[Gendergap] Article about super-spreader might need help (enWP)

[Sue Gardner]

Hey folks,

On my phone, so I haven't read the talk page in question. But it looks like
a new female editor might be having a tough time on this article: maybe
somebody has time to step in and take a look?

Thanks,
Sue

http://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/using-wikipedia-in-the-classroom-a-cautionary-tale/
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Joining list, hope to help

[Sue Gardner]

Hi Derric,

No, it's not at all inappropriate for you to introduce yourself -- people
often do that here, and it's helpful.

Thanks for joining us -- and thanks for wanting to help with the gender gap
:)
Sue
 On 14 Apr 2014 11:08, "Derric Atzrott" 
wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I'm not sure if it is proper to introduce yourself upon joining this list,
> so I
> thought I would.  My name is Derric Atzrott.  I'm an editor on the English
> Wikipedia and feel that the gender gap on Wikipedia, and honestly in many
> places
> in general, is problematic and something needs to be done about it.  I do
> a lot
> of informal outreach, though in the past month or two I've begun trying to
> do a
> bit more formal outreach, and have, since I realized there was a problem,
> tried
> to place an emphasis on getting females to become editors.
>
> The news of the deaths of both Andrianne and Cynthia is heart breaking.
>  While I
> didn't know either of them it always pains me to hear about members of our
> community dying.  The death of both of them, who I understand were active
> on
> this list, has prompted me to try to step up my efforts as well, which is
> why I
> have joined this list.
>
> Honestly, there is a good chance to I'll mostly just lurk on this list
> like I do
> wikitech-l and libraries, but if I see anything I can help with I'll do my
> best
> to do so, and if any of you know of anything I can help with, please ask.
>
> Sorry if this email is inappropriate for the list.
>
> Thank you,
> Derric Atzrott
>
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

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

[Sue Gardner]

One thing I find interesting about the discussions on this is that people
seem to be, sometimes, applying different standards from how we normally
handle ourselves. So on WP normally, there is some deference paid to
expertise (as distinct from credentials). Normally, editors will often
defer to others who are known to have subject-matter expertise in a
particular area. We express expertise through research: editors who have
done a lot of reading and who cite reliable sources have more weight
accorded to their views than those who have not done that reading and
citing.

It feels to me like on this issue people are often seeming to substitute
"common sense" or "conventional wisdom" for expertise/knowledge. There has
been lots of scholarly work on transgender issues, in the fields of
psychology, gender studies, medicine, and so forth. So it surprises me to
have editors making off-the-cuff comments, and expecting them to be taken
seriously. A lot of people's expressed assumptions (that Chelsea may change
her mind tomorrow, that Chelsea was a man and is now a woman, or even that
a person's gender is easy to determine) are just flat-out wrong. It's okay
for people to be wrong, but their wrong assumptions shouldn't determine
what goes in an encyclopedia.

(In saying this, I'm not responding directly to Helga or Carol. It's just
something I've noticed on the enWP discussions that I think is interesting.)

Thanks,
Sue
On Aug 24, 2013 6:18 AM, "Carol Moore dc"  wrote:

> There have been similar problems at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**
> Chelsea_Manning 
> Obviously there have been a number of comments that are obviously
> transphobic. However, there also have been repeated false charges of
> transphobia against those who cite good policy reasons for not changing the
> name.  I personally oppose the change to Chelsea as premature for a number
> of reasons, FYI.
>
> And there are good reasons to question what happened at that article
> process wise (the policy reasons for and against the change are discussed
> ad nauseam at the talk page where editors are just trying to get it changed
> back to Bradley Manning, though I think that's morphed into a final
> discussion - hard to tell!! ):
> * an admin changed the title to Chelsea Manning with no discussion on the
> talk page, given it's a controversial move in such a high publicity figure
> *the admin then spoke to the press about it, wrote a blog entry with their
> opinion, tweeted about it, and got even more media publicity for their blog
> entry and/or tweets
> *I would not be surprised if a number of editors also alerted the media to
> her writings and actions in order to try to influence the outcome of a
> Wikipedia policy decision
> *I don't know how much off wiki canvassing there was, but I did start a
> list of wikiprojects alerted, so at least that aspect of WP:Canvass would
> be covered
> *an editor threatened anyone moving the title back would become a minor
> celebrity for a few days, a threat only to those whose actual names were
> used, which implied outing (there's a subsection of the larger ANI thread
> on that threat and related insults)
>
> Wonder if I'll get shouted down *here* yet again for expressing my
> opinions... sigh...
>
> CM
>
>
>
> On 8/24/2013 7:34 AM, Helga Hansen wrote:
>
>> In the German Wikipedia a huge discussion has erupted over the question
>> how to change the Wikipedia page for Chelsea Manning and it's another
>> textbook example over how to drive women of Wikipedia. You can see the gory
>> details here (in German of course): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/**
>> Diskussion:Bradley_Manning
>>
>> I don't want to discuss this because it has already exhausted me to no
>> end but it's another example of “How not to deal with women” and especially
>> “How not to deal with transwomen” and it's important to understand the
>> dynamics.
>>
>> After her statement on Today, one user went over the article, changing it
>> from Bradley to Chelsea. When discussions about this started, two other
>> users set up a section "Namensänderung" that addressed some of the
>> criticism (confusion over names, before „Breanna“ was mentioned, how the
>> support network has handled the name question) and provided sources. They
>> did this on an etherpad and then moved the complete section into Wikipedia.
>> By the way a modus operandi that I have heard from several women, to
>> minimize chances of their work being deleted again.
>> One admin locked the article title to Chelsea Manning. Some friends told
>> me how happy they were to see the page presenting her in this way.
>>
>> Over the night, though, the discussion exploded. Changes were made by the
>> minute, or rather, the article was reverted. Every try, to change something
>> back or to reason with people was made impossible. To keep up, you would
>> have had to be there, writing and fighting not only dur

