender or sexism with those that do. Calling this an example of sexism
muddies the waters, particularly when there are many examples that are
perfectly clear cut.  It *is* an example of the hassle and angry debate
involved in contributing to Wikipedia, though, and I can certainly see how
that would drive all sorts of people away from the project.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Zoë Wicomb or Clive Cussler?

[Nathan]

I'm sure you are right. The rules are not applied evenly across articles at
all. It's a myth, or common misconception, that Wikipedia is a "system"
that functions as we are used to institutional systems functioning. The
vast ruleset is just a toolbox, with tools that different people pick up
and use in different ways. The innumerable differences in interest and
motivation make the deployment of policies against content look random.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Novel by Woman-Deletion

[Nathan]

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

Re: [Gendergap] Novel by Woman-Deletion

[Nathan]

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

Re: [Gendergap] Adrienne Wadewitz featured in short piece about Gendergap on the English Wikipedia

[Nathan]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Leigh Honeywell  wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Nathan  wrote:
> > Hi Val,
> >
> > The discussion at that point was about Internet commenters. As you may
> know, that's not quite how Wikimedia projects work, and certainly the
> discussion wasn't referring to commenters on a Wikimedia project. Emily
> can't be blamed for the discussion going off the gendergap topic.
> >
> > When you ask someone not to comment, or not to make comments that in no
> way violate any behavioral norms, you make the list a less welcoming place
> for that person and others to express themselves. Discussion on this list
> (and any Wikimedia list) should be open, and civil participants should be
> engaged and not shushed. If you want to make the argument that anonymous
> comments disproportionately affect and hurt women, and contribute to gender
> gaps in many areas of the Internet, please feel free. You'd be right to do
> so, in my opinion, and you can do that without discouraging Emily from
> posting her thoughts.
> >
> > Nathan
>
> Donning my mod hat here for a moment.
>
> Asking people to prioritize the topic of the list (addressing the
> gender gap) is not "shushing", and it is rude of you to dismiss the
> substance of Val's criticism as that. I will be placing you on
> moderation if I see anything like that again.
>
> There is always a balance to be struck between tangents and focused
> discussion. I am happy that we've had this thread to remind us all of
> what our purpose is here - to discuss solutions to the gender gap.
>
> -Leigh
>
>

You're entitled to your opinion, Leigh, but I stand by my assessment that
by being the 4th person in a row to post about Internet commenters on a
non-Wikimedia site, Emily was not responsible for moving the topic away
from the gendergap and Val was incorrect to admonish her for doing so.

But perhaps it's the intention that participation on this list be severely
constrained, where posters should worry after each post that they'll be
"corrected" condescendingly and / or threatened with moderation for
disagreeing with another participant. If that's the case, I for one am
happy to predict that the gendergap list will never achieve a sliver of its
goal (not that it has up til now, of course).
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Adrienne Wadewitz featured in short piece about Gendergap on the English Wikipedia

[Nathan]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Valerie Aurora 
wrote:

>
>
> That is, as a result of comments like these, we end up having a
> discussion about something other than women's participation in
> Wikimedia projects. When this happens frequently, people end up
> feeling discouraged from bringing up topics like "There is a lot of
> misogyny in these comments, is there anything we can do about it?"
> because they know they are likely to get a response of, "Men/people of
> color/other oppressed groups have this happen to them too." I know it
> is not your intention to shut down discussion about women in Wikimedia
> projects, but that's often the effect of comments like these.
>
> -VAL


Hi Val,

The discussion at that point was about Internet commenters. As you may
know, that's not quite how Wikimedia projects work, and certainly the
discussion wasn't referring to commenters on a Wikimedia project. Emily
can't be blamed for the discussion going off the gendergap topic.

When you ask someone not to comment, or not to make comments that in no way
violate any behavioral norms, you make the list a less welcoming place for
that person and others to express themselves. Discussion on this list (and
any Wikimedia list) should be open, and civil participants should be
engaged and not shushed. If you want to make the argument that anonymous
comments disproportionately affect and hurt women, and contribute to gender
gaps in many areas of the Internet, please feel free. You'd be right to do
so, in my opinion, and you can do that without discouraging Emily from
posting her thoughts.

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

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

[Nathan]

On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Sydney Poore 
wrote:

> Hi there,
>
> I'm flagging the major issues that need to be considered.
>
> 1) we can not promise anonymity for the people acting as adjudicators. Any
> attempt to have anonymous people hearing a case will attract attention from
> a group if obsessive people who out anyone who is anonymous. Plus at times
> harass them.
>
> 2) the reasons that people enforcing the rules on Wikipedia ignore
> incivility, harassment, and trolling is because that approach is often the
> best way to stop attention seeking behavior. The idea to "not feed trolls"
> is well engrained into the culture and advise given by mature and
> experienced people on the Internet.
>
> 3) blocks on Wikipedia are not suppose to be punitive but intended to
> immediately stop disruptive user behavior. Attempts to use them to change
> conduct is generally not successful. Instead people who are blocked often
> become entrenched in proving that they are being treated poorly.
>
> 3) there is no way to stop people from editing Wikipedia. The wiki
> software as used by WMF allows easy access to join, and edit. Attempts to
> stop blocked or banned users from editing is part of what causes
> administrators to burn out and ignore problems or over react to them.
>
> 4) banning people very engaged in the community rarely causes them to go
> away.
>
> Sydney
>
>

So we can't bar people from using the site, and we don't have effective
moderation tools (or moderators). We also realize that even if we had
either, they would be used on only a teeny tiny sliver of all pages, and
only by those who know about them and how to take advantage of them.

This all suggests that the only "cures" to civility are to radically
restrict how freely users can interact, or change the culture of the
Internet. The first is antithetical to the nature of Wikimedia projects,
and the second is impossible, so...

Perhaps we decide that curing incivility is a bridge too far, and focus
efforts to narrow the gender gap on other more practical opportunities.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] A reason to celebrate

[Nathan]

On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 1:05 AM, Valerie Aurora 
wrote:

> I find this email, like many others of Shlomi's, to be creepy and
> inappropriate.
>
> -VAL
>
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:08 AM, Shlomi Fish 
> wrote:
> > Hi Christine,
> >
> > On Sun, 8 Jun 2014 22:16:17 -0700
> > Christine Meyer  wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Yes, I'm responsible for the Angelou article.  I must say, when I saw
> the
> >> view counts in the Signpost, I was overwhelmed and honored that for my
> part
> >> in bringing Dr. Angelou's bio article, as well as all seven of her
> >> autobiographies, the list of her works, and articles about her poetry
> and
> >> themes in her autobiographies, all to FA status.  I also feel proud that
> >> the English WP honored this great artist with high-quality articles when
> >> the world most needed them.
> >>
> >
> > Many thanks for your work on it. Here's a photo of a kitten whom I found
> very
> > cute as a token of my appreciation:
> >
> > * http://imgur.com/NmQOgTH
> >
> > Love you (♥)!
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Shlomi Fish
>
>

Hi Valerie - can you elaborate a little? I've cc'd Kevin and
gendergap-owners so the list moderators can be made aware of your comments.

