Re: [Gendergap] GenderGap admin update

[WereSpielChequers]

Please don't ping Kevin,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-08-04/Obituary

Fae is right to point out that we should replace him at the least.

On 27 April 2017 at 20:15, Neotarf  wrote:

> I believe the second one has been active recently, maybe someone could
> ping them.
>
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Fæ  wrote:
>
>> Hi, it was pointed out that
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap has an out of
>> date list of admins.
>>
>> Can we confirm how many active admins GenderGap has today, and find
>> out if any more are needed?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Fae
>> --
>> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>>
>> ___
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
>> visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
> visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
___
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 Call to Men UK " manhood workshops

[WereSpielChequers]

*Re "** young men from 11-19", which if you think about it, is pretty much
the demographic of Wikimedia's admins and functionaries."* That's an old
joke, but nowadays a joke that looks a tad out of touch. Yes a significant
proportion of  people were that age when they became admins in 2004-2008.
But if there is one thing we know about the people who became admins ten
years ago, it is that they are ten years older today. I couldn't guarantee
that none of our current admins were that young now, but I'd be surprised
if more than one or two were. Only twenty of our current admins created
their accounts in the last six years
.
RFA has been difficult for teenagers to pass for several years now, If any
have got through in the last six years they have been unusually mature in
behaviour. As for Functionaries, Functionaries other than crats have to
prove they are 18 or over when they become Functionaries. So it is
theoretically possible that any new functionaries who first became so in
the last two years could be 18 or 19, but it isn't exactly likely.

The template bombers who tag lots of articles for admins to delete probably
do include some people in that age group, but admins? If 1% of the 1200
admins on English Wikipedia were still under 21 I would be stunned. Far
more admins are over 60 than could possibly be 11-19.



On 20 February 2017 at 18:53, Neotarf  wrote:

> "A Call to Men UK has 55 coaches working in schools, youth justice
> departments and youth centres across Worcestershire. The organisation has
> one principal aim, explains development manager Michael Conroy: to spark a
> 'cultural shift in the way boys relate to girls', and through this to
> prevent violence against women and girls  'As a culture it’s time
> that we gave our young men permission to be complex, sensitive and happy
> human beings who transmit positivity and respect to others'.” [1]
>
> They have a program "for young men from 11-19", which if you think about
> it, is pretty much the demographic of Wikimedia's admins and functionaries.
> [2]
>
> This is all the more interesting right now because of the recent Newmark
> Foundation grant to combat harassment, which it seems is to be used for
> developing more forceful blocking tools for admins and functionaries "with
> the participation and support of the volunteers who will be using the
> tools".  If anyone has not seen the Susan J Fowler / Uber piece on
> harassment that has started going viral in the last 24 hours, it is here. 
> "...they
> didn't do anything because the manager who threatened me was a 'high
> performer.'" [3]  Sound familiar?  This happened in a company with HR
> oversight; Wikimedia admins and functionaries have no oversight at all.
>
> [1] https://www.theguardian.com/social-care-network/2017/feb/
> 20/teaching-boys-about-healthy-relationships-they-need-it-from-birth
> [2] http://acalltomenuk.org.uk/
> [3] https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on-
> one-very-strange-year-at-uber
>
>
>
> ___
> 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?

[WereSpielChequers]

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
___
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] Good news from EN Wikipedia

[WereSpielChequers]

Sorry Fae,

I mostly focus on new admins and overall numbers of  them. My educated
hunches are that:

   - the vast majority of new admins are men
   - Male admins are disproportionately desysopped
   - Female admins are more likely harassed off the site.
   - The last two points largely balance out


But I don't have the stats to be certain of any of that.



On 11 January 2017 at 10:43, Fæ  wrote:

> Nice example.
>
> WSC, how has the proportion of admins that are openly women vs openly
> men changed over recent years? I'd guess that if you don't know then
> nobody does. :-)
>
> Fae
>
> On 11 January 2017 at 06:55, WereSpielChequers
>  wrote:
> > Ealdgyth has just set a new record for an unopposed request for
> adminship.
> > She had 250 supports and no opposes, breaking Sarah Stierch's 2012
> record of
> > 217 0 by 33 supports.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Times_that_200_
> Wikipedians_supported_an_RFX
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Gendergap mailing list
> > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
> > visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
> visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] Good news from EN Wikipedia

[WereSpielChequers]

Ealdgyth has just set a new record for an unopposed request for adminship.
She had 250 supports and no opposes, breaking Sarah Stierch's 2012 record
of 217 0 by 33 supports.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Times_that_200_Wikipedians_supported_an_RFX

Jonathan
___
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] Study: men who receive harassment training “significantly less likely” to recognize harassment

[WereSpielChequers]

Significantly less likely than men who don't attend such training..

So does that mean the targeting is correct and the people sent on such training 
are disproportionately those who most need it?

If you want a test of how effective that training is you could try an AB test. 
Study a large group of attendees, half before and half after such training. Or 
a large group of men a few months before and after such training to see if 
those who attend make more progress than those who don't. Comparing those who 
don't attend with those who do would only make sense if the attendees were 
randomly chosen.

WereSpielChequers


> On 3 May 2016, at 15:53, Neotarf  wrote:
> 
> "A study in the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science found men who 
> participated in a university staff sexual harassment programme were 
> “significantly less likely” to see coercive behaviour as sexual harassment."
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/work/sexual-harassment-training-makes-men-less-likely-to-report-inapp/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_mediu
> 
> ___
> 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)

[WereSpielChequers]

Leaving aside the language issue, there's an important issue in this
article re the Gendergap. I had been under the impression that Wikipedia's
ratio of bios by gender was skewed, but overall no more skewed than the
secondary sources. That we have many gaps, male and female but, and this
could be the biggest success of those involved in combating the gender gap,
If a woman makes it into the secondary sources her chances of a Wikipedia
article are now about the same as a man's. Obviously that varies by topic,
there are subjects where people have systematically worked on all the
female redlinks and others where the skew may be the other way. If the
message that was meant by that article was that notable women are less
likely to have an article on them than notable men then we have regressed.
If the message was intended to be that Wikipedia's notability standards
perpetuate past wrongs done to women, then I'd agree, but perhaps the
solution is elsewhere.

More importantly, I had thought that we had failed the women we write about
in two ways. Wikipedia articles about women tend to over emphasise their
appearance and family ties as opposed to the things we cover in bios of
men, and bios of women are linked to less than bios of men. If that's still
the case then I'd appreciate a signpost article on  do's and don't when
writing about women, I'm not qualified to write such an article but I do
promise to help promote it. As for relative underlinking, this could just
be a function of time, if the proportion of female BLPS has risen since the
gendergap project started it could just be that articles get more linked to
if they exist. If women are mentioned in other articles but are less likely
to be linked to then I have an idea as to how we might address this, if
they are less likely to be mentioned in other articles then we have a
problem in search of a solution.

PS Those who like and expect profanity in discourse are welcome to crack
the code and count the profanities hidden in this email.

WSC
___
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)

[WereSpielChequers]

One reason why I try not to use expletives on wiki is that things can be 
misinterpreted; I've seen examples of people using a rhetorical example only to 
find others take it personally. 

Another is that not everyone gets the difference between a swear word used 
against a specific person and one used against a situation; in particular I'm 
conscious that many people on English Wikipedia are not using their native 
language and might not spot the sometimes subtle distinction between 
unacceptable and arguable uses of such words. 

Lastly there is an argument for not having a privileged status for "vested 
contributors" whether admins, functionaries, or editor with vociferous fans; 
there are times when in just a few sentences you can explain why one use of a 
swear word is a personal attack and another is a rhetorical statement. But 
people don't necessarily believe you, especially if it looks to them that you 
are defending a fellow insider.