[Gendergap] Fwd: J-Lab: Inviting proposals for startup awards

[Sue Gardner]

FYI folks. I know J-Lab a little: they're pretty good :-)

Thanks,.
Sue

-- Forwarded message --
From: Jan Schaffer 
Date: 5 December 2012 12:27
Subject: J-Lab: Inviting proposals for startup awards
To: Jan Schaffer 


J-Lab is now accepting proposals for $14,000 in start-up funding for
women-led media projects.  Please share with your women entrepreneurs.



Deadline is Jan. 23, 2013. They can apply here:
http://www.newmediawomen.org/applying/guidelines


And they can see past winners at www.newmediawomen.org.



Best,

Jan



Jan Schaffer

Executive Director

J-Lab: The Institute for Interactive Journalism

Entrepreneur in Residence

American University School of Communication

3201 New Mexico Ave. NW, Suite 330

Washington, DC 20016

P: 202.885.8100

T:  @janjlab



www.j-lab.org

www.newmediawomen.org

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

Re: [Gendergap] Fwd: [Wikimedia-l] 2012 Editor survey launched

[Sue Gardner]

On 1 November 2012 18:47, Sarah  wrote:
> Are we supposed to be seeing this invitation, or has it not been posted yet?

I saw it today, on either meta or Commons (I forget which).

Thanks,
Sue

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

[Gendergap] (OT) Book recommendation: The Boy Kings

[Sue Gardner]

Hey folks,

For anyone interested in gender and Silicon Valley, I heartily
recommend The Boy Kings: A Journey into the Heart of the Social
Network, by Katherine Losse. She was employee #52 at Facebook,
starting in 2005, and the book is a memoir of her time there. She has
a kind of classic liberal-arts grad student hipster take on things --
very much an outsider, looking in.

I'm reading it now, and very much enjoying it :-)

http://www.amazon.com/The-Boy-Kings-Journey-Network/dp/1451668252

Thanks,
Sue


--
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

https://donate.wikimedia.org/

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

[Gendergap] Michele Landsberg article needs help

[Sue Gardner]

Hey folks,

I got a call from a friend this morning, who mentioned to me that
Michele Landsberg is unhappy about her article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Landsberg

Michele's a prominent Canadian feminist journalist, and apparently she
believes her article's been skewed by men's rights advocates trying to
overweight controversies in her work.

If anyone has some time to take a crack at improving her article
that'd be great. If not, I will do it, maybe on the weekend.

Thanks,
Sue

--

Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

https://donate.wikimedia.org/

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

Re: [Gendergap] [PRESS] Stuff.co.nz | Kiwi women are 'slobs' - Wikipedia

[Sue Gardner]

On 26 November 2011 08:55, Sarah Stierch  wrote:
> I just cleaned out the entire section. The citations used (except the book
> in the men's section I haven't looked at) DON'T mention "stereotype" in
> anyway. It's obviously someone with original research just throwing it out
> there based on personal opinion.

Thanks Sarah! I didn't have time to look at the citation earlier, but
I'm not surprised it didn't support the article text. I appreciate you
cleaning that up :-)

Thanks,
Sue


--
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

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

[Gendergap] [PRESS] Stuff.co.nz | Kiwi women are 'slobs' - Wikipedia

[Sue Gardner]

Hey folks,

http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/beauty/6041397/Kiwi-women-are-slobs-Wikipedia

"According to Wikipedia women in New Zealand are unfeminine, wear
masculine clothing and spend ''little time on makeup and personal
grooming''."

Somebody might want to take a look at this -- the article is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_New_Zealand.

This is the relevant paragraph:

"Lack of femininity: Women in New Zealand are supposedly unfeminine,
for example wearing masculine clothing and spending little time on
makeup and other forms of personal grooming. This can also be seen in
a positive light; Kiwi women are portrayed as not being held back by
ideas about being 'ladylike' and are therefore willing to take on
'masculine' tasks such as car maintenance and playing rugby. Former
Prime Minister Helen Clark is often seen as an embodiment of this
stereotype, for good and bad: critics point at her lack of children
and her choice on one occasion to meet the Queen while wearing
trousers; supporters like her passion for mountain climbing and
ability to hold her own in parliamentary debates.[24]"

If nobody else has time to look at it I'll try to do it sometime in
the next few days :-)

Thanks,
Sue


--

Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

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

Re: [Gendergap] Am I crazy?