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

Re: [Gendergap] A cautionary tale

[Nathan]

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Risker  wrote:


> 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.
>
> 

> Risker
>
>
This is an area where I'd really like to see Lila help out (is she
subscribed to this list?). If there is some recognition at the top that the
gender gap is one of the most important, fundamental problems facing the
Wikimedia projects... Then addressing it should be built into literally
every feature development process, including Flow. It should be tested
against female user groups, scrutinized on whether it helps address the
gender gap or not, and revamped to do so if its found it doesn't.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but every feature that *doesn't* address
the gender gap is a missed opportunity - Flow in particular. Not
exacerbating the problem isn't enough. WMF has limited resources, and is
unlikely to make massively iterative attempts at rolling out such a major
feature. Since it's clear that communication and interaction are at the
core of the gap, any new tool in this area must make at least some
progress.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Follow-on from the model FP image discussion

[Nathan]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Ryan Kaldari 
wrote:

>
> That said, I think the image has little chance of being featured on
> Wikipedia anyway due to it being over-processed, but you're welcome to
> nominate it.
>
> Ryan Kaldari


He isn't welcome to, actually. He's been indefinitely blocked for a year.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Sex Ratios in Wikidata Part III

[Nathan]

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Andrew Gray 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I ran a few quick updates on Max's numbers today. As of 9/6/14:
>
> * WIkidata has ~2080k items marked as people
> * Of these, ~1893k have a "gender" property (91%)
>
> (Magnus's games are doing an amazing job at filling out these numbers,
> by the way - http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=213 )
>
> Very quick and dirty statistics follow - note that since we have 9%
> undefined, the stats may change a bit as time goes on :-)
>
> * The gender breakdown across all these people is approximately 1603k
> male, 290k female - 84.7% male and 15.3% female.
>
> * enwiki is 15.5% female; arwiki 14.2%; dewiki 14.9% female; frwiki
> 15.2%; eswiki 15.9%; jawiki 18.2%; hiwiki 18.7%; zhwiki 20.1%
>
> * It's interesting to note that these numbers mostly seem a point or
> two better than the numbers Max got a month ago, which probably
> represents better data-logging rather than change in the underlying
> content
>
> * There are still very few items with a gender property other than
> "male" or "female" - perhaps 100-200 overall - but I suspect this
> number will significantly increase as we deal with the remaining
> items.
>
> Andrew.


Can you define "item" in this context?

Do we have any comparable data points by which to evaluate our progress?
Perhaps a similar breakdown of other reference works, or if there is some
sort of summary data available about biographies written (using LOC data?),
etc.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] topless cheesecake on the en.wiki Main Page

[Nathan]

On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Valerie Aurora
wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> I'm going to point out that posting sexually objectifying photos of
> people of any gender or sexuality in a venue that is intended to be
> equally accessible to all is still inherently discriminatory towards
> women specifically. This is because the sexualized imagery occurs in
> the context of widespread misogyny and sexism which includes the
> sexual double standard for women, the objectification (in a very
> literal sense) of women in sexual situations, and a much higher
> prevalence of sexual violence against women than men (I don't know the
> stats for people who don't identify as either but I'm sure they aren't
> good either).
>
> In other words, because the vast majority of humans alive today live
> in cultures where sexual attitudes about women are so negative,
> bringing up sex in a venue like this immediately creates a hostile
> environment for women. I am repeating some of what Sumana already
> wrote, just being very clear that pictures of male cheesecake or
> sexualized photos of homosexual men also create a hostile environment
> for women.
>
> Other venues are a different matter. It is indeed possible to create a
> safer and more welcoming environment in which sex can be discussed or
> displayed with less or no harm to women, but Picture of the Day is not
> it.
>
> This is something I have to explain constantly to tech startups here
> in the Bay Area, comprised often of mostly men who think there's
> nothing wrong with literally covering the office walls with penis
> jokes because "we're making fun of male genitalia, so that can't be
> sexist towards women." These attitudes have real and lasting harm,
> both for Wikimedia project participation and content, and for many
> other areas of society.
>
> -VAL
>
>
This is something that I don't really understand, but I'd like to. However
I won't ask you to explain, since it's probably not a great use of your
time, but could you point me to some concise discussion of why sexual or
sexualized imagery of any kind is inherently discriminatory against women?
Is this a commonly accepted viewpoint in academic feminism? Is there an
easy way to draw a line between discriminatory and non-discriminatory
imagery? (i.e. is a beach selfie of a woman in a bikini posted to Instagram
discriminatory, regardless of intent?).

Thanks for any references someone can provide where I might find answers to
those questions.

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

Re: [Gendergap] Blogger and Wikipedian Adrianne Wadewitz died while rock-climbing

[Nathan]

Oh my god that is terrible. Really, really horrible. Adrianne is awesome,
super smart and dedicated. Years ago we had a crew for Skype chats and she
was a regular and popular participant... Very sad and a major loss.


On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:

> This is to inform you that one of the contributors to this list who
> spent a lot of time working on the Gendergap issue and ways to solve
> it, has died in a rock-climbing accident.
> http://femtechnet.newschool.edu/blog/adrianne-wadewitz/
>
> ___
> 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] Hotties are always hot

[Nathan]

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Risker  wrote:

>
>
>
> Just for the record:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GlassCobra/Essays/Hotties_are_always_notableis
>  now the link. I've removed the shortcut because shortcuts are only
> supposed to be used in Wikipedia space, and this sure as heck doesn't
> belong in Wikipedia space!
>
> Risker/Anne
>
>
WP:HOTTIE continues to function (it's a redirect). It looks like you just
removed the notice of the shortcut from the essay.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Hotties are always hot

[Nathan]

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:

> What concerns me is that a newbie, with a penchant of getting on the
> "weird sides" of websites like I do, might find it.
>
> From,
> Emily
>
>
>
What about that concerns you? Incidentally I've nom'd the redirect for
deletion.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Hotties are always hot

[Nathan]

Meh, it's a relic of a different era on Wikipedia. Almost all of the people
who have edited are, like GlassCobra, admins or former admins. Its also in
his userspace, not the Wikipedia: namespace.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Sue Gardner Reddit AMA right now

[Nathan]

I think it's funny that most of the questions and answers are coming from
long-term Wikimedians, instead of non-Wikimedian redditors. Maybe there's
just so much overlap it's inevitable!
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Renewing gender gap conversations on meta

[Nathan]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Sydney  wrote:
> Yes, with the narrowing focus last year the community will need to take the
> lead. But from the meeting earlier this year it is clear that there
> definitely is talented people on staff at WMF who are more than willing to
> assist as their time permits.