Regards

Jonathan / WereSpielChequers 


> On 21 Feb 2016, at 21:54, Ryan Kaldari  wrote:
> 
> The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community takes all 
> of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of profanity in a 
> positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia calls a female 
> editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye.
> 
>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Risker  wrote:
>> Is it a double standard?  If that page hadn't been written by Keilana, would 
>> it have been published as is?  
>> 
>> Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard.  Just not quite the one 
>> some think it would be.
>> 
>> Risker/Anne
>> 
>>> On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf  wrote:
>>> Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created.  Interesting double 
>>> standard about profanity in the comment section.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> 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] Latest WMF brouhahas relevant to gender gap??

[WereSpielChequers]

Two male trustees are leaving as their terms have expired. One male trustee
has been controversially ousted.

Two trustees have been appointed, one female, the other male. There is a
petition to reject the new male trustee which may or may not succeed, and
if it succeeds who can predict the gender of the next appointment.

There will be a replacement for the ousted male trustee, and that
replacement could be of any gender.

So the events of the last few weeks have left the board with a lightly more
even gender balance and could switch the balance further. But I doubt that
was anyone's primary motive in all this kerfuffle.





On 26 January 2016 at 17:09, Risker  wrote:

> While I believe that the issues raised in the changes in the Board of
> Trustees are important and worthy of attention for many reasons, it does
> not appear to me that there are issues specific to (or particularly
> relevant to) the gender gap, except in a very, very peripheral way.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 26 January 2016 at 11:20, Carol Moore dc 
> wrote:
>
>> Wondering if there is any particular relevance to the gender gap issue in
>> the removal of one board member and protests against the new one? Or just a
>> general "editor trust" issue, which makes many editors dis-trust any "close
>> the gap" programs/initiatives by WMF?? (Or at least gives them an *excuse*
>> to distrust them!)
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Heilman
>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:James_Heilman_Removal
>> http://www.examiner.com/article/the-doctor-is-out-says-wmf-board
>>
>> AND
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnnon_Geshuri
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Vote_of_no_confidence_on_Arnnon_Geshuri
>>
>> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/editors-demand-ouster-of-wikimedia-board-member-involved-in-no-poach-deal/
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Three hours left to register your account for Arbcom elections

[WereSpielChequers]

Mainspace is where we keep the articles as opposed to policies, drafts,
user space files and an amazing amount of other stuff.

Another easy and uncontentious way to make a few edits is a little image
adding exercise
 I
wrote. Or just look at the articles in this deletion queue

you can remove the deletion tag of anything in that queue if you add a
reliable source that references something about the subject of the article.
There are usually a few articles on women in that queue.

On 27 October 2015 at 21:21, Neotarf  wrote:

> Just noticed this voting requirement:
> "... An editor is *eligible* to vote who:...(i) has registered an account
> before 28 October 2015"
>
> Reading between the lines, I would guess that means before October 27,
> 23:59 PM UTC (just type "time UTC" into Google).
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2015#Timeline
>
> You have until Saturday (Halloween) night to complete the second
> requirement: "...at least 150 mainspace edits before 1 November 2015".
> What is a "mainspace edit"?  I never did understand the "space" thing, but
> if it helps any, WP:MAINSPACE redirects to "WP:What is an article?"  If
> anyone is looking for a quick way to get in 150 edits, you might try a
> little gnoming with the Visual Editor--it has some new functionality with
> repairing and wikifying links.
>
> ___
> 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] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"

[WereSpielChequers]

Kevin,

2014 was the nadir for some raw editing numbers on English Wikipedia, on at
least one count numbers have been rising since then
.
The problem in estimating the electorate is that our best metrics are
unrelated to the arbcom voting criteria, so for example we know that the
number of editors saving over 100 edits per month in mainspace is up in
2015, September's figure was 15.3% up on 2014 and the highest September
figure since 2010 .
>5 edits is more volatile, some months even show a small decline since the
same month in 2014. People entitled to vote is going to be a much larger
group than the >100 edits per month brigade, but I'd be surprised if there
wasn't a correlation between edit count and propensity to vote.


On 23 October 2015 at 02:21, Kevin Gorman  wrote:

> Daniel: your suggestion doesn't reflect the fact that 2014's election
> had roughly 60% the voters of the year before. We definitely didn't
> have anywhere near that much of a drop in editing metrics.
>
> Best,
> Kevin Gorman
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case
>  wrote:
> >> Not to keep harping on how important it is to vote for arbcom, but I'm
> >> still just flummoxed by the fact that arbcom is elected by about half
> >> a percent of very active editors, and a smaller portion still of
> >> editors who meet the requirements and have edited in say, the last
> >> year.
> >
> >
> > Speaking as someone who does vote in ArbCom elections regularly,
> although I
> > rarely closely follow what that body does ... I think this might reflect
> the
> > oft-unacknowledged fact that a great deal more editors than we realize do
> > the tasks they have set out for themselves, "all alone or in twos", so to
> > speak, managing to complete them and resolve differences of opinion
> amongst
> > themselves without resorting to any sort of formal dispute-resolution
> > process. Of course it's only going to be those who have a reason to care
> who
> > care about ArbCom—and, naturally, that group is going to include a
> greater
> > proportion of those who have agendas they'd like to see ArbCom promote.
> >
> > Daniel Case
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"

[WereSpielChequers]

I haven't followed ARBCOM closely enough this year to be quite as scathing
as Risker, but the what little I have seen  is very disappointing.

I haven't been an arb, but I have done jury service, and I'm a fan of the
system. But it relies on conscription to draft people in for a task that
they are literally locked in a room to do. If a case were only an hour or
so of time then I think you could experiment with inviting panels of a
random thirty or so of our three thousand or of most active editors. My
guess is that a random thirty would give you half a dozen who'd respond -
you could tweak the numbers if my guess is out. But I'm not confident that
this would work for cases that require more than a couple of hours
involvement, or that involve personal information and thereby require
"private sessions". I doubt there are sufficient such cases for a jury
system to make a meaningful contribution to the system.

Reforming arbcom is difficult. Influencing its election rather less so, I
haven't done a voters guide for a few years but I'd commend doing so to
anyone who has the time to thoroughly check the candidates.

On reform, I rather like the panel system, not because a panel of five arbs
will make much better choices than a dozen arbs, but because only having
five arbs on each panel would reduce the workload, hopefully to something
manageable. A lighter load gives the possibility of more people considering
arbcom, and even of arbs engaging more with the community on non arb stuff.

Another option is to invest in training arbs and functionaries. Both on
technical training - if Sarah and Kevin are right re the Lightbreather case
then it may just be that they didn't know how to get or read the evidence;
Also they could be given the sort of training that UK magistrates go on.
Question to Risker, what sort of training do they currently undertake?



On 22 October 2015 at 22:04, Risker  wrote:

>
> On 22 October 2015 at 16:27, Sarah (SV)  wrote:
>
>> Daniel, I happen to think that any Arb who is asked to excuse themselves
>> from a case should do so, within reason.
>>
>
> I tend to agree with you on this, Sarah.
>
>
>>
>> But in particular I think women who see certain Arbs as sexist should be
>> able to require recusal. Otherwise the case is hobbled before it begins.
>> Ditto for anyone with concerns about racism or homophobia.
>>
>
> I'm a little less certain about this one: if there are five parties to a
> case, and everyone decides to brand three different arbitrators as
> sexist/racist/homophobic etc, you're down to  nobody.
>
>
>>
>> I would like to see a jury system replace the committee, with small
>> groups chosen to resolve particular issues. The committee has not worked
>> for a long time. It isn't the fault of any individual or group. It's a
>> combination of the way Arbs are nominated and elected, and the way they end
>> up cloistered away from the community. It creates a "thin blue line"
>> mentality. I would like to see a grassroots approach, at least as an
>> experiment.
>>
>>
> That was what RFCs and mediation committees did, although I grant that
> their "decisions" were not binding. They fell apart - RFCs because
> genuinely uninvolved Wikipedians stopped participating. The Mediation
> committee fell apart because there were so few people who were any good at
> dispute resolution actually mediating them, and also because mediation
> required the "participation agreement" of long lists of supposed parties.
> (I was once listed as a "party" for a mediation on an article where I made
> one edit to remove poop vandalism.)
>
> There's no evidence at all that jury systems are any more fair or accurate
> or impartial or unbiased than any other dispute resolution systems.  (A
> quick look at the number of convicted prisoners who have subsequently been
> exonerated proves my point.) Add to that the simple fact that "volunteer"
> pools of jurors are, simply by dint of numbers, going to be made up of the
> same types of people who are already arbitrators/functionaries/admins (or
> potentially people who were rejected for those responsibilities because
> they were unsuitable), and that compelling participation of people who have
> deliberately NOT wanted to participate in such activities is more likely to
> result in those individuals leaving the project entirely rather than making
> great decisions (other than the obvious "this is stupid, ban them all so I
> can get back to my categorization"). In fact, I suspect that a jury system
> made up of conscripted jurors would actually result in much harsher
> sanctions all around. There are some who argue that would not be a bad
> thing.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
> visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
__