[Sue Gardner]

Yeah, personally I think the subject is notable. There has been tons
of academic research and popular history written about the history of
dating, college dating, the invention of the 'teenager,' etc. Even
just within the United States.

I think I did a radio series on this once -- IIRC, Beth Bailey was a
really great source. She wrote this fascinating book:
http://www.amazon.com/Front-Porch-Back-Seat-Twentieth-Century/dp/0801839351.
Susan J. Douglas was good too, as well as Stephanie Coontz and Barbara
Ehrenreich. They are all American, though. Lots has been written about
the UK too, but I'm not sure about other cultures/countries.

Thanks,
Sue


--
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate



On 24 October 2011 11:16, Daniel and Elizabeth Case
 wrote:
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Nathan
> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 2:13 PM
> To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Am I crazy?
>
> 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.
>
>
>    On the surface I tend to agree, but then I read the AfD:
>
>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/College_dating
>
> Daniel Case
>
>
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>

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

Re: [Gendergap] Childless and childfree

[Sue Gardner]

Wow, thank you, Gillian! I just took a quick spin through both of them and
they really do seem improved, especially child-free. I remember looking at
it about six months ago and wincing -- as you say, it had some huge gaps.
And I just looked at the history of childless and you're right, the older
versions really do seem to come from a male POV --- particularly the list of
famous men (and their wives) who didn't have kids.

Thank you for making them so much better :-)
Sue



--

Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate


On 16 October 2011 04:47, Gillian White  wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> I read these articles [[Childless]] and [[Childfree]] at the beginning of
> the weekend to follow up on the removal of the aforementioned pointless
> lists of childless men that used to be in them. And yes, while it is a good
> thing to have deleted the pointless lists, the articles were still awful. So
> appalling that I have spent my weekend working on them and just wanted to
> have a rant here about it (apologies in advance). Begin rant ... It says
> something about our editorship that one of the most important issues for
> women throughout history and across the globe - something that has caused
> unspeakable suffering, is related to serious illnesses, has brought down
> kingdoms, caused wars and crime, destroyed relationships, damaged national
> potential etc etc - was reduced to two muddled, myopic, arrogant, ahistoric
> articles largely concentrating on an option available only to a few rich,
> privileged women in a few wealthy areas of the world for the last thirty
> years. That is, there were two articles, with two names, both mostly about
> voluntary childlessness. Thus, did the encyclopedia ignore almost every
> woman on the planet over about three thousand years and all their shared and
> individual experiences with controlling conception when there were/are very
> few options. Reading the pair of articles was equivalent to reading an
> article on "Food" dominated by content about pistachio ice cream. So, yes,
> we do need more women editors! I am one of the women fortunate enough to
> have had "options" but I do know, unlike apparently the original articles,
> that "childfree" is not an option for most of the world and until very
> recently has not been a reliable option for anyone. I also know that
> childlessness matters to many people for lots of different reasons. I have
> separated the content of the two articles and included some of the very
> serious issues to which childlessness is related as well as tried to give
> the childfree one a more global perspective.  End rant. Thanks for reading.
> Yes, I know the articles are not finished. I am going back to my bricklaying
> now (no, really!) and trying to earn a living (but not from bricklaying). I
> will return though [?] PS If you want a real heroine, read about
> [[Catherine Hamlin]] who has quietly and efficiently been restoring women's
> health and giving them back their lives for over fifty years.
>
> Gillian
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
<<330.gif>>___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] Women's Voices Women Vote | feminist lobby group wants help

[Sue Gardner]

Does anyone have time to help out with this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Women%27s_Voices_Women_Vote&diff=455563003&oldid=455401124

It was sent to me by a Wikipedian who thought I might be interested in
helping -- I am, but I am over capacity with other stuff at the moment
:-/

Thanks,
Sue


--
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

___
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

[Sue Gardner]

On 10 October 2011 20:25, Nathan  wrote:
> 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

Yes -- I think you're 100% correct, Nathan. You are exactly right:
that is precisely what I am hoping and expecting.

The consensus model, and all the basic decision-making structures of
Wikipedia, work fine --- they only produce poor-quality results when
there isn't sufficient diversity in the discussions. That's why we
sometimes see articles of interest to women being wrongly deleted as
non-notable, and so forth.

I believe that at this point in our history, all minority Wikipedia
editors likely tend to either i) happen to have interests and a
personal style that is very similar to the majority culture here,
and/or ii) have some extra motivation to participate that other
members of their minority group lack -- e.g., a feminist desire to
ensure women's history is well covered. The participation of the first
group is great, but doesn't do anything to stretch the existing
culture, whereas the participation of the second group will -- it is
different from the norm, and so it will require the culture to expand,
making it easier for the next generation.

That's why I'm so glad we have this list. That second group is going
to have a tough slog for a while, and I am glad we've got people here
who want to support them :-)

Thanks,
Sue


--

Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

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

[Gendergap] Looking for success stories of article improvement

[Sue Gardner]

Hi folks,

I'm wondering if anyone here has examples of articles that contain
potentially-objectionable imagery being significantly improved
following normal discussion among editors?