That's unfortunate. I understood the narrowing focus to mean not
placing WMF offices and contractors around the world, or doing sort of
boots on the ground face to face outreach. Since usability initiatives
and some other programs are still ongoing, it seems like the gender
gap should've stayed on the table for direct involvement even if not
through the vehicle of the fellowship program. Too bad.

That said, there are chapters who receive hundreds of thousands of
dollars in funding from the FDC despite having objectively achieved
very little to date; certainly that means there is an opportunity
there for people with an interest in dedicating themselves full time
to this work to be compensated fairly through a funded WMF affiliate.

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

Re: [Gendergap] Renewing gender gap conversations on meta

[Nathan]

Ah, I use this as my main source of gender gap news, so maybe I just
don't know what's going on because it's not being reported here. (I
did read here about Ada Lovelace events, and I saw it mentioned in at
least one media outlet, but not more than that).

But I'm confused as to why the WMF would move away from efforts to
address the gender gap. I think it's great that you and others are
devoting your free time and resources to this, but wouldn't it be more
effective to allow someone to devote an experts full professional time
to it? That person could also be a liaison to any usergroup or
affiliate that gets set up, and an advocate within the WMF to allocate
resources with the gender gap in mind.

One thing that's been discussed is the environmental challenge that
Wikimedia projects present which particularly effect women, so why not
spend some time developing sustained protected channels for
collaboratively generating content to be submitted? Polished
submissions are far less likely to be deleted or trashed, and it might
mitigate a lot of the problems with difficult personalities. That's
just spitballing, I'm sure most subscribers to this list could up with
many more and better ideas for really potentially meaningful impact.

Fundamentally, the WMF has a ton of money and has dedicated a huge
amount of effort and infrastructure to giving it away. Sue has
publicly argued that a lot of that money isn't necessarily being well
spent, so when there are such clear opportunities to address what
really is a core flaw for Wikimedia projects... why not push funding,
resources and brains towards them? I'd love to see a "Wikimedia
Campaign" to close the gender gap that has the status of a strategic
initiative. It seems particularly appropriate for something like that
to form one small, lasting part of Sue's legacy as ED.

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

Re: [Gendergap] Renewing gender gap conversations on meta

[Nathan]

It just seems like there is a lot of sort of low-hanging fruit
opportunity that the WMF could take advantage of if its serious about
really addressing the issue. Why not hire an activist of sorts to be
either a WMF employee or a grant funded contractor, who can develop
initiatives, speak at conferences and to media outlets, etc.? Generate
attention by participating in general tech communities and
tech/education conferences open to gender panels and speakers, solicit
reporting from news outlets and blogs, literally even place advertised
invitations to edit in venues with high visibility to women.

That's the thing, imho, that's been missing from this list and from
the WMF since the gender gap was identified as a serious (data
supported) problem: big picture activism and effort. One thing we've
realized as a community is that a lot of the small-bore outreach
efforts don't work well, so why not devote more resources to
large-bore recruitment? I'm not saying nothing has been done - indeed,
Sarah and Sue and others have put a ton of effort out, but it appears
to me that the WMF could be a lot more dedicated to it than it has
been.

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

Re: [Gendergap] Renewing gender gap conversations on meta

[Nathan]

This might be a dumb question, but are there any ongoing GenderGap
related efforts right now outside of content projects (i.e. other than
on a Wikipedia etc.)? Is there a thematic organization focused on it,
or any significant research or outreach grants or programs? It seems
like an obvious candidate for an affiliate group, but I don't recall
reading about one.

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

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

[Nathan]

Odd thing about the current Google search results for Bradley Manning.
It gives the title "Bradley Manning" with a link to the Chelsea
Manning page, which when followed is a redirect to Bradley Manning. SS
attached.
<>___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

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

[Nathan]

I think the details of this dispute make it particularly prone to
emotional positions on both sides, not unlike many other naming
disputes (which have historically been some of the most intractable,
although usually for reasons of nationalism). Sue and others make a
good point about the existence of expertise on trans issues and gender
identity in academia, but... This is an editorial decision, despite
the academic and moral positions many have staked out.

Wikipedia is ultimately a reference work, and its principal mission is
to provide a useful reference to potential readers. In the tension
between "do no harm to living people" and "best serve our educational
mission", we often come down in favor of the mission. If you don't
think this is the case, you should re-familiarize yourself with the
many situations in which we partly ignore complaints by living people
and retain well-verified but potentially negative content. There is a
legitimate debate to be made about the judgment on where to draw the
line in each unique set of circumstances... but it isn't as clear cut
as some, including Sue, have asserted.

My opinion is that it makes sense to continue to host the article at
[[Bradley Manning]], and to avoid trying to preempt or influence
coverage in favor of using Chelsea Manning's preferred identity. I
believe that over time the weight of coverage will change in favor of
her preference, and our article can evolve accordingly. The
administrators who jumped at the chance to make controversial changes
without even an attempt at discussion or consensus have been justly
criticized, and while rigid policies that proscribe attempts to arrive
at a consensus judgment on a case by case basis is the wrong solution,
it is sensible to try address the poor conduct of several
administrators in this case.

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

Re: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology

[Nathan]

I'm sure EVula knew that Commoners wouldn't abide his deletion of
their fap galleries. They've never liked it much before, and this
gallery is even nerdy! Double whammy. The uploader freaked out with
inspiring rapidity.

The arguments given in a previous deletion review are instructive;
only the most mechanical reading of the project scope policy, in the
way most charitable to retaining pornographic collections, were even
considered. The closer said, paraphrasing: "Pornographic? Sure, don't
care. Objectifies women? Sure, don't care. Not useful on another
Wikimedia project? Sure, don't care. It was on Flickr, so they must
have consented to publication on Commons, case closed."

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

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

[Nathan]

I wouldn't mind not seeing any of those userboxes on the projects,
but... userbox wars have wasted countless hours over the years. I was
tangentially involved in debates about the pedophilia/ephebophilia
boxes, the "User supports Hamas" (etc.) boxes and a few other debates,
and found that only the most universally reviled boxes or boxes no one
actively uses can be deleted without triggering a major storm of
drama.

So while it's worth asking people what they think about the userboxes,
they should also consider how much time and effort they think it is
worth to try to get rid of them (if that is their preference). Since
there is no higher authority to declare them forbidden, you'd have to
slag it out over each and every one (or at a minimum, propose slates
of them for deletion and then bear the slings of those demanding they
be split out into separate debates).