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile to Women"

[WereSpielChequers]

Hi Sarah,

I'm not a "functionary" so I haven't seen the evidence - clearly it
convinces you, but it did not quite convince the functionaries.  Reading
the result and for example Yunshui's comment I would simply prefer that the
record shows we were not fully convinced by the evidence, rather than that
we were convinced, but chose not to act.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Proposed_decision#Off-wiki_harassment_against_Lightbreather>I
think what we have here is more than a detail difference. If the decision
had been, as reported in the Atlantic, that Arbcom had decided this *"on
the grounds that it may “out” the editor that had posted the pictures, or
link his username to his real name."* Then I would have supported a change
in policy, or Arbcom membership, so that future Arbcoms in similar
situations would be willing to risk outing someone, or just ban them
without public reason, rather than leave a harasser unpunished. But if the
issue is not that, but instead that the evidence was inconclusive, then I
think we have a very different problem to work on. As for the broader
picture I don't dispute that Wikipedia has several problems around gender,
and some terrible publicity, but if one took that article at face value the
obvious next step would be to get a change in policy so that if Arbcom were
convinced of the evidence they could and would have acted.


Jonathan
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Proposed_decision#Off-wiki_harassment_against_Lightbreather>

On 22 October 2015 at 17:37, Sarah (SV)  wrote:

> WSC, the evidence as to who posted the porn images was, I would say,
> conclusive. We nevertheless ended up with a situation in which a man who
> had been engaged in harassment (much of which was onwiki and had been going
> on for about a year) was let off the hook, and the harassed woman was
> banned.
>
> There was a similar situation in the GGTF case
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions_at_GGTF>,
> so the Lightbreather case was not an unfortunate one-off. For example, the
> man who was blocked for harassment during the Lightbreather case
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather>
> should have been blocked for it during the GGTF case, but wasn't. He only
> ended up being blocked during the Lightbreather case because he admitted
> that he had done it. Otherwise he might still be editing.
>
> Something systemic is happening here. As a result of those cases and many
> other examples Wikipedia now has a terrible reputation for being sexist.
> (See this selection of stories
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force/Media_and_research>.)
> Rather than arguing about which details various journalists got wrong, we
> should focus on what they got right and how we can fix it.
>
> Sarah
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:45 AM, WereSpielChequers <
> werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Francesca,
>>
>> It seems a shame that an Arbcom case in which one person was blocked for
>> offwiki harassment and another would have been if the evidence had been
>> conclusive has been reported as if they'd decided instead to spare the
>> harasser for privacy reasons.
>>
>> As Thryduulf put it "there is no doubt that had we been able to
>> conclusively connect the perpetrator to a Wikipedia account that action
>> would have been taken (almost certainly a site ban).
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Proposed_decision#Off-wiki_harassment_against_Lightbreather>"
>>
>>
>> You could point her to
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Proposed_decision#Off-wiki_harassment_against_Lightbreather
>>
>> A story warning mysogynists that Arbcom will and has acted against those
>> it catches would have made it easier to attract women to wikipedia and
>> deter misogynists.
>>
>> WSC
>>
>> On 22 October 2015 at 12:04, Francesca Tripodi 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I was directly interviewed for this article but my contributions were
>>> scrapped. I have Emma's email and I would be happy to reach out to her
>>> if you'd like to list a set of uniform "corrections"? No guarantee
>>> she'd be able to change them but it's a start if you'd like?
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone - please excuse brevity or errors.
>>>
>>> > On Oct 21, 2015, at 4:23 PM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:
>>> >

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile to Women"

[WereSpielChequers]

Thanks Francesca,

It seems a shame that an Arbcom case in which one person was blocked for
offwiki harassment and another would have been if the evidence had been
conclusive has been reported as if they'd decided instead to spare the
harasser for privacy reasons.

As Thryduulf put it "there is no doubt that had we been able to
conclusively connect the perpetrator to a Wikipedia account that action
would have been taken (almost certainly a site ban).
"


You could point her to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Proposed_decision#Off-wiki_harassment_against_Lightbreather

A story warning mysogynists that Arbcom will and has acted against those it
catches would have made it easier to attract women to wikipedia and deter
misogynists.

WSC

On 22 October 2015 at 12:04, Francesca Tripodi  wrote:

> I was directly interviewed for this article but my contributions were
> scrapped. I have Emma's email and I would be happy to reach out to her
> if you'd like to list a set of uniform "corrections"? No guarantee
> she'd be able to change them but it's a start if you'd like?
>
> Sent from my iPhone - please excuse brevity or errors.
>
> > On Oct 21, 2015, at 4:23 PM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:
> >
> > Some journos take corrections easily, and some don't.  I've had people
> > directly misquote me at major outlets where I had the call on record
> > (with their consent, since CA is a 2 party consent state for recording
> > calls,) and refuse to make corrections, and had other people accept my
> > corrections at face value and put them in to place.  I may not have
> > time to do so today, but would encourage anyone interested (probably
> > better if it's only a person or two and not a horde in this case) to
> > contact the author of the Atlantic piece about the issues.  Probably
> > those directly interviewed by the journalist would be the best
> > candidates to put in for a correction.
> >
> > Best,
> > Kevin Gorman
> >
> >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Andreas Kolbe 
> wrote:
> >> Good that this story has been told, at last. Overdue.
> >>
> >> (Minor quibbles: Eric is not an admin, and the New York Times piece was
> not
> >> written by a NYT reporter. Corrections possible?)
> >>
> >>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Kevin Gorman 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for sending this out Carol, you beat me by about two minutes.
> >>> I would hugely encourage everyone to read this, and a lot of it also
> >>> relates to why it's important that people vote in arbcom election, and
> >>> we don't have arbitrators elected with 273 support votes and fewer
> >>> than 600 total votes...
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>> Kevin Gorman
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Carol Moore dc
> >>>  wrote:
> 
> 
> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/
> 
>  Goes into lots of details...
> 
> 
>  ___
>  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
>
> ___
> 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] Linux's culture problem

[WereSpielChequers]

I'm not a member of the Lynux community, though I'm a very grateful user of
their software. But I don't read that blogpost as saying that "She didn't
try to change Linus Torvalds. She left".

I read her words, and especially* "I’m posting this because I feel sad
every time someone thanks me for standing up for better community norms,
because I have essentially given up trying to change the Linux kernel
community. Cultural change is a slow, painful process, and I no longer have
the mental energy to be an active part of that cultural change in the
kernel."*

Those are the words of someone who has tried and tried again before
deciding to leave.



On 7 October 2015 at 22:33, Moriel Schottlender  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:44 PM, rupert THURNER 
> wrote:
>
>> to let wikipedia NPOV also have a word, here what linus torvalds
>> thought about it two years ago:
>>http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137392506516022&w=2
>> in a summary, torvalds argues that sarah sharp should accept that
>> people are different and act different, she should not try to change
>> linus torvalds.
>>
>
> She didn't try to change Linus Torvalds. She left.
>
> The question in every community is really quite simple when we talk about
> these things; If we want to let people be personally confrontational,
> unwelcoming or abusive because we want to let people who they are, then we
> lose people who have no patience or desire to be abused in their capacity
> as volunteers.
>
> I think what Linus Torvalds is missing is empathy to others who aren't
> like *him* (ironically), but he's far from being the only one in the field
> to apparently lack that, especially in these type of discussions.
>
>
>>
>> rupert
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>> > I wish that we had a proven solution for that kind of issue in online
>> > communities in general. It's quite disappointing. Thanks for forwarding
>> that
>> > post.
>> >
>> > Pine
>> >
>> > On Oct 7, 2015 6:44 AM, "Jason Radford"  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I think folks here will understand this story.
>> >>
>> >> http://sarah.thesharps.us/2015/10/05/closing-a-door/
>>
>> ___
>>
>
___
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] Help us fill the Ally Skills Workshop at Wikimania!