I'm looking for examples of good editorial judgment being exercised in
the normal article improvement processes -- like, an upskirt image
being removed from the 'skirt' article, or, commercial porn being
replaced by images that are more informative/educational. That kind of
thing.

I know that kind of editing happens all the time -- I'm hoping people
here can point me towards particularly good examples.

Thanks,
Sue


--
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

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

[Gendergap] This list

[Sue Gardner]

Hi folks,

This past weekend, two people wrote me off-list to say they're planning to
unsubscribe because they don't like the fightiness we've seen over the past
week here. And a number of people have commented off-list and on, about how
this list is normally more constructive than foundation-l. I have the
impression that people appreciate the constructive tone, and would like to
retain it.

So I wanted to say a couple of things about that.

One, this isn't my list, and I'm not going to moderate it. I did ask for
this list to be created, and I've been really happy to see good, useful
conversation here. But I created it for you, and it's up to you what kind of
standards you want to have here.

Second: typically, the Wikimedia community is pretty hands-off when it comes
to behavioural standards on its lists. Personally I think that's a mistake.
We've seen how it's played out on for example foundation-l: over time,
destructive behaviour, if unmoderated, tends to drive out constructive
discussion. Maintaining a productive, collegial environment takes time and
effort: people need to want it, and they need to be committed to achieving
it.

A couple of months ago, I asked Sarah Stierch to help me administer this
list. AFAIK, she's the only other list owner, at the moment. So I am going
to leave this question in her hands, and in the hands of subscribers here.
It's up to you, what kind of space you want this to be. I'd encourage you to
talk about it :-)

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

Re: [Gendergap] Hairdresser, hairstylist...barber?

[Sue Gardner]

You guys inspired me to do this, last night:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hairstyle&action=historysubmit&diff=450770040&oldid=450687141

It still needs lots of help though -- it needs non-Western material
added, plus information about men's hairstyles, plus it needs a nice
clean rewrite once it's complete. I might spend a little more time on
it this weekend. Or, I might move on to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handbag

I probably don't need to say this, but these are personal edits, not
ED edits. LOL.

Thanks,
Sue

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

Re: [Gendergap] Wikifashion

[Sue Gardner]

On 14 September 2011 10:03, Michael J. Lowrey  wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Sarah Stierch  
> wrote:
>> I do like this though (scroll down to badges), not the portraits..but the
>> round badges. I'd love to see something like this developed for Wikipedia.
>> I'd have them on my tumblr, etc.
>>
>> http://wikifashion.com/wiki/Wikifashion:Contributors_Needed
>
> Really I find them loathsome in the extreme; very Facebooky.


S funny: everyone is different, and that is fine.

I remember Jack Herrick seeming flustered and a little embarrassed one
day by a purple girly welcome message on WikiHow. But I loved the
purple girly welcome message, personally :-)

Thanks,
Sue

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

[Gendergap] CBC Radio on Wikipedia's Gender Gap

[Sue Gardner]

Hey folks,

http://www.cbc.ca/spark/2011/09/sue-gardner-on-wikipedias-gender-gap/

This is me being interviewed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
about our gender gap. It's raw (uncut) tape so it's long -- I am
guessing about 20 minutes. But you will probably find it interesting,
due to the topic and also the fact that --although I don't name
anybody-- I talk at some length about this list :-)

(You might disagree with how I characterize what's happening here --
i.e., I think I say at one point that the list has been sometimes
'hilarious,' and I realize I may be alone in thinking that. It's fine
if you disagree, but I hope nobody finds what I said offensive -- it's
meant affectionately, and with respect.)

Thanks,
Sue



--

Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

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

Re: [Gendergap] Pregnancy article lead-image RFC

[Sue Gardner]

On 6 September 2011 00:04, Arnaud HERVE  wrote:
> I think that for medical articles, all the relevant body parts must be
> fully exposed. And believe me I have seen much worse than a healthy
> pregnant woman, because i do website editing for a faculty of medicine.
>
> In that case the part to be expose would be the whole swell of the
> belly, from pelvis to thorax. Including the breasts is ok to me.
>
> Showing that part exclusively would not only be more medically relevant
> (because thighs and neck are not relevant here), it would also make the
> person non identifiable.
>
> The clothed photograph seems to me more improper than the nude one for a
> medical article. If it is medical, then the body part must be exposed
> without clothes. Even if it might sound surprising, I also disagree all
> photographs showings hands on belly, nude or clothed. I acknowledge that
> it shows the mother's care, but for medical purpose it is the belly
> alone that must be shown.


This is really interesting, Arnaud. I take Ryan's point below about
whether pregnancy should be framed and understood solely as a medical
condition, but it strikes me reading your post that there is a whole
world of expertise in the medical space about how best to display
human physiology for neutral informational purposes. I wonder if we
currently tap into that expertise at all, anywhere in our projects.
I'm sure there are codified best practices --more comprehensive
versions of what you outlined above-- that would be useful for us.