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

Re: [Gendergap] Female composer gets onto the list

[Nathan]

This article (which has been moved to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flute_Concertino_(Chaminade)) could use
some help in referencing, as much of the content outside the intro
remains unreferenced. There's also an issue of very close
paraphrasing, verging on copyright infringement, that some edited
could probably resolve.

~Nathan

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

Re: [Gendergap] Do inconsistent GA standards discourage people from participating in GA?

[Nathan]

On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 4:36 AM, Laura Hale  wrote:

> This is a topic that has come up at
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias&pe=1&#Possible_systemic_bias_at_Good_Article_Reviews
>
> Do people have similar experiences?
>
> --


Have you typically found that badgering people like that draws them into
contributing to the topics that interest you? The editor obviously
misunderstood the specific types of systemic bias the project is meant to
counter, and tried to disengage several times, but instead of allowing him
or her to gracefully do that you escalated each time. I don't see why, or
why you would think it necessary to bring further attention to your
behavior by posting it on this list.

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

Re: [Gendergap] Holly Graf

[Nathan]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Carol Moore DC wrote:

>
> If the material is WP:Undue it can be reduced.
>
> If there is evidence that this was a case of males freaking at female
> orders, and there's WP:RS evidence of that, include it.  If she was in fact
> abusive, we should not be trying to cover that up.
>
> Meanwhile an NPOV question mark tag on the article would be appropriate.
>
> CM
>
>
>
There's no evidence of "males freaking at female orders", but then there
wouldn't be, because the review board and her superiors are primarily male
(as were the majority of her colleagues and subordinates). So that might be
part of it, but there's no real way to establish that or include it in the
article. Given the sources and context, it did seem that the dismissal was
getting undue weight, so I reduced the coverage and I think the article is
in OK shape.

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

Re: [Gendergap] Holly Graf

[Nathan]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Russavia wrote:

> Is that an edit of the article, or a whitewashing of the article?
>
> It turns out that she is most notable for the relief of command, and
> the blanket removal of material from the article is not adhering to
> WP:UNDUE, but seems more to be a whitewashing of the article.
>
> What you have done is removed any context of the dismissal from the
> article, and that is not a good thing.
>
> Russavia
>
>
>
How so? The premise of the AfD outcome (and the general argument in favor
of the subject's notability) is that she is notable for more than just her
dismissal. So, focusing virtually the entire article on her dismissal is
giving it UNDUE weight. I reduced the unnecessary detail and left in the
pertinent elements - she was dismissed, it was because certain allegations
were upheld by her commanding officers, and all of the anonymous sniping
can still be found in the linked references.

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

Re: [Gendergap] Holly Graf

[Nathan]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Laura Hale  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Nathan  wrote:
>
>> Seems like another 1E candidate. The over-emphasis on the controversy at
>> the end of her career can be addressed by wiping out most of the detail, or
>> by removing the article entirely (since the notability argument is somewhat
>> fragile, and all the references about the subject relate to her dismissal).
>>
>>
> Coincidentally, others thought that too! :) It was taken to AfD and the
> MilHist project determined she was notable based on her being the first
> woman to command the ship type. :)  If you want to try that Nathan, you can
> but your efforts and the efforts of other men like Andreas are probably
> better spent improving the article about her to remove this material.  I
> eagerly anticipate y'all working together  on this  article as you've both
> identified it needs work. :)
>
> --
> twitter: purplepopple
> blog: ozziesport.com


I've already edited it, but thanks as always for your confidence.

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

Re: [Gendergap] what follows from "most editors do not gender-identify"

[Nathan]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Adam Wight  wrote:

> Maybe I can point to another factoid which demonstrates a generative,
> systematic bias: only 20% of notable person biographies on WP are about
> women [1].
>

What should the ratio be?

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

Re: [Gendergap] Holly Graf

[Nathan]

Seems like another 1E candidate. The over-emphasis on the controversy at
the end of her career can be addressed by wiping out most of the detail, or
by removing the article entirely (since the notability argument is somewhat
fragile, and all the references about the subject relate to her dismissal).

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holly_Graf&oldid=476031995
>
> This article, on a female Navy officer – apparently the first woman to
> command a cruiser in the history of the Navy – seems to exemplify some of
> the failings of what I call WP:ADAM:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ADAM
>
> It looks like an article written to pillory her.
>
> Andreas
>
> ___
> 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] it seems to me... Re: Guns, Girls and Games

[Nathan]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Risker  wrote:

>
>
> On 4 June 2012 13:34, Nathan  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I do believe that sexual harassment directed towards women does effect
>>> the gender gap - perhaps not so much, but, after my Women and Wikimedia
>>> Survey almost half of women did state that they were assaulted or harassed
>>> on Wikipedia in some context and almost half said no, that's more than
>>> women said a sexualized environment was impacting them. For me, this is
>>> more deterimental then the accidental stumbling upon of porn on Wikipedia.
>>> There have been moments in my Wikipedia-existence that I have wanted to
>>> leave the community due to harassment, and I know I'm surely not the only
>>> woman on this list who feels that way. I always like reading about how
>>> people are handling situations like this on the internet, as I can only
>>> learn from them.
>>>
>>> So, whether it's deterring current or future editors, I do think it's
>>> more relevant than pornography at this time.
>>>
>>> But, perhaps I'm wrong!
>>>
>>> -Sarah
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> In the context of Wikipedia editing, what does it mean to have been
>> "assaulted"?
>>
>>
> That's a good question, Nathan.  In my workplace, we classify assaults as
> physical and verbal; I suppose from the WMF-project perspective, we'd be
> looking at (mainly) verbal assaults, either onwiki or via email.
>
> There have been some genuine, documented stalking situations (in the true
> sense of the word, with off-wiki contacts that include phone calls and
> sometimes even a physical presence), but they are presumably quite rare.
>
> I'd also say that neither are limited to being directed at female users;
> however, particularly given the small number of women editing on the
> projects, I suspect that they are disproportionately at the receiving end
> of such behaviour.  I have no evidence that this is the case, though.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
>
Ok. To ask a follow-up, and I'm sorry if this is a dense question but I
genuinely don't have the answer, what is an example of a verbal assault? I
understand the wiki-parameters of harassment, and can recognize insults and
rude behavior etc., but I'm just not sure what I would classify as an
assault among purely text-based exchanges.