[WereSpielChequers]

Hi Carole,

But if you ask people to lurk out of camera shot and not ask questions
unless they are willing to have them taped aren't you making them second
class participants at that event?

Better in my view to create an edited taped version, and if someone isn't
prepared to be in the final cut try to resolve their objections. It may be
they are OK if a narrator says their words and their face is pixellated, or
perhaps they need their bit replaced by a shot of someone reacting to their
words and the narrator saying "a participant gave a personal example of
harassment"



On 14 July 2015 at 13:40, Carol Moore dc  wrote:

> I definitely understand Risker's point, but despite my jokes about
> metaphorical "gang bang at Wikipedia", this really isn't a discussion of
> personal violence and assault, but of organized political intimidation.
> And we should feel free to speak out about that and make sure lots of
> people hear us.  Otherwise we are just victimizing ourselves by embracing
> our oppression instead of fighting it.
>
> Having attended some such events at Wikimania 2012, and seen the issues
> discussed at least briefly in one or more taped presentations, off hand I
> don't remember any guys being really obnoxious. (I do remember the story of
> the NYC event where guys WERE being obnoxious, however.) Hopefully, they
> are NOT becoming more organized like the guys who disrupted the Gender Gap
> Task Force.
>
> Probably the best thing is to discuss whether to tap and let participants
> decide and if only a few object they can stay out of camera range and ask
> any comments they make not be taped.  That is done at a lot of different
> events.
>
> On 7/13/2015 10:46 PM, Risker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 13 July 2015 at 21:37, Carol Moore dc > > wrote:
>>
>> On 7/13/2015 3:50 PM, Valerie Aurora wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> Several people have asked whether the Ally Skills Workshop will
>> be an
>> unpleasant experience for women attending - specifically,
>> whether men
>> will dominate the conversation, dismiss what women say, etc. We
>> spend
>> the first 20 minutes of the workshop setting up discussion rules
>> so
>> that this doesn't happen - in fact, the workshop is real-world
>> practice in how to have a discussion in ways that give women an
>> equal
>> chance to be respectfully heard.
>>
>>
>> Make sure you tape it and they all know it will be going up online?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I hope not, or it will really, really change the willingness of
>> participants to share their experiences and stories.  In some cases it
>> would have the effect of revictimizing the victims.
>>
>> I can sympathize with your wish to see how it goes, Carol - I'll be in a
>> required session a few doors down the hall while this takes place,
>> although I'd really like to participate.  But from the bigger picture, I
>> think it's better that the session not be publicly accessible.
>>
>> Risker/Anne
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
>> visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>
>>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
> visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] Calling for women in tech. New BBC3 Series - Final Call for Applicants!

[WereSpielChequers]

Greetings,

Anyone on this list interested in taking part in a BBC program on women in tech?

Regards

Jonathan 


Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Robert Beck" 
> Subject: New BBC3 Series - Final Call for Applicants!
> 
> Hi,
> 
> My name is Rob and I am a Researcher on a new BBC3 programme. Our programme 
> is offering women the chance to learn exciting new creative skills from some 
> of the UK's leading digital companies and pioneers.
> 
> I have emailed you before and just wanted to let you know we are having a 
> final call for applications, so if you know anyone who would like to apply 
> then tell them to email cast...@nutshelltv.co.uk ASAP! They will be sent a 
> few questions to answer. If anyone gets in touch for more information, there 
> is no obligation to take part in any filming at this stage.
> 
> We are currently looking for women over 18 to take part, and I wondered if 
> you could help us circulate details to any groups in your area who might work 
> with young people in your area? Or anyone you know personally - or anyone at 
> all!
> 
> It would also be great if you could mention our show across social media 
> platforms such as Twitter or Facebook. I have attached our flyer to this 
> email.
> 
> If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me 
> on 07941338778.
> 
> With best wishes, 
> 
> Rob Beck
> Researcher - Nutshell TV
___
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] Motivating women to run for board seats

[WereSpielChequers]

One problem with Oppose in that electoral system is that unlike say RFA you 
don't know why individual people are opposing, though you can make deductions 
from patterns. For example, as one might have expected the tension between the 
WMF and the community over the last two years resulted in a lot of oppose votes 
for incumbents.

I would like to hope we don't have anyone who simply opposes or indeed supports 
based on gender, but one of the drawbacks of that system is that people can 
anonymously do that.

But the biggest drawback of having oppose in that system is that you can't 
differentiate between people who are voting oppose because they have something 
against a particular candidate, and people who know one candidate and vote in 
the logical way to give most effective support for that candidate. ie support 
the one candidate you know and oppose all the others. I prefer more 
proportional systems such as the STV system used in Ireland, aside from 
encouraging people to vote "positively" such systems also tend to elect a more 
diverse set of candidates.

Regards

Jonathan Cardy


> On 8 Jun 2015, at 18:57, attolippip  wrote:
> 
> Pardon me, Zana, but why?
> Oppose is just as good as Support, I believe. It means that people have 
> feelings about you.
> And you can change that. Indifference is the problem, imho
> 
> And I still cannot understand why the voting is not open and public...
> We are supposed to get used to express our opinions without fear being 
> (mostly) Wikipedians, aren't we?
> 
> If I vote against someone and it means anything to him/her, (s)he can just 
> ask me why and we can talk (we can do it beforehand, of course :))
> The same thing is about voting for smb. Is it not interesting to know who 
> supports you and why? 
> And the other way around. I would love to know what motivates people to vote 
> against me.
> It helps to see if one is going in the right direction, whatever they may 
> think about it
> 
> Best regards,
> antanana
> ED of Wikimedia Ukraine
> 
> 2015-06-08 20:37 GMT+03:00 Risker :
>> 
>>> On 6 June 2015 at 18:32, Zana Strkovska <777.z...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi everybody,
>>> 
>>> Thank you Anne for mention "only one woman candidate for FDC this year", it 
>>> was me.
>>> I would like to say something: not time, not money is issue for me (I am 
>>> free lancer, meaning I can manage my time). My theory is that I didn't pass 
>>> because I didn't answer questions in the way the community wanted.
>>>  
>>> I am not sure how many woman we have who are free to help, serve and 
>>> travel. But, what I found discourage after mine failure is the oppose 
>>> votes. One thing is to see how many Wikipedians voted for you, but it's not 
>>> so pleasant to count oppose votes.
>>> 
>>> I hope my words could help on why women aren't generally volunteering to 
>>> run.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Zana
>>> (user:Violetova)
>>  
>> Zana - I would really like to encourage you to post that at the election 
>> post-mortem page, perhaps in the section about voting methodology (which is 
>> titled "Electoral system").[1]  Your perspective, as a candidate, is really 
>> important on this issue.   I have said for a while now that I am unlikely to 
>> ever participate in another WMF-related election, but it was only on reading 
>> what you wrote here that I realized how demoralizing the opposes are in any 
>> of these elections for me as well. 
>>  
>>  
>> Risker/Anne
>>  
>> [1] 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/Post_mortem
>> 
>> ___
>> 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] American woman files revenge-porn lawsuit in England

[WereSpielChequers]

I understand that the new law on revenge porn can't be applied retrospectively 
to something posted before that law was passed. But I'm surprised they haven't 
used the 1998 Data Protection Act, surely this is personal information about an 
identifiable individual, and it doesn't seem likely it is being used in 
accordance with the purposes that the individual consented to?

To bring things back to this list, are people comfortable with Wikipedia 
policies re revenge porn?