This is interesting to me because in my personal use of the projects,
I have very rarely been offended, but I have occasionally been
startled by what seems like incongruous or inappropriate imagery.
Basically, an overrepresentation of images used for educational
purpose, that include elements or signifiers often associated with
porn, such as breast implants, long artificial nails, hair extensions,
waxing [1] ... which has a weird sexualizing effect on the article,
which I have found distracting or perplexing.

It seems to me that if we had access to the kinds of best practices or
guiding principles used in the medical profession, that might give us
some guidance for how to select images that are optimally neutral for
educational purposes. Because as your note implies, that expertise
does already exist.

Thanks,
Sue

[1] It's probably because those images originated as porn, either
amateur or professional, and have been repurposed for use on our
projects. As Jimmy has sometimes said, Commons has a supply-side
problem not a demand-side problem. If we have an over-supply of porny
imagery, and an undersupply of good neutral imagery, porn will get
used for educational purpose.

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

Re: [Gendergap] As I was passing through...

[Sue Gardner]

On 22 June 2011 17:50, Charlotte J  wrote:

> This has probably been far too long already for a number of folks on the
> list, so I'll conclude for now and share my thoughts on hosting pornography
> on Wikipedia; recruiting Girl Scouts as editors; another potential
> consideration not yet raised as to why the WMF should be concerned, I
> suspect, about the relative dearth of female editors; bare-breastedness in
> depictions of "Liberty"; etc., in another email or two, after I've had a
> chance to look over again a few archived emails that it may help to quote or
> refer to specifically.
>
> I'm using a middle name to post here given that the list is open-archived on
> the internet, that my recent unpleasant experiences on Wikipedia included
> what I've concluded was harassment, and that I see no good reason to risk
> subjecting my family to any such potential consequences due to my
> participation on this list, however brief, so I will sign off for now just
> as,
>
> Charlotte

Charlotte, thank you for writing this, and welcome to the list.

I don't want you to stop editing Wikipedia. I have spent a lot of time
immersed in Wikipedia culture, and for what its worth I can tell you
that your e-mail exemplifies the best of Wikipedia culture. I don't
know anything about your work as an editor, but this mail is
thoughtful and articulate and beautifully-written, and it's obvious
from it that you've got a good understanding of Wikipedia's policies.
I bet you are a terrific Wikipedian, and I bet you're contributing
information that would otherwise not get written about.

I am so sorry you had a bad experience with the Recent Changes
Patroller. But you should stay! Obviously it's your decision, and
obviously when Wikipedia loses people by treating them badly, that's
our fault and our problem to solve. So I am not trying to imply that
you have any kind of obligation: clearly you don't. But seriously: you
can make (and presumably have been making) an enormous, important
contribution here. You have no obligation or responsibility to keep
editing, but I really, really wish you would.

Thanks,
Sue



--
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

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

[Gendergap] Dominique Strauss Kahn article

[Sue Gardner]

Hey folks,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominique_Strauss-Kahn_sexual_assault_case

This article is a bit of a disaster, and I think could really use some
attention, particularly from experienced Wikipedians and/or people
experienced with coverage of sexual assault.

I've made a couple of edits aiming to clean it up a little, but it
really needs more work -- particularly, because it covers a
high-profile alleged crime involving two living people, and they both
deserve to be treated with respect and restraint. Looks like there
aren't very many experienced editors working on it, which is a little
anxiety-provoking. So if anybody's got time to help, that would be
great :-)

Thanks,
Sue



--
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

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

Re: [Gendergap] Advice for BLP situation (possibly off-topic)

[Sue Gardner]

> On May 11, 2011, at 9:58 AM, Deanna Zandt wrote:
> Any advice is greatly appreciated.


Hey Deanna,

It's a tough problem. Your friend is right -- Wikipedia biographies of
people who are only marginally famous/notable (as opposed to, like,
Barack Obama) are among our lowest-quality articles, and the most
vulnerable to biased editing.

Here's a page that may have some useful information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Article_subjects

It might not add anything to what you're getting here -- you are
getting good, specific info here from people with lots of experience
in this area. But it'll lay out the basics at a high level, and so it
might be useful.

Thanks,
Sue

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

[Gendergap] HOWTO Encourage Women at Wikipedia?

[Sue Gardner]

Hey folks,

I've always thought that Val Henson's HOWTO Encourage Women in Linux is a
terrific document: it's well-researched, carefully-written and
comprehensive, and I think it works really well as an iconic, permanent
document. I've pointed lots of people towards it, and it's saved me saying
the same thing over and over again, many times.

http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Encourage-Women-Linux-HOWTO/

It occurred to me the other day that we could make something similar for
Wikipedia. So I wrote Val a note (Val may be on this list, I can't remember.
If so, hi Val!) asking how she'd feel about that, and she's completely
supportive. So I wonder: does anyone here want to volunteer to facilitate
the creation of a version of Val's HOWTO, adapted and customized for
Wikipedia? I'd be really happy to help, but I don't want its development to
be perceived as a Wikimedia Foundation initiative; I'd rather it be
understood as coming out of the Wikimedia community.