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

Re: [Gendergap] it seems to me... Re: Guns, Girls and Games

[Nathan]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:

>
> I do believe that sexual harassment directed towards women does effect the
> gender gap - perhaps not so much, but, after my Women and Wikimedia Survey
> almost half of women did state that they were assaulted or harassed on
> Wikipedia in some context and almost half said no, that's more than women
> said a sexualized environment was impacting them. For me, this is more
> deterimental then the accidental stumbling upon of porn on Wikipedia. There
> have been moments in my Wikipedia-existence that I have wanted to leave the
> community due to harassment, and I know I'm surely not the only woman on
> this list who feels that way. I always like reading about how people are
> handling situations like this on the internet, as I can only learn from
> them.
>
> So, whether it's deterring current or future editors, I do think it's more
> relevant than pornography at this time.
>
> But, perhaps I'm wrong!
>
> -Sarah
>
>
>
In the context of Wikipedia editing, what does it mean to have been
"assaulted"?

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

Re: [Gendergap] gendergap research

[Nathan]

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:35 PM, Risker  wrote:

>
>
> I'm not disagreeing with you, Andreas. I'm saying that I'd really prefer
> not to find that just about every thread on the gendergap list wasn't
> discussing pornography in some way.  If you think the culture that
> pornography creates on the project is harmful and is directly related to
> the low participation of women on the project, then why do you feel it's a
> good thing to perpetuate it on this list by constantly discussing it? I
> suggest to you that distilling the gendergap issue down to "pro-porn
> culture"  when participants in the WikiWomen camp don't even rate this
> issue in its top 10, and the majority of women participating in discussion
> over the last few days are saying that it might be an issue but it's not
> the big issue, is pretty much a classic example of shouting over the voices
> of women who disagree with your focus.  Please think about that for a bit.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> 
>


I agree with the desire to talk about something else for awhile, but for
what it's worth... It's been my observation that it's common, even
extremely common, for Wikimedia mailing lists (and mailing lists in
general) to fixate on a single or small number of topics for awhile before
moving on to something else. Let's not treat this as though weeks or months
of discussion had been sidetracked to pornography; it's been a few threads
for a few days, and these threads have drawn far more posts than the
typical topics on this list. It's also in the nature of e-mail that anyone
disinterested in the controversial nexus of Wikimedia and sexuality could
ignore these posts and reply to their hearts content on other topics.

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

Re: [Gendergap] gendergap research

[Nathan]

What I'd like to see, and what I don't think has been done before, is a
survey of editors as they are editing. By that I mean, when someone saves
an edit, a box asks them "What was the purpose of your edit? What made you
decide to make this edit? If it was to correct an error, how were you
alerted to the error? Do you have specific expertise in the topic of this
article? Are you male, female or decline to respond?" etc. etc. It could be
done alone, or in conjunction with a broader opt-in survey, but I think it
would capture some really interesting and useful results.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?

[Nathan]

This may be an interesting tangent, but it doesn't really bear on the
responsibility of Wikimedia or its projects. While others may have both
legal and moral obligations, Wikimedia certainly has moral obligations with
or without potential legal liability. The legal arguments are just a
smokescreen.

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

Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?

[Nathan]

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Thomas Morton  wrote:

>
> That's pretty important then, right? Because IIRC circuit court decisions
> inform judgement in later such cases - and the only way the legal
> interpretation can be rejudged is in a full appeals court?
>
> Tom
>
>
That can be true, but there are 13 circuits and a decision in one has force
only within its own jurisdiction. In any case, it's clear that Wikimedia is
not held to these rules, but that's rather beside the point. We should
*want* this information, whether we are required to have it or not.

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

Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?

[Nathan]

I'm not convinced that sexual images is a gender gap issue. But my
non-expert opinion is that there is, or ought to be, a degree of feminist
interest in the problems of model releases and age verification. I've
always thought it strange that Andreas, and privatemusings before him,
focused primarily on the very low probability that someone might
accidentally stumble onto sexual images... to the near exclusion of the far
more important problem, to me, of hosting potentially thousands of images
where the subject is unknown, unaware of the publication of the image and
did not (and would not have) given permission for such publication. For
most images on Commons of a sexual nature there is no model release and no
age verification, but despite the Board resolution and the lip-service paid
to personality rights on Commons, there have been only minimal efforts to
rectify this problem.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Should there be a Wikipedia boycott over the lack of an image filter?

[Nathan]

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:46 PM, George Herbert wrote:

>
>
>
> That is, in my opinion, an actionable user behavior problem, even
> without the gender related issues.  Those clearly make it worse, of
> course.
>
> I will go look it up later, but it's probably too stale to do anything
> about it now.  8-(
>
>
I agree it's actionable, and I don't see why it should be stale. People get
nabbed for past conduct, especially patterns of conduct, all the time.
Maybe can't be hit with a block for that one instance (preventative not
punishment, etc. etc., since the Wikipedia culture has quixotically
abandoned the notion of the deterrent), but there are other remedies.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Outcomes for WikiWomenCamp

[Nathan]

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Laura Hale  wrote:

>
> *Wikimedia specific outcomes:*
> * A mailing list will be created for support in English and Spanish where
> women can ask for help with harassment they are dealing with on Wikipedia
> and offered solutions.  A private mailing list where several people can be
> on call was selected because the problems would not be made public and
> aggravate problems.
>


It's worth noting that this has existed before, and became extremely
controversial before it was shut down. Sarah (SlimVirgin) could probably
fill you in on the details. It might be a good idea to investigate the
pitfalls of that attempt to avoid running into similar issues.

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

Re: [Gendergap] Article for deletion Fanny Imlay

[Nathan]

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Laura Hale  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

Re: [Gendergap] Article for deletion Fanny Imlay

[Nathan]

It was a "tactical" deletion request. I find that to be a pretty silly
maneuver, personally, particularly as the nominators never do a very good
job as devil's advocate. If jbmurray didn't think the article should be
deleted, he should not have wasted his own time and that of other
volunteers by nominating it.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] The Dell Summit

[Nathan]

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Laura Hale  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Sydney Poore wrote:
>
>> I think it is relevant to our understanding of how the gender gap
>> developed on WMF wikis.
>>
>
> That was hard to pick up from the e-mail. :(  I too was baffled as to how
> this connected.  I still don't see how this connects to the gender gap.
> What are we supposed to do with it?  What can learn from it?  Is it a call
> for chapters to boycott Dell? (If so, nothing was posted to the chapters
> list, though maybe something posted to Internal.)  Was she asking for women
> to write about it for Wikinews?  (Wikinews loves women's contents and I
> know they like women contributors and wish they had more of them.) Sexism
> happens all the time at tech conferences and online. "There is something
> wrong on the Internet!" has practically become an internet meme in its own
> right. Context free, it is confusing... because it makes this list seem
> like a general feminist list to air grievance.  I can get that any time I
> want in many other places. : /
>
> So Sarah, you've got women and men who want to do something in response to
> Dell's latest behavior.  How do you want us to assist and what are going to
> offer to assist us in that?
>

It's relevant because Wikipedia's gender gap doesn't exist in a vacuum, and
neither its causes nor its solutions will be unique to Wikipedia. The Dell
debacle is a really perfect example of the ignorance and lack of
sensitivity to this issue that pervades the tech sector, both of which are
quite strong factors in the gender gap on our own projects.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] civility/behavioral standards

[Nathan]

A debate over civility and cultural definitions of due respect could go on
forever and become quite contentious... This seems like it would be a good
opportunity for Kevin or another moderator to step in and kill this thread
before it gets further out of hand.