Regards

Jonathan


> On 3 Jun 2015, at 19:23, Neotarf  wrote:
> 
> Ironically, the name of the woman is public, but the man's name is not.  
> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/03/us-woman-pursues-ex-boyfriend-in-landmark-uk-revenge-porn-action?CMP=ema_565
> 
> ___
> 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] Outcome of IdeaLab/Inspire campaign

[WereSpielChequers]

An alternative tack is to encourage people to edit sections rather than click 
the edit button at the top of the page. Aside from often avoiding templates and 
infoboxes, a habit of editing by section will greatly reduce your risk of edit 
conflicts.

As for editing Wikipedia improving a marketable skill, I'm sure we have lots of 
editors who edit in languages other than their first language. I may have a 
skewed experience there because much of my editing is fixing typos, but I like 
to feel that one of the added benefits of my editing is that I am sometimes 
helping others improve their written English.

Of course there is a minimum competence level needed before you can try and 
write significant content in a language you are learning, so we need to be 
careful about the level of fluency we suggest people have before we encourage 
them to edit in a language.

Regards

Jonathan


> On 21 Apr 2015, at 19:32, Christine Meyer  wrote:
> 
> You make some good points, Ellie.  However, it's been my experience that even 
> a basic knowledge of HTML helped me learn Wiki syntax.  I am by no means a 
> coder, although I am married to one.  Perhaps a better way to frame it is 
> that learning Wiki syntax can help you learn to code easier?
> 
> Christine
> User:Figureskatingfan
> 
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Ellie K  wrote:
>> I read Marie Earley's message about the Inspire campaign, and specifically 
>> about the Pinterest-related proposal.  I was interested in the Pinterest 
>> proposal too!  I use Pinterest for fun. As far as I know, I was the only one 
>> to endorse it (I am FeralOink on WP, Ellie Kesselman IRL).
>> 
>> Marie said this in her message on the GenderGap mailing list:
>>> ​"​If the pitch to women were "learn code by editing Wikipedia" then I 
>>> think there would be a greater take up...​"​
>> 
>> Yes, I agree that there would be a lot of interest from women if that were 
>> true. However, editing Wikipedia and learning to code have nothing to do 
>> with each other. Learning Wiki syntax for editing is something that can take 
>> bona fide programmers a (brief) while to learn, as it is markup with many 
>> additional Mediawiki-specific features. More to the point, Wiki syntax isn't 
>> a programming language, nor does it closely resemble HTML or CSS, which are 
>> not programming languages either. The only people who code on Wikipedia are 
>> the Wikidata folks and those who build utilities (many in Python, I think) 
>> for whatever the toolserver is called now. Most Wikipedia editors are not 
>> going to have any interaction with these few folks, nor any means to learn 
>> the skills they have.
>> 
>> I'm sorry for sounding negative, but I don't want to mislead women into 
>> thinking they will learn a job skill like programming (coding) by editing 
>> Wikipedia. There are many other things one may learn by editing Wikipedia, 
>> but they aren't so easy to articulate and vary by individual.
>> 
>> --Ellie Kesselman (FeralOink)
>> 
>> ___
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please 
>> visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Christine
> 
> Christine W. Meyer
> christinewme...@gmail.com
> 208/310-1549
> ___
> 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] Article: Wikipedia trolls now vs. women architects

[WereSpielChequers]

Hi Joseph,

That would be fine for established articles, but in my experience most new bios 
that get speedy deleted within a day or two of creation don't ever get an 
infobox added. 



Regards

Jonathan Cardy


> On 13 Apr 2015, at 13:56, Joseph Reagle  wrote:
> 
>> On 04/12/2015 03:38 PM, Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada wrote:
>> 2015-04-12 21:18 GMT+02:00 WereSpielChequers
>> mailto:werespielchequ...@gmail.com>>:
>> 
>>Firstly looking at gender ratios of deleted and undeleted bios to
>>see if there is an overall gender skew.
>> 
>> I share here this page of deleted and recreated pages
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Emijrp/Deletionism/2011 just in case
>> someone wants to explore that.
> 
> I have python code that's pretty good at guessing the gender of
> biographical subjects, but originally it scraped HTML given a list of
> names. If someone had some code for retrieving the wikitext and
> determining that it is a biography (neither of which would be hard) it
> would be very easy to determine. Here's some pseudocode:
> 
> ```
> #!/usr/bin/python2.7
> 
> def is_bio(article):
>'''TRUE if article is not '{{hsdis}}' and has '{{infobox person}}'''
> 
> for title in titles:
>males = females = unknowns = 0
>if title_exists:
>article = get_wiki(title)
>if is_bio(article):
>gender = guess_gender(article)
>print('%s: %s' %(title, gender))
>if gender = male:
>males += 1
>else gender = female
>females += 1
>else:
>unknowns += 1
> print('males = %s; females = %s; unknowns = %s'
>%(males, females , unknowns))
> ```
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Article: Wikipedia trolls now vs. women architects

[WereSpielChequers]

Inclusionism and deletionism is a longstanding battleground where the community 
is awfully inconsistent. I decline a fair few incorrect speedy deletion tags, 
some of them so egregious it is very hard to assume good faith and not treat 
the tagger as a vandal.

I don't know whether there is a pattern of articles on women being more likely 
to be targeted by deletionists, or whether this is a matter of perspective, you 
know about the articles that you care about that are deleted and you see 
articles that you don't care about that have survived. What you are less likely 
to know about are the articles that you don't care about and that have been 
deleted.

If I'm right then there is a common misperception that ones own particular area 
is sometimes judged to a higher standard.

But this would be an interesting area for a couple of studies.

Firstly looking at gender ratios of deleted and undeleted bios to see if there 
is an overall gender skew.

Secondly look at the deleters and deletion taggers to see which ones have 
gender skews in their deletionism. Of course sometimes there will be clear 
reasons why there is a gender skew, I'd expect the editor who keeps an eye on 
the category "mixed martial artists" will mostly be tagging blokes for 
deletion. I'd also expect that the editor who monitors the model category will 
disproportionately be tagging women. But if we have deletionists who are 
disproportionately targeting women for no discernible reason then it would be 
good to identify them.

Regards

Jonathan


> On 12 Apr 2015, at 04:48, Carol Moore dc  wrote:
> 
> One can always just study the relevant articles. 
> But often it's a double standard in application of policies.
> So if it's a guy architect with a couple low quality refs, 
> people won't even bother to notice or respond.
> But if it's a woman architect with 7 or 8 solid ones, 
> it becomes a cause celebre to delete the article.
> And none of that "give the women a chance to 
> beef it up" nonsense either.
> 
> It tends to be quite irrational and knee jerk.  
> I've seen the same thing on articles about writers,
> professors, politicians, anyone with even a mild 
> POV that goes against the alleged mainstream.  
> Their articles sometimes are ruthlessly attacked 
> and nitpicked. But if you just put a tag for 
> better references (or any references at all!) on
>  articles about individuals with an allegedly more 
> mainstream view who editors merely claim are 
> important in their field, you may get a lot of grief.
> 
> That's what systemic bias is all about it.  
> 
> 
>> On 4/11/2015 5:55 PM, Rob wrote:
>> Can anyone point to where this "troll" behavior happened? There don't seem 
>> to be a lot of specifics in this article, and I'm wondering if it's gender 
>> trolls (which are, alas, plentiful) or a culture clash between old editors 
>> and new ones over unfamiliar policies?  
>> 
>>> On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Carol Moore dc  
>>> wrote:
 On 4/10/2015 6:33 PM, Siko Bouterse wrote:
 This is the grant proposal referenced at the end of that article 
 (currently under review as part of Inspire):
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/More_Female_Architects_on_Wikipedia
>>> I remember NOT commenting on that one because I figured, who could have a 
>>> problem with that?
>>> 
>>> How soon we forget that getting MORE women articles and editors was and 
>>> remains controversial.
>>> 
>>> Banging head vs. wall
>>> 
>>> 
>>> CM
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Gendergap mailing list
>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please 
>>> visit:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please 
>> visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> 
> ___
> 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] Random musings about a bot

[WereSpielChequers]

You also need to avoid making such a change in uRLs and quotations, or at least 
quotations that were originally in English.