Thanks,
Sue


--
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] This list

[Sue Gardner]

On 18 March 2011 01:10, Collective Action  wrote:
> Hi Sue,
>
> I appreciate your thorough and quick responses:-)
>
> It's Friday night here in Australia so I'll chew over the questions and
> answers over the weekend. I find sitting back and thinking things over
> helpful.
>
> I'm interested in what other people have to say too.

Me too. And you're welcome: I was happy to write it :-)

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

Re: [Gendergap] This list

[Sue Gardner]

Hi Rosie,

I will take a crack at answering your questions, in-line below :-)


On 17 March 2011 22:41, Collective Action  wrote:
> Dear Sue & All,
>
> I am yet to experience sexism on Wikipedia however my reading of this list
> has only served to confuse me with regard to the gender gap issue. I am
> hoping that someone can clarify the following points with some kind of
> authority.
>
> Is there any consensus in the Wikipedia/Wikimedia heirarchy that the Gender
> gap on Wikipedia is a problem that Wikipedia is trying to solve (apparently
> with the help of this list)?

I can't speak for the Wikipedia editorial volunteer hierarchy. But I
can speak for the Wikimedia Foundation, and yes, we believe the gender
gap is a problem that needs to be solved. Currently, 13% of Wikimedia
editors self-identify as female [1], and we've set ourselves a target
to double that by 2015.

[1] 13% of respondents to the 2008 UNU-Merit Editor Survey said they
are female. We believe that number is probably a little off, because
although there was a healthy sample size, the methodology probably
resulted in favouring of frequent editors. So the 13% may be a little
skewed, but probably not too much.



> Is there any consensus in the Wikipedia/Wikimedia heirarchy that women who
> attempt to contribute to Wikipedia are likely to be subject to chronic
> sexist remarks and that this is presumed to factor into the lower
> participation rates of women?

I don't think so, no. My personal belief (and my own experiences, and
readings on-wiki) suggest to me that Wikimedians are significantly
less overtly, explicitly sexist than non-Wikimedians. Many, many
online cultures are blatantly misogynist: Wikimedia IMO is not. I'm
not saying that sexist remarks never happen (and of course it depends
what you define as sexist): I would expect that they do. But I don't
think Wikimedia is a particularly sexualized culture; I don't think
it's a culture that tends to stereotype and objectify, and I think
most/many of the men on Wikipedia would recoil from overt sexism.

That doesn't mean we don't behave in ways that deter women's
participation: I think it's obvious that we do [2]. But I don't think
that direct personal aggressive sexism is particularly present on
Wikipedia.

(It might be worth knowing that in about a month, we are going to put
a new Editor Survey in the field, that includes a half-dozen questions
about gender and sexism. That will be the first time we've surveyed
editors, male and female, about their experiences and observations
with regard to gender on the Wikimedia projects. So we'll see what
gets reported.)



> What is the responsibility of Wikipedia/Wikimedia in protecting individuals
> from harrassment and in particular, any systemic abuse which is believed to
> be endemic to Wikipedia?

The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't police editors' behaviour on
Wikipedia. Policing editors' behaviour is a responsibility of the
Wikimedia editorial community, through dispute resolution mechanisms,
the Arbitration Committee, and other avenues. (There are some people
here who can talk about Arb Comm, for example.) The Wikimedia
Foundation just couldn't possibly police it: there are 100,000 editors
here working in 270+ languages, and we would never have the ability to
investigate problems, nor to enforce compliance with behavioural
standards. And ultimately, editors are online volunteers, and if they
are unhappy or feel unsafe, they always have the ability to exercise
their option to stop editing. At the end of the day, they have
alternatives. They are here by choice, and they can leave if they
want.

Having said that, I do wish that the Wikimedia Foundation could do
more to protect editors from harassment. I believe that only a very
small number of editors has ever faced serious harassment, but I am
aware of some instances in which it's occurred. We have, in a very
small number of instances, offered advice and support of various
kinds. But we can't be responsible for people's safety on Wikipedia,
any more than Facebook, for example, can be responsible for people's
safety there.



> How does Wikipedia take responsibility to ensure that when people come to
> Wikipedia to edit for the first time they are made aware of problems they
> may encounter (both due to their gender and more generally) and the actions
> they can take to address these issues?

I think the usual advice to people joining online communities is that
they should lurk for a while, read, and get the hang of things. I'm
not aware of any special cautioning orientation materials for new
people on Wikipedia. (Although as I write this, I do actually remember
that when I first started editing, I stumbled across advice on how to
remain anonymous, whether or not to use my real name, and some other
bits and pieces. But I believe I found it by reading really widely and
deeply; it wasn't collected together in one place.) It might actually
be a really good project for this group: to aim to create a

[Gendergap] This list

[Sue Gardner]

ise: that we want to fix this problem.
Everybody's acting in good faith: I truly believe that. Some of us are
probably inadvertently offensive, and some of that offence comes out
of unexamined privilege, for sure. And some of the women here have
expressed lots of anger and frustration, some of which probably
doesn't belong on this list, but spills out here because it's been
brewing for years due to their experiences elsewhere, in addition to
their experiences on Wikipedia and/or this list.