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

Re: [Gendergap] Magazine sexism (was: Article "Cumshot" in English and German Wikipedia)

[Nathan]

One wiki-beer to Tom Morton! Really interesting result. I wonder what the
stats are on magazine readership by gender?

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Thomas Morton  wrote:

> Ok, as promised I went into a local store and did this research:
> http://instagr.am/p/KK-RXOwWyt/ I have to say I genuinely expected that I
> might have to admit to being wrong. I'm pleasantly surprised the say I
> don't think I was!
>
> But first, just to say, I felt like a bit of an idiot taking a photo and
> then jotting down notes in the shop. Which turned into feeling like a right
> prat when one of the shop assisstants asked what I was doing ;)
>
> Anyway.
>
> It's immediately obvious from the photo (which cuts off a portion either
> side of the stand, sorry) that there are a LOT of women on these covers.
> However things break down in an interesting way. The vast majority of
> covers featuring a woman, clustered to the right hand side halfway up, are
> female interest magazine (fashion, gossip, etc.). Targetted at women they
> almost exclusively feature a photo of a woman - but they are fully clothed,
> it is often a headshot and the focus is fashion/style (or a celebrity). I
> don't think these are sexist.
>
> Below them are another set of female interest mags - home and hearth. None
> of these feature a woman on the cover (though some have a person as a wider
> part of the image).
>
> Opposite these are two male-targetted types of magazine. On the middle
> shelf cars etc. and on the lower shelf computers. These almost entirely
> feature no people at all - with the exception of one PC mag which features
> a tasteful headshot of a computer generated woman (I'm willing for this to
> be included in the next set of figures, if you like) and a few with men on
> the covers.
>
> Which leaves us the top shelf - a total of 10 magazines, 5 each targetted
> at men and women. Of the 5 targetted at men you can see that 4 are
> obviously feature an amount of nudity sexualisation (although there is no
> actual bits on show). The fifth male targetted mag features a woman as
> well, dressed, but with a bared shoulder and a sexualised pose.
>
> Of the female-oriented magazines three of them feature a man with his top
> off. One doesn't feature a person on the cover. And one (ironically going
> back to the blog post linked last night) features a man with his top button
> undone... and water spilling down his chin and onto his chest.
>
> I make that 5:4, or 6:4 if you want to include the other image.
>
> My conclusions?
>
> Sex sells to men and women, somewhat equally. Tasteful pictures of women
> sell to women. Cars and digital imagery sell to men.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2 May 2012 22:52, Ryan Kaldari  wrote:
>
>> **
>> On 5/2/12 2:38 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
>>
>> On 2 May 2012 22:36, Ryan Kaldari  wrote:
>>
>>>  Perfect opportunity to share one of my favorite blog memes:
>>> http://thehairpin.com/2011/11/women-struggling-to-drink-water
>>>
>>>  Seriously though, it doesn't seem that controversial to say that
>>> mainstream advertising heavily skews to female nudity. Next time you pass a
>>> magazine stand, count the number of covers with female nudity and male
>>> nudity. I'll bet you a wiki-beer it's greater than 2 to 1. Judging by the
>>> last time I was in Paris, I would guess 10 to 1.
>>>
>>> Ryan Kaldari
>>>
>>
>>  On the principle of genuine interest I will take you up on that
>> challenge :) and will report back tomorrow.
>>
>>  Tom
>>
>>
>> I'll be very happy to be proven wrong. I'm certainly subject to
>> perception bias, but perception isn't always wrong. Don't forget to take a
>> cell-phone photo if you want to collect your wiki-beer :)
>>
>> 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
>
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Research into causes of the gender gap?

[Nathan]

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Johannes Rohr
 wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I recently joined this list as I am one of the persons in charge of
> the community-oriented goals which Wikimedia Deutschland has set for
> itself for the coming year, one of which is to increase female
> participation in Wikimedia activities & projects by 50% until the end
> of 2012, I am well aware that this is a very ambitious target, and I
> feel that in order to maximise the chances of meeting it, we will have
> to be as clear as we can about what are the main deterrents,
> preventing Wikimedia from developing the same way as the rest of the
> Internet in terms of narrowing the Gender gap. What is it that makes
> Wikipedia so different, that the seemingly natural disappearance of
> the gender gap which we have seen in the Blogosphere and in social
> media, seems to completely pass by the Wikiverse?
>
> I have seen a number of quantitative studies, which unambiguously
> confirm the existence of the gender gap as such, but I have seen very
> little on what causes it to be so persistent in the Wikiverse. There
> is a number of commonly proposed explanations such as the discussion
> culture and the poor usability. However I have at least not come
> across any studies which have tested their veracity. If anything of
> that kind exists, I would be extremely happy for a pointer. I would
> also be extremely curious whether any attempts have been undertaken to
> weight the importance of each individual cause. Is there any
> particular factors which can be clearly identified as the one or two
> main showstoppers, which should thus be treated as the top priorities
> or is there a whole array of causes which have more or less equal
> weight?
>
> Looking forward to any feedback,
>
> Johannes
>
> --
> Johannes Rohr
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
> Eisenacher Straße 2
> 10777 Berlin

It'd be interesting to see if the factors were consistent across
language projects. I don't speak German, but I have heard on many
occasions that the normal tenor and manner of discussions on de.wp is
quite different than on en.wp. If that's true, it may mean that such
environmental issues are less crucial than is often thought.

Nathan

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

Re: [Gendergap] Kelly Wearstler, again...

[Nathan]

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Rob  wrote:
> Thanks for bringing this to our (well, mine, anyway) attention.  It
> was troubling when it first showed up on BLPN in May and it's still
> troubling that so many (all male, looks like) editors are missing the
> point of BLP and UNDUE and are so dismissive of the career
> accomplishments of the subject of the article, despite ample evidence
> of them in that article.  We obsessively document career details of
> every minor voice actor and porn star, but dismiss career
> documentation from gold standard sources like The New Yorker and The
> New York Times when it comes to interior design.  (This isn't a
> strictly gender issue, I've had the same argument with editors over
> literary theorists and fields like that outside of the tech/media
> orbit.)  I doubt this would happen with the article of, say, a
> wrestler, where a bunch of male editors would insist that the sports
> career is utterly meaningless in the face of something like a brief
> cameo appearance in a Lars von Trier film.
>


Well, let's be fair - there are men on both sides, and as most
Wikipedia editors are male I don't think any conclusions can be drawn
from the gender of the editors :-P

But I agree. It seems strange that an administrator and would-be
arbitrator would argue that a 17 year old photo shoot should dictate
the layout and content of an article, when the person has had many
other notable and high profile accomplishments and coverage. But I've
never really been able to get a good bead on Kww's thinking, so oh
well.