Regards

Jonathan 


> On 25 Feb 2015, at 03:29, Travis Briggs  wrote:
> 
> I have contributed to py wikipedia bot, which could easily enable 
> functionality like this.
> 
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Pywikibot
> 
> The user specifies an article or range of articles, the substitution to be 
> performed, and the bot prompts you with each instance in the text, something 
> like
> 
> > "blah blah start an unmanned space mission to find out blah blah blah...
> > Replace this instance (y/n/cancel)?
> 
> Anyways, I think anyone who would like to make such automated changes would 
> have to install and learn how to use PyWIkiBot (which I have done) and then I 
> think you need some bot authorization for a bot account on English Wikipedia 
> (which I have not done).
> 
> Cheers,
> -Travis
> 
>> On 24 February 2015 at 19:09, JJ Marr  wrote:
>> You should ask down at the village pump, then if the response is favorable, 
>> start a BRFA.
>> 
>>> On Feb 24, 2015 10:04 PM, "Maia Weinstock"  wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> There have been numerous discussions among folks in the space exploration 
>>> community that use of the word "manned" and "unmanned" in Wikipedia is 
>>> outdated and gender-biased. Unfortunately, going in and fixing all of these 
>>> by hand would be rather labor-intensive...
>>> 
>>> Someone recently created a browser plugin that replaces "manned" with 
>>> "crewed." (See https://twitter.com/mcnees/status/570409472818061312) It 
>>> would be such an awesome thing if a bot existed that updated these 
>>> instances for real on English Wikipedia. Anyone have ideas for making this 
>>> happen, perhaps just limiting it to space exploration? I do see some issues 
>>> with it being done wholesale for the whole site, as certain terms might 
>>> contain terminology that would create confusion if changed automatically. 
>>> (For instance, "unmanned aerial vehicles," for better or for worse, is a 
>>> known term that I wouldn't advocate changing at this time.) 
>>> 
>>> Anyway, just thinking out loud...
>>> 
>>> Maia (user:Girona7)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> 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] Thank someone today.

[WereSpielChequers]

Much of my editing on wikipedia is minor typo fixes, the sort that a normal 
spellchecker won't pick up. I secularised lots of sports teams from having 
mangers to managers and also dealt with the problem of rock stars preforming 
songs in sports stadiums. I used to be able to do hundreds of such edits 
without anyone seeming to notice any except where they had missed the l from 
public. But now I get thanked for several percent of my edits, I think that is 
a really positive change on the pedia, of course the metrics people will take 
it as a negative because some of those thanks will be replacing edits, so the 
short term effect on the editing level is likely to be slightly negative.

I do tend to check out who has thanked me and make sure the newbies who do so 
have had a welcome and give the ignored old hands reviewer status if I think 
they are ready for it.

One of the most dysfunctional bits of the project is the way that people can do 
huge amounts of uncontentious stuff with very little interaction with others. I 
sometimes trawl the accounts who have recently created their 100th article and 
where appropriate set them as auto patrolled, often when i look at their talk 
pages the interactions they've had have been minimal. 

Regards

Jonathan Cardy


> On 5 Feb 2015, at 00:11, Keilana  wrote:
> 
> I love the thanks button, it's such an easy way to add more positivity to the 
> wiki and the world. :)
> 
>> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Katherine Casey 
>>  wrote:
>> I have found myself using the "thank" button more than usual recently. In 
>> the middle of all the turmoil that goes on onwiki, a simple "hey, that thing 
>> you did that you thought no one noticed? Yeah, thanks for doing that" goes a 
>> long way toward cancelling some of it out.
>> 
>>> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 6:52 PM, LB  wrote:
>>> I agree, Kerry. I try to use the "thank" button at least once a day.
>>> 
>>> Lightbreather
>>> 
 On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Kerry Raymond  
 wrote:
 
 We talk a lot of about the culture of Wikipedia being negative, critical,
 abrasive etc; this is a turn-off to a lot of women (and also to a lot of
 men). But what can we do to change that? Well, I thought about the way that
 postings get Liked on Facebook. Indeed, most postings get many Likes on
 Facebook. It seems if you read something and appreciate the post in any way
 (which includes when you agree with the poster that it is unhappy matter 
 and
 hence unlikeable matter), you click Like.
 
 Well, I decided to try it on Wikipedia. Now, when I run through my 
 watchlist
 (which I do most mornings), instead of just looking for what's wrong and
 needs to be fixed, instead if I see a positive contribution to an article,
 even a small one, I "thank" the contributor for the edit.
 
 And if I notice I am thanking someone quite a bit, I send them some 
 Wikilove
 or a Barnstar. I notice a small increase in the number of thanks I am
 receiving. While I realise this may be simple reciprocation, I'd like to
 think I might be creating a small culture of appreciation in my topic 
 space,
 hoping that people choose to Pay It Forward.
 
 So, that's my suggestion. Try thanking people on-wiki in the various ways
 available.  Become part of the niceness culture that we'd like Wikipedia to
 become known for.
 
 Kerry
 
 
 
 ___
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
 To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please 
 visit:
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Gendergap mailing list
>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please 
>>> visit:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please 
>> visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> 
> ___
> 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] Computational Linguistics Reveals How Wikipedia Articles Are Biased Against Women

[WereSpielChequers]

I think this one is worth looking beyond the headline.

There are two specific areas where we fail, in the language we use when we 
write about women and in the relative lack of links to articles on women.

The two areas where the study indicates we are doing OK are the two where we 
have put in a lot of work over recent years, covering the men and women in the 
same ratio as those benchmark sites, and putting women on the main page. Of 
course those areas are only OK if we accept that our task as a tertiary source 
is to reflect but not magnify the skews in the secondary sources.

it would be good to know if the relative paucity of links to articles on women 
was simply down to fewer of the mentions of women being linked, or we had a 
deeper problem in that women were less likely to be mentioned in other 
articles. One problem is rather easier to fix than another, as a community we 
have been looking for new "entry level" tasks for some time, and adding more 
links to underlined articles could easily be one of them. Especially if we can 
get lists of "articles with few incoming links but multiple other articles that 
appear to mention the subject". I think I'll file a bot request for that. 

Regards

Jonathan/WereSpielChequers


> On 2 Feb 2015, at 22:12, Rob  wrote:
> 
> MIT Technology Review: "Despite well-publicized efforts to promote
> equality, Wikipedia articles are deeply biased against women, say
> computer scientists who have analysed six different language versions
> of the online encyclopedia."
> 
> http://www.technologyreview.com/view/534616/computational-linguistics-reveals-how-wikipedia-articles-are-biased-against-women/
> 
> ___
> 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] Diversity training for functionaries. In London?

[WereSpielChequers]

I have been called rather worse than paternalistic on wiki and elsewhere:) 

The offer still stands, but rather than leave Carrite's thread as the only 
response I will take the opportunity to expand on it a little. London, for 
reasons obvious and otherwise is one of the centres of the wiki community, It 
isn't just a city of 8million, there is a much larger population who are in 
commuting distance. I am a regular at the London meetup and I'm also part time 
staff at Wikimedia UK. I know there are quite a lot of admins and other 
functionaries in or near London. I am in a position to convene and promote such 
an event, and arrange space at the chapter's office so it can be hosted for 
free at a convenient location in central London.

Wikimania is about 6 months away and will only get a subset of the audience you 
want for such a session, albeit an even bigger subset than London. So running 
an event in London would mean starting a diversity training program much more 
quickly than starting it at Wikimania, and an extra chance to get the content 
of the event right. If the London event shows that for example you aren't yet 
clear what changes you want people to make in their behaviour, then there could 
still be time to get that right.

So if someone is willing to run a training session in London then please get in 
touch on or off list. Otherwise I would be obliged if someone could give me a 
link to a page which explains what diversity training for wikipedia admins 
would involve.