I think we all have a responsibility to try to be our best possible
selves here --- by which I mean our most generous, constructive,
helpful, collaborative, trusting, listening, understanding selves.
Everybody's damaged; nobody's perfect; we're all going to make plenty
of mistakes. But everybody here wants to solve this problem: that's
why we're here. It's going to be a lot of work, and we're going to
need all different types of people. A bunch of non-mutually-exclusive
categories: we will need radical feminists, plus experienced editors,
plus new editors, plus external observers, plus people who like to
question and probe, plus staff people, plus men exploring their
privilege and thinking about these issues for the first time, plus
lurkers. Plus plus plus.

We've all got a role to play. And I hope we all want to continue the
work we've started :-)

Thanks,
Sue



--
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

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

Re: [Gendergap] Meta: Don't be a dick

[Sue Gardner]

On 14 March 2011 16:22, Denis Barthel  wrote:
>  > Are we seriously suggesting that women, as a class, are not editing
>  > > Wikipedia because sometimes editors use naughty words?
>
> It's just Brandon, Pete, Joseph, Daniel, Fred (and now me) ruling the
> discussion on women's needs.


That's hilarious :-)

But seriously, personally I think it's fine. It's silencing and
counterproductive when people try to deny each other's experiences
(like, a man telling a woman she's over-reacting, or whatever). But I
think people trying to imagine the world from someone else's
perspective can only be a good thing. Empathy is good.

And also: that was really funny :-)

Thanks,
Sue

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

[Gendergap] Barnstars!

[Sue Gardner]

Hey folks,

Did Ryan Kaldari post this to this group:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kaldari/wikilove ? Forgive me if he
or someone else already has.

Ryan's just created a new widget that makes it much easier to award
barnstars (and kittens!). I think this is FABULOUS: making it easier
to be kind and friendly can't be wrong :-)

Instructions for how to download and use the widget are on Ryan's
userpage, at the link. I encourage everyone here to experiment with
offering each other love & praise :-)

Thanks,
Sue

(And if the barnstar concept is new to you, you can read about its use
on Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Barnstars.)




--


Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

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

Re: [Gendergap] Emails to friends, lists to encourage participation

[Sue Gardner]

Carol, I think this is a great idea :-)

I think we (anyone here) should create a page on meta (linked to from
here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_gap) where we put your
draft text, and point to good basic resources to support people
getting started in editing. (There are some very good resources here:
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bookshelf/Wikipedia and elsewhere
on the outreach wiki.)

That would equip people to use your base text, plus any links that
seem useful to them, to do outreach to any group they like. I really
believe that individual outreach: people reaching out to their own
networks, is a good tactic for us. Because the people who are one
degree of separation from the people here are by definition good
candidates to become editors.

Thanks,
Sue



--
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate



On 21 February 2011 21:32,   wrote:
> One thing we can all do is send letters of encouragement to women to
> join wikipedia. I don't know if there is a form letter  already used
> that we can merge ideas like the below into.  This is includes and
> expands on points I sent out to a couple of political women friends and
> womens lists - about 150 women total - as a personal encouragement.
> Underwhelming two responses so far: "good idea" and "I'm too busy." So I
> know that the letter needs work! Maybe we could have a couple versions
> linked from http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_Gap
>
> Revised draft version:
>
> Wikipedia has set as it's goal increasing the number of editors from
> under 15% to 25% over the next few years. See the New York Times and
> other articles and other relevant Women and Wikipedia links here.
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_Gap
>
> I've been editing a lot the last few years. It is fun for amateur policy
> wonks and has taught me a lot  about good referencing and how easily
> ones own biases can twist the material one is dealing with.  And it's a
> great motivator to learn more about a topic you are interest in - you go
> in and improve an article on a topic of interest with better information
> from better sources.
>
> And it's fun to get challenged, whether you are proven wrong, proven
> right, or work with others to come up together with a collaborative
> solution. Talk page discussions and debates are a great way to learn
> about Wikipedia editing policies.
>
> It can take a few months to get up to speed on all the policies to
> enable you to edit effectively, i.e.,  making edits that will stick
> while deleting unsourced and biased material.
>
> Also, since Wikipedia is still mostly a 20 something man's world, it may
> be best to use a gender neutral name and not advertise on your user page
> you are a female, at least until you get the hang of editing it.  At
> least avoid using use your whole real name to avoid possible harassment
> on and off Wikipedia.*
>
> But if you have favorite topics that you'd like to see better covered,
> have time on your hands (as some of us semi- and retired women do), and
> want to have some great fun, do try Wikipedia.
>
>
>
> (*CM Note: this point is actually said explicitly in User name policy,
> but few people get to it before they choose a user name)
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Nine Reasons Women Don't Edit Wikipedia

[Sue Gardner]

On 20 February 2011 14:24, Marc Riddell  wrote:

> Sue, as you know, this is the area of my greatest concern regarding the
> future of the Wikipedia Project. The gender gap is a part of the larger
> problem you described above: That of a combative, hostile and defensive
> culture that presents an unchecked arena for Community Member harassment and
> abuse - that prevents the type of healthy, intelligent and productive
> collaboration that can, and will, improve and maintain the quality of the
> Project. Is there, are there, plans to mount a similar initiative to tackle
> this larger problem? To approach it as a gender-neutral problem?