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

Re: [Gendergap] "Written like a personal reflection or essay" vs. "Encyclopedic style"?

[Nathan]

I'd say, if anything, it's mostly the "Early life" section. The
Wikipedia 'house style', if you can call it that, is a fairly dry
just-the-facts-ma'am method of relating events. "Mrs. Kealy, however,
seemed to think that by bringing her over, they were getting an unpaid
servant" is an example of a sentence most long-term Wikipedia editors
would be uncomfortable with, as its more storytelling than relating
encyclopedic information. There's a few more bits, but ultimately its
a pretty minor problem. Over time other editors will probably remove
most of the biographical color and your article will blend in fine.

Nathan

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

Re: [Gendergap] Porn stars vs. scientists

[Nathan]

I'm not sure this is a gender issue so much as an inherent weakness in
notability as a standard for inclusion. Notability, by its nature,
reflects how well known something or someone is in society. In this
case, pop culture provides limited or no coverage for many important
current scientists and comparably comprehensive coverage for
pornstars. So, "notability" is an imperfect hack as a standard - what
we need is something better, if that's even possible.

On the other hand, there have been better statements of this problem
than that expressed by Williams. He seems to both disagree with and
misunderstand the notability standard and its purpose (its aimed at
limiting the quantity of unverified / unverifiable content, and can't
be met through the personal judgment of an editor). His own article,
which seems to have been principally written and edited by himself
and/or a close friend, is a good example of the problem: almost no
secondary, independent coverage. There are 45 references, but almost
all are to published primary research or websites controlled by the
subject. If the standard for inclusion were perhaps "importance"
rather than notability, maybe his and similar articles would find a
more welcoming home; but they would still be poorly referenced and
impossible to independently verify.

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Sarah Stierch  wrote:
> A blog post by a scientist (posted via Wikipedian in Residence Daniel
> Mietchen on his own blog) about how porno outweighs quality scientist
> content on Wikipedia:
>
> http://wir.okfn.org/2011/11/18/why-are-pornstars-more-notable-than-scientists-on-wikipedia/
>
> -Sara
>
> --
>
> Sarah Stierch Consulting
> Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.
> --
> http://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

Re: [Gendergap] Please remove my comments including this one

[Nathan]

Unfortunately the list is public (there is a link to public archives
on the subscription page), and posts to it are collected by several
services that are unrelated to Wikimedia. Since the posts are stored
by private third parties, there is no good method for removing them.
You can try inquiring with the various services directly, if you can
determine who they are and how to contact them.

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

Re: [Gendergap] the state of civility on en.wiki

[Nathan]

The particular incident that prompted this thread has spawned a
request for an arbitration case, which apparently is likely to be
accepted.

I think this would be a really good opportunity for the committee to
make a difference with respect to enabling people with a long history
of rude interactions. If nothing else, discussions on this list have
demonstrated that the often hostile editing atmosphere is a huge, huge
deterrent for many editors and especially for women. Right now, only
the most extreme behavior from non-vested users is sanctioned because
of the many precedents exempting productive users from strict
scrutiny.

It may be helpful for people who post here to post to the case request
page, and express to the arbitration committee that the value of the
editors being driven away far exceeds the value of the editors
repeatedly given a pass. The selective enforcement of interaction
standards, and the apparent influence of relationships on
decision-making, set an example that hobbles any other efforts at
improving the atmosphere of the project.

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

Re: [Gendergap] Am I crazy?

[Nathan]

Not convinced by the AfD. "Snow" kept after less than 24 hours, based
on one substantial vote and a bunch of "what he said" votes that
didn't address whether "college dating" is so distinct a phenomena
that it needs to be treated separately from [[dating]]. A search
string of +college +dating is obviously going to return a lot of
results, that doesn't prove notability - and notability isn't the only
concern.

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

Re: [Gendergap] Am I crazy?

[Nathan]

I question whether "college dating" deserves an article to begin with.
If it does, which the text of the article doesn't at all establish,
the current article has a pretty fatal case of systemic bias.

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

Re: [Gendergap] "anonymous (street meat)"

[Nathan]

I looked at the discussion
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anonymous_(Street_Meat))
and didn't see personal remarks or innuendo. Can you point me to them?

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Migdia Chinea  wrote:
> tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(Street_Meat)
>
> This deletion was filled with personal remarks and innouendo.  It was
> discouraging of the posting bny any women.  I'm angry and frustrated to have
> been singled out.  Is that treatment to be expected?  Thank you --
>
> Migdia Chinea
>
> --
> Migdia & Cicero & Ulla & Tullia-Zoe & Clodia & Aurelius & Cato the Younger
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] FYI [PAPER] "Suck It Up, Princess": Outreach and Diversity in FOSS Communities

[Nathan]

Follow up to my own post of new thoughts... The idea of follow-on
effects from improvements in project atmosphere is one that can be
extended. We could, for instance, view the controversial content issue
as a symptom of a community imbalance that could be improved
indirectly and with less resistance than the "direct approach" image
filter.

I have no basis for this other than a gut feeling, but it seems like
subject matter (page content like images etc.) is less a barrier to
entry than the contributing environment. Perhaps first focusing on
environmental improvements would alter the community in such a way
that controversial content issues could be resolved organically.

Nathan

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

Re: [Gendergap] FYI [PAPER] "Suck It Up, Princess": Outreach and Diversity in FOSS Communities

[Nathan]

Thanks Sue, really interesting article. I think some of the
conclusions may have been pushed a bit farther than warranted by the
sources, but... I think the follow-on effects of making project
environments more friendly, welcoming and nurturing are really key for
the Wikimedia movement generally and the effort to address the gender
gap particularly.

We tend to accept the "hazing" nature of some projects as given, and
the skin-thickening that results as an achievement. All of our most
active and influential contributors are those who have "survived"
community initiation, and they may be less likely to see the need for
structures that provide a softer entry. If we can get support for
building softer paths to contributing and a more protected
environment, I think (and this article argues convincingly) that will
solve a lot of growing problems within Wikimedia.

Nathan

(P.S. The note of FOSS' communities "allergy" to the word feminism
suggests a potential tactic for how to improve community acceptance of
improvements aimed at attracting a more diverse contributor base:
market them in a broad way to the general community, and as the Wiki
equivalent of Railsbridge to more targeted audiences).