Regards

Jonathan Cardy


> On 18 Jan 2015, at 21:35, J Hayes  wrote:
> 
> i concur
> we need to be open to people, and team with them based on conduct
> this remark tends to play into the negative stereotype, which is not what we 
> are about.
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Leigh Honeywell  wrote:
>> Tim, this kind ofsnippiness is inappropriate and unhelpful. I'll be 
>> unsubscribing you from the list. 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sunday, January 18, 2015, Tim Davenport  wrote:
>>> >>>[Jonathan Cardy wrote:] "I have no problem arranging the room, putting 
>>> >>>up a geonotice and being an attendee."
>>> 
>>> It seems to me that Jonathan is a little unclear with Lightbreather's 
>>> concept
>>> 
>>> You are male. You make "safe" spaces unsafe by your very existence. You are 
>>> not welcome. Go away.
>>> 
>>> Sorry, well-meaning paternalistic friend, you just don't have the right 
>>> chromosomes to play.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Tim Davenport
>>> "Corvallis, OR"
>>> Corvallis, OR USA
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> =
>>> 
>>> Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:43:52 +
>>> From: WereSpielChequers 
>>> To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the
>>> participation   of women within Wikimedia projects."
>>> 
>>> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Diversity training for functionaries. In
>>> London?
>>> Message-ID: 
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>> 
>>> It would be very easy for us to host a two hour session in London on a 
>>> weekday evening at the UK offices. I am fairly sure we could get a bunch of 
>>> admins and others to attend, aside from some of the London regulars who 
>>> have agreed in principle, a geonotice would likely attract more.
>>> 
>>> I have no problem arranging the room, putting up a geonotice and being an 
>>> attendee. However I would need a volunteer to run the session. That isn't 
>>> just because I'm the wrong gender to run such an event, but at the moment I 
>>> don't know what changes in behaviour you would be hoping to train people 
>>> into.
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> 
>>> Jonathan Cardy
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Leigh Honeywell
>> http://hypatia.ca
>> @hypatiadotca
>> 
>> ___
>> 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] Need for women as Wikipedians in Residence

[WereSpielChequers]

Re Sydney's point about women and reliable sources, I have been involved in 
quite a few editathons now (I'm the GLAM organiser for Wikimedia UK). Several 
editathons I have been involved in were targeting the gender gap, and the issue 
of women being underrepresented in primary and secondary sources often comes up.

What I have now started pointing out to people who raise it is that Wikipedia 
is a Tertiary source, we can work on under representation of the secondary 
sourced material, and run editathons where there is access to offline secondary 
sources but we need others to redress gaps in the secondary sources. Of course 
the risk with that approach is that some of the feminists who come to those 
events then spend their time creating secondary sources rather than editing 
Wikipedia.

Another tack I would commend to everyone here is that editathons usually have a 
to do list, and people are unlikely to object if you add relevant articles to 
it. For example we have an editathon coming up at the cinema museum for the 
100th anniversary of the release of "The Tramp", that isn't one of our 
Gendergap events, instead it is an anniversary event - improving relevant 
Wikipedia articles in advance of an anniversary. However I added the article on 
Edna Purviance as a relevant one to improve in the editathon, I expect there 
will be other similar opportunities.

Regards

Jonathan/WereSpielChequers


> On 30 Jan 2015, at 19:54, Sydney Poore  wrote:
> 
> One of the issues that faces anyone who tries to create Wikipedia articles 
> about women is that there is less details about their accomplishments in 
> reliable sources. This piece highlights the problem.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/30/colleen-mcculloch-well-celebrate-a-woman-for-anything-as-long-as-its-not-her-talent
> 
> For this reason, it is great for us to form initiatives with outside 
> organizations who generate content so we can reinforce the importance of 
> creating material that covers women's accomplishments in a greater level of 
> detail. 
> 
> Our initiatives are a two way street. Working inside of GLAMs (Galleries, 
> libraries, archives, museums),  universities, government agencies, not for 
> profit organizations of all types gives us an opportunity to talk about the 
> best way that an organizations can create material suitable for Wikipedia. 
> And we gain a better understanding of how their content can be shared with 
> the wikimedia movement. 
> 
> Wikipedian in Residence is one way for people to create initiatives with 
> outside organizations. Having women in these positions helps to decrease 
> biases. Some women are doing an awesome job in these positions now and in the 
> past. 
> 
> My experience working at Cochrane Collaboration as Wikipedian in Residence is 
> positive and I encourage women to apply for these position when they are 
> posted. 
> 
> Also, we can approach organizations that would be good partners for creating 
> content about women and organize initiatives with them.
> 
> If there is a strong interest, maybe we could have a google hangout call to 
> talk about this in more detail.
> 
> 
> Sydney Poore
> User:FloNight
> Wikipedian in Residence
> at Cochrane Collaboration
> ___
> 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

[WereSpielChequers]

Hi Marie,

Surely this would cover more than just examples where both parties were in the 
UK? For example if the victim was anywhere in the world but the offender was in 
the UK, wouldn't the UK law apply?



Regards

Jonathan Cardy


> On 30 Jan 2015, at 16:46, Marie Earley  wrote:
> 
> There is something I thought I should mention as a UK member of this list. 
> 
> Hate speech (including online) is illegal in the UK.
> 
> When the Bank of England announced that Elizabeth Fry would be dropped from 
> the new £5 notes and replaced with Winston Churchill, it meant that there 
> would be no women on sterling bank notes (apart from the Queen).
> 
> Caroline Criado-Perez successfully campaigned for Jane Austin to be added to 
> £10 notes and received threats of rape and death. 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/10207231/Woman-who-campaigned-for-Jane-Austen-bank-note-receives-Twitter-death-threats.html
> 
> That instigated an online campaign which resulted in Twitter adding its 
> 'report' button.
> 
> Isabella Sorley, 23, of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, tweets included: "die you 
> worthless piece of crap", "go kill yourself" and, "I've only just got out of 
> prison and would happily do more time to see you berried!!"
> 
> John Nimmo, 25, of South Shields, made references to rape and added: "I will 
> find you (smiley face)".
> 
> Sorley was sentenced to 12 weeks in prison, and Nimmo was jailed for 8 weeks. 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25886026 
> 
> The law they broke was Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127 
> 
> If UK-based Wikipedian 'X' breaches s.127 of the Comms. Act due to something 
> they said on Wikipedia about UK-based Wikipedian 'Y' then they face criminal 
> prosecution and possibly jail. 
> 
> The litmus test is whether what they have said is not only 'offensive' but, 
> 'grossly offensive'. Wikipedia's internal systems and thresholds would make 
> no difference to the authorities in the UK. It would be interesting to see 
> what the public fall-out would be if Wikipedia decided that no action should 
> be taken against X whilst the UK jailed him / her.
> 
> Marie
> 
> 
> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 11:41:36 -0500
> From: neot...@gmail.com
> To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] press coverage of Gamergate arbcom case
> 
> Double standard.  Where are all the usual voices protesting about "civility 
> police"?  Where are all the arbitrators opining that they cannot set 
> objective standards for language?
> 
> Beeblebrox used to have an article about "fuck off" in his user space.  It 
> didn't get him banned. In fact, he went on to become an administrator and 
> arbitrator. 
> 
> In the absence of objective standards, subjective standards are emerging, 
> based on gender.  Using the f-word, or even criticizing male users, is 
> becoming a male privilege on en.wp.  Anyone else who uses the word is 
> "hostile" and exhibiting "battleground behavior". I must also say I am very 
> disappointed in GorillaWarfare's role here.
> 
> Maybe, just maybe, instead of just dismissing anything that is said by a 
> woman editor, the arbitration committee should investigate it. I am looking 
> in particular at this one 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=631322169
>  If it is true, there are a huge number of users recruited on external sites, 
> who are not there to build an encyclopedia, that will have huge implications 
> for the survival of women editors on Wikipedia. The arbitration committee is 
> looking at WP:SPA, they should look at WP:MEAT. And they should pay attention 
> to who the ringleaders are, not just the throwaway accounts.  
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/WikiProject_Women&diff=next&oldid=10928257
>  
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/WikiProject_Women&diff=10938964&oldid=10936831
>  
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk:IdeaLab/WikiProject_Women&diff=10952260&oldid=10951344
>  
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:IdeaLab/WikiProject_Women&diff=10991140&oldid=10979378
>   
> 
> But, as has been pointed out on the current RFC, 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#RfC:_should_the_policy_extend_harassment_to_include_posting_ANY_other_accounts_on_ANY_other_websites.3F
>  that would change the WP:OUTING policy to prohibit all mention of outside 
> accounts, including Reddit Men's Rights and Reddit Gamergate, "trying to 
> address the issues without being able to talk openly about the evidence is 
> difficult".
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Marie Earley  wrote:
> I don't know a lot about this case, but taking a cursory look at the diffs...
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=628547686
>  
> 
> ...presumably an "excessive edit" is a derogatrory 

Re: [Gendergap] Iraqi human rights lawyer Samira Salih al-Nuaimi tortured and executed because Facebook; where is her Wikipedia article?