Yes, absolutely. And it's not just plans: people are actively working
on the issue, today. This is the primary work of the Community
department at the Wikimedia Foundation -- the staff there are
currently working with community members on a bunch of projects and
activities to help make the Wikimedia projects more inclusive. A lot
of that is happening on the outreach wiki -- for example, the Account
Creation improvement project, the Bookshelf project, the Ambassador
program, support for student campus associations, and so forth.

http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Account_Creation_Improvement_Project
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bookshelf_Project
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Ambassador_Program
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_student_clubs

There's also some outreach-related/outreach-supportive activities that
have been announced on the Wikimedia blog:

http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2011/01/12/new-wikimedia-fellow/
http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/11/30/upload-wizard-launches-beta-wikimedia-commons/
http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/09/30/two-new-community-department-fellows/

I agree with you Marc that our central challenge is the need for deep
culture change, to help Wikimedia be more inclusive and open. I think
the gender challenge is part of that, but it's obviously not the whole
story: we need more women, and we also need more editors from outside
North America and Europe, as well as other underrepresented groups.
And we want current editors to be having better, more positive
experiences on the projects, as well.

Thanks,
Sue

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

Re: [Gendergap] Nine Reasons Women Don't Edit Wikipedia

[Sue Gardner]

On 20 February 2011 11:35, Miguelinito  wrote:
> Nice of you to read all the opinions (I also do).
>
> Regarding your objective to increase the participation of women
> up to 25 % in the next four years, why not 20 % or 30 %? I mean,
> what reasons did you consider to choose that number? Is there some
> stadistical study or something like that that suggests that number
> as a suitable one, or is it just an arbitrary number chosen by somebody?
> In the same line, what would you say if finally the result were 10 %?
> Or 30 %? If 25 % is just a personal choice, under which criteria you could
> think that you succeded or failed? Is it a scientifical effort, or
> just a political effort under the knowledge that it's more than
> probable that in four years (due to the natural increase of
> implication of women in men's traditional roles) the final
> percentage will be much higher than 25 %? Please let me know;
> maybe I am wrong, together with some other people who think
> like me. I need to *trust* you and *understand* you to have
> positive feelings about the openness of this project.
>

Hi Miguel,

The 25% target was the result of discussion among me, some of the
senior staff at the Wikimedia Foundation, and the Wikimedia Board of
Trustees. We picked it because it seemed reasonable: it looked like
(we felt) a stretch, but a reasonable target that we thought we could
hit if we tried, and if we rallied existing editors and external
supporters to help.

I've heard that in various places (the Spanish Wikipedia?) some
editors are talking about the target represents a form of affirmative
action, and therefore discriminatory against men. I don't think that's
at all true. Wikipedia's not a zero-sum game: new women joining the
project don't displace existing male editors, nor do they prevent new
male editors from joining. I think that in fact the reality would be
the opposite. If Wikipedia can reduce some of the current impediments
to participation (ie., if we can achieve better usability, a less
combative culture, a culture that supports and coaches new editors, a
culture in which people are respectful of what they don't know and
don't tend to reflexively delete contributions from people who are
different from them), then I think that will make it easier for ALL
new people. Which would be good.

Also: I don't think that if we do nothing, Wikipedia will get more
gender-balanced over time. We don't have any change-over-time data on
gender: we only have one data point (the 13% from the UNU-Merit
study). But I don't think time is on our side. I worry that in fact
the opposite is true: that Wikipedia's culture may tend to
self-reinforce over time, and may actually be narrowing rather than
broadening. (I found it disturbing for example, while compiling that
post, that so many women had edited and then stopped, moving instead
to other online spaces which they found more receptive to them and
more enjoyable. We can't afford --and we don't want-- to lose good
people. We want them here!) So I think achieving 25% won't be easy.
But I think that if we put effort into achieving 25%, that 25% is a
large enough minority that those editors will be able themselves to
achieve some culture change, thereby effecting a virtuous cycle of
openness. Basically, if my theory is correct, it'll be very tough for
the first wave of new female editors, but it will get easier over
time.

Let me know if there are other concerns or reservations you've got
about this effort to redress the gender gap. I don't want experienced
editors to view it as oppositional: I'd like them to understand why it
matters and how it will help us all, and to help make it happen :-)

Thanks,
Sue

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

[Gendergap] Nine Reasons Women Don't Edit Wikipedia

[Sue Gardner]

Hey folks,

I did a superfast compilation of online comments by women talking
about why they don't edit Wikipedia:
http://suegardner.org/2011/02/19/nine-reasons-why-women-dont-edit-wikipedia-in-their-own-words/

A couple of things struck me: Most of the reasons cited by women for
not editing probably apply to men too. Most are deeply rooted culture
stuff that will take time to change. And I was particularly interested
to read women saying they believe the bar for notability is higher for
the topics they write about, than it is for 'male' or 'ungendered'
topics.

Thanks,
Sue





--
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

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