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

Re: [Gendergap] Fwd: [Ticket#2011100710013059] Pictorial Depictions

[Nathan]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Theo10011  wrote:
> Thanks Sarah.
> Also, Leilah, just in case, I would like to inform you that exchanges with
> the OTRS agents are supposed to be private, but since you are the customer,
> it is your decision to make them public.
> Regards
> Theo
>


That's not quite how I would put it. OTRS agents are not to release
ticket contents without permission, but people sending OTRS inquiries
are free to release them as they wish.

Nathan

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

Re: [Gendergap] This list

[Nathan]

I agree that several posts recently should have resulted in some sort
of moderation. I'm not sure [[WP:CIVIL]] is the answer... That's an
English Wikipedia policy, and applying en.wp policies to non-en.wp
venues generally gets a strong reaction from non en.wp'ers :-P

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

Re: [Gendergap] Women on Wikimedia group

[Nathan]

A resurrection of the previous most controversial discussion topic on
this list. Personally I don't have a problem with it if women want a
women-only place to discuss gender gap issues (although there are some
immediate challenges: (1) this is the Internet, and (2) some might
argue that male/female is an incomplete gender spectrum). On the other
hand... In order to effect change and be more than an echo chamber,
you might need the other 91% of us.

~Nathan

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

Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 9, Issue 5

[Nathan]

On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Maggie  wrote:

>snip
>
> Second, she referred to women as girls. Which, as far as I know with any
> woman, is incredibly insulting and a way of one-upping someone. I'll assume
> you are a man because your name is Rupert. I'm sure you know if another man
> called you a boy it would be emasculating. It is the same for women. It's
> also something women have battled with for years--people still call grown
> women girls, no matter how much we fight it.
>
>snip
>
> Many of the people who spend the most
> time there are those who have little to do with their time. Those who are
> busy putting flat-out porn on the site are not of the reasonable sort.
>snip
> --Maggie
>

I've always heard that one of the things that drives many people, not
just women, away from Wikipedia is the sometimes aggressive and angry
tone of discussion. I've heard a lot of people complain, even on this
list, that people make assumptions about them based on their gender,
or based on short comments misunderstood, etc. When the level of
discourse really starts to degenerate (like to accusations of lying,
or remarks like "get a fucking life"), it's an opportunity to take a
step back and get some good perspective on what the problem is and
where it comes from.  Whatever causes it on-wiki, we obviously haven't
escaped it here.

Nathan

P.S.: I often hear both men and women describe others as "boys" or
"girls" without meaning anything diminutive or emasculating, etc.
Maybe it's a regional thing; inferring an insult from it, especially
from someone from another continent raised with a different language,
is probably reading too much into it. (On the other hand, people on
this list have a habit of using "males" to refer to men and "women" to
refer to women. Flip side of the same coin, perhaps?).

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

Re: [Gendergap] OFFLIST Re: Incentive programs and wikicups: Effectiveness?

[Nathan]

nb: despite the subject, this was sent to the list.

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
> Hey Laura, I've been meaning to ask you this -- have you talked to Siska
> Doviana in Indonesia? She's run a couple university contests, and reported
> on them. I'm not sure if there's been formal research, but she is full of
> information. I could introduce you if you haven't met her.
> -Pete
> On Sep 23, 2011, at 2:30 AM, Laura Hale wrote:
>
> Has anyone done any research or know of any research that has looked into
> the effectiveness of incentive programs like British Museum
> at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Featured_Article_prize ?
>  Or into the effectiveness of wikicups like Bacon
> at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bacon/Bacon_WikiCup/2012
> ?  Do they spur collaboration?  Do they engage new audiences that may not
> otherwise have worked on content or similar content?
> --
> twitter: purplepopple
> blog: ozziesport.com
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
> Pete Forsyth
> petefors...@gmail.com
> 503-383-9454 mobile
>
> ___
> 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] So this is how Commons works?

[Nathan]

On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:

> In response to Sydney's post..
>
> Having worked in the photography industry (and been forced in front of a
> camera a few times in my day..) as a consultant and a make-up artist (10
> years in that industry) I've written, signed, had others sign, and dealt
> with model release forms a million times over. Here is a nice standard break
> down of that from the NYIP:
>
> http://www.nyip.com/ezine/techtips/model-release.html
>
> If we require permission for use via OTRS, I don't know why we can't have
> "model release" be incorporated sexual/nude photography, modeling
> photography, studio photography. Materials used for educational purposes, as
> Commons is supposed to be, this shouldn't be too hard. I haven't thought too
> hard about it yet, but, it is possible.
>
>
I've been advocating for this for several years (check the archives of
Foundation-l), but there's never been very much support - and none at all on
Commons. Even the Board resolution only requires an "affirmation" from the
uploader that the subject gave consent.

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

Re: [Gendergap] Pregnancy article lead-image RFC

[Nathan]

On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:

> Daniel, I totally <3 your use of denial and hostile work environment.
>
> Chiming in right now. Been following it since it was posted on WP:Feminism
> and was sickened by the conversation, so had to move on..
>
> -Sarah
>
>
>
Daniel pointed to the reply to his comments as of particular interest to
this list... but I think Daniel's comments themselves are just as weighted
with unintentional meaning. Describing a photo of a nude pregnant woman on
the [[Pregnancy]] article as potentially gratuitous in its nudity, using a
euphemism for nudity, and assuming that "most workplaces" have rules against
nudity demonstrate that it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate
cultural biases from editorial decisions.

Since we know that the gender gap exists in many cultures, and not just the
U.S. or Europe, being aware of and sensitive to specific cultural biases
takes on special merit here. Far more "gratuitous" nudity is not terribly
uncommon throughout Western Europe, for example, in everything from general
interest magazines and newspapers to street ads, movies, other media and
even in personal interaction (see [[Love parade]]).

It seems like there must be lower hanging fruit than the image of a naked
pregnant woman on the pregnancy article, or an image of a vagina on the
vagina article. Using the principle of least surprise as a guide, these
examples should be on the lower end of the spectrum of concern.

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

Re: [Gendergap] ATTENTION MODERATOR- last email

[Nathan]

I don't see that your message came through. Messages over a certain byte
limit (which can often be surpassed by quoting large bodies of text) are
held in moderation, so hopefully that happened to yours. You can resend it
without the appended text and the list mod can just reject or ignore your
original e-mail.


On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Karen Sue Rolph wrote:

>  Would you please remove all other appended content that I did not delete
> from my email 3 minutes ago?  There is a long string of conversation that is
> unnecessarily included.
>
> ___
> 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] Woman posting on Wikipedia about knitting, needs investigating

[Nathan]

The discussion here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Danese_Cooper)
is a fantastic example of the type of dialogue that drives away
contributors of all kinds, but perhaps disproportionately discourages
women. It's particularly unfortunate when, as in this case, the source
is an administrator.

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