[WereSpielChequers]

That was a "death of" article. I suspect there are articles that cover ISIS 
killing people, if they had only killed one person it might well be titled 
"death of". Since they seem keen to torture enslave or murder anyone who 
doesn't share their brand of Sunni Islam it would stretch our notability 
criteria to create separate articles for each of their victims. Similarly our 
4.6 million articles only include individual articles for a small minority of 
the 13 million killed in the Nazi's murder programs.

Regards

Jonathan Cardy


> On 23 Dec 2014, at 05:45, Neotarf  wrote:
> 
> Is Samira Salih al-Nuaimi notable?
> 
> Just looking for an example of an article about someone notable for only one 
> event, here is an article on the Death of Ian Tomlinson, a newspaper vendor 
> who died during a London protest. Tomlinson's piece has been a featured 
> article, and as far as I know, no one has ever challenged his notability.
> 
> Tomlinson article:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson
> BLP policy--people notable for only one event:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29#People_notable_for_only_one_event
> 
> Al-Nuaimi seems to be much more notable than that.  The UN and the US 
> government have both issued official statements about al-Nuaimi's death. The 
> UN statement calls her a "well-known human rights lawyer and activist".  
> http://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/un-envoy-condemns-public-execution-human-rights-lawyer-ms-sameera-al-nuaimy-enar
> 
> This NZ piece has more detail about the statements issued by UN officials, 
> apparently al-Nuaimi was running for office on the provincial council as 
> well. There is more detail about two other female politicians killed or 
> kidnapped, as well as five female political activists killed in Mosul, but no 
> other names.   
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-east/61509820/un-activist-publicly-executed-by-islamic-state.html
> 
> And if you can get into some of the Arabic language sources, there is more 
> nuance: you can see there were statements issued by two different UN 
> officials, a statement issued by Prince Zeid Ra'ad Al Husssein, the High 
> Commissioner for Human rights, in a statement issued by the UNHCR in Geneva 
> and New York, and a statement by the Special Representative of the 
> Secretary-General of the United Nations in Iraq, Nikolay Mladenov.
> http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ar&u=http://www.elaph.com/Web/News/2014/9/943993.html&prev=search
> 
> A google search for her name in Arabic turns up 138,000 results. Although 
> Google results numbers are highly inaccurate, you can see at a glance from 
> the URL's, this is not just a local personality, it has been widely reported 
> across the Arabic-speaking world.
> https://www.google.com/search?q=%D8%B3%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%A9+%D8%B5%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD+%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B9%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%8A&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
> 
> If you wanted to skirt the notability issue, you could always just do a quick 
> translation of the Italian piece, basically there is just a template so you 
> can credit the original sources. More information can be added to a 
> translated piece later.  
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Translation#How_to_translate
> 
> But I don't see how she is not notable.  I daresay if someone created an 
> article and it contained both a source, an internal link to another Wikipedia 
> article, and a category, no one would challenge it.  This is exactly the kind 
> of information from the "global south" that the Foundation's official reports 
> keep saying is lacking from Wikipedia, that they want to do something about.
> 
> Regards,
> Neotarf
> 
>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Risker  wrote:
>> 
>>> On 22 December 2014 at 15:34, Leigh Honeywell  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
 On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Risker  wrote:
 It does not fall afoul of the meatpuppetry policy if the creator writes 
 the article independently and using their own wording to create an 
 appropriate article based on their own understanding and referencing to 
 reliable sources.  For example, this one could fall into several topics: 
 Women and ISIS, biography of individual (although you'd have to show she 
 was notable for a reason other than her execution), ISIS executions, etc. 
 etc. 
>>> 
>>> Perhaps a stupid question but why is the coverage of her execution not 
>>> enough for notability? 
>>  
>> ISIS is executing people by the tens of thousands (many for reasons that 
>> seem astonishingly petty to outsiders), so being executed by ISIS does not 
>> confer notability in and of itself.   
>>  
>> What would confer notability would be reporting about her *before* her 
>> death, such as multiple significant references where she is a primary focus 
>> of a report about (for example) women human rights activists in her native 
>> country, or conferring of significant recognition such as a government or 
>> significant NGO huma

Re: [Gendergap] Diversity training for functionaries. In London?

[WereSpielChequers]

It would be very easy for us to host a two hour session in London on a weekday 
evening at the UK offices. I am fairly sure we could get a bunch of admins and 
others to attend, aside from some of the London regulars who have agreed in 
principle, a geonotice would likely attract more.

I have no problem arranging the room, putting up a geonotice and being an 
attendee. However I would need a volunteer to run the session. That isn't just 
because I'm the wrong gender to run such an event, but at the moment I don't 
know what changes in behaviour you would be hoping to train people into. 

Regards

Jonathan Cardy


> On 29 Dec 2014, at 18:28, 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
> 
>> On 19 Dec 2014 07:21, "Kerry Raymond"  wrote:
>> Can I suggest that the Wikimedia Conference do a train-the-trainer session 
>> with a view to the chapters running sessions locally in addition to the 
>> Wikimania session. Not many people get to go to Wikimania so the chapters 
>> approach would be more scalable.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Kerry
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org 
>> [mailto:gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Risker
>> Sent: Friday, 19 December 2014 2:16 AM
>> To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the 
>> participationof women within Wikimedia projects.
>> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Diversity training for functionaries
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> While it might be suitable as a "pilot" at the Wikimedia Conference (I 
>> promise not to harp on the name here), it's a by-invitation conference 
>> focused on chapter/affiliate executives, many of whom have very limited 
>> on-wiki presence.  I'm not persuaded that they're the target audience. 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> In fact, I'd suggest this would probably be best suited to a full-day 
>> session targeted at active Wikimedia project administrators and those with 
>> higher level permissions (think: oversighters, who frequently deal with 
>> requests from women who feel harassed because of gender; checkusers tracking 
>> down sockpuppets of harassers, and stewards, who can act in either role on 
>> projects that don't have their own CU/OS).  There is not much overlap 
>> between these active on-wiki leaders and the leaders of chapters/affiliates. 
>>  Strikes me that this would be more ideal for Wikimania, perhaps as a pre-WM 
>> session if that can be arranged.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Risker/anne
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On 18 December 2014 at 11:04, Chris Keating  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Christina - this sounds very interesting - would you be happy for me to 
>> propose it as a possible topic in the Wikimedia Conference, for which I'm on 
>> the programme committee?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Chris
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Christina Burger 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi everyone,
>> 
>> Please allow me to briefly introduce myself before coming to the
>> point: I am Christina Dinar and I work at Wikimedia Deutschland for
>> 1,5 years now. Originally, I was employed to take care of community
>> projects that address newbies and enhance the diversity in Wikipedia
>> as well other Wikimedia projects. I came with the professional
>> background of doing workshops with young adults in political
>> education, doing diversity trainings in order to address some of their
>> existing social and violent behavioral problems with each other.
>> Somehow it never got to that moment that I could actually offer this
>> knowledge and experience to the German Wikipedia Community–my
>> professional focus here shifted and I started to work in other fields.
>> 
>> Coming from this background, I could definitely offer a diversity
>> workshop at Wikimania, for functionaries as well as on the level of
>> introduction as a train-the-trainer. We even have developed diver