Re: [Gendergap] WikiProject Women's sport

[Laura Hale]

On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Genevieve Afriat wrote:

>
>
> > From:  Genevieve2
> > Subject: WikiProject Women's sport+
> Bonjour
> I above all want to thank Laura Hale for his work. My feelings are shared
> for the project Women's sport. At the beginning I believed in a real sports
> Women community. But each is taken in the different sport  (ffotball,
> hockey, ...)and in its region (Australia, England, Canada). Thus there is
> not enough solidarity between us.
>

I've "discovered" this problem too.  From sport conferences and journals,
academic research tends to be sport specific.  There is a conference on
cycling, another conference on association football, a third conference on
Australian rules, a conference on all footy codes in Australia, sport from
the perspective of physical education. Women's sport can be a unifier of
sorts as a topic, but it most often isn't in a context that I can see:
Women's sport joins causes to help promote other women's sport and wider
women's fitness issues.  I've looked at editing patterns on English
Wikipedia regarding this and it bears out.  You don't have editing nodes
joining women's sport.  Rather, women's sport tends to have crossover with
in the individual sport.  (The person editing the Mia Hamm article is going
to be editing other USA soccer articles and maybe soccer articles more
broadly, not articles about women's ice hockey in Canada, or netball in
Australia.)

Disability sport seems to be the one area that gets a fair amount of
crossover across all sports, but even that has its issues because it is
often treated like something completely different, non-notable and not
something average sport fans are interested in. (Completely unrelated,
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ID_Basketball_ACT_State_Team.ogv is
I believe the first video or pictures of ID basketball on Commons.  Sadly,
no article about it.  The players are men, but the exhibition match was
played during the half time of the women's professional team in Canberra.)




> A male americain contributor caused me many concerns on the Women's ici
> hockey  in the United States.
>

I had a similar problem with an American male and Australian women's sport
articles.  I love being told things like "There is not article about the
sport generally, so this article should be speedily deleted" and the other
fun one of "There is not article about this sport in the United States, so
this article shouldn't exist" or variants on that theme.  If there are no
articles about women's sport in the United States, it might be because
Americans in America are not writing them.  Rather than going after
Australian women's sport content to make it go away, the solution could be
writing article about women's sport in the United States.  (This issue of
American men involving themselves in other country's women sport articles
and claiming they don't matter because not in the USA is hugely
frustrating.  It has happened repeatedly to me.)




> No solidarity of my main Canadian associate (user Maple Leaf) brought me
> towards a resignation: I withdrew from the project.
>

I saw that and it made me sad. :(  I just don't have access to the Canadian
ice hockey sources to make it feasible to really work on them.

If you had a Bachelors degree, I'd strongly support you coming down to my
university to do an Honours, Masters or PhD related to using wikis and
women's sport to promote women's sport at my university.  We have some
fantastic connections.  If there had been money around for me to use, I'd
still have liked to have used it to bring you down here so you can talk to
a few people about some of the things we've done here, show you around our
local facilities, etc. :)



> It would have been fanstatique that the women have a sports gratitude and
> recognition but I believe that it interresse only 1 or 2 persons on
> thousands of contributors, I believe that soon I shall leave Wikipedized.
>

Sad to see that happen :(  The work you do is really good. :)  I sincerely
appreciate it and it delights me to see women working on sport articles in
other spaces than my own.  (Which at the moment tends to be narrowly
confined to Australian and New Zealand women's sport.  I do have a whole
slew of articles at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LauraHale/Women%27s_sport_country_sections_needing_articles,
which I one day would like to get back to well enough to have them in
the
main article space.)


> I see not many advantages for the Women ice Hockey and for me as the
> reporter in formation. However I shall give some photos (via my wiki
> commons)  of  competitions of Canadian Women ice hockey
>
>
There  are a lot of advantages, though they aren't always the obvious ones.
 I've found it tremendously helpful as a fan to be able to look up articles
about my favourite basketball team individual players during the game.  The
Wikipedia articles are better than the profile in the team's media guide
and the Basketball Australia and WNBL websit

Re: [Gendergap] WikiProject Women's sport

[Genevieve Afriat]

> From:  Genevieve2
> Subject: WikiProject Women's sport+
Bonjour  
I above all want to thank Laura Hale for his work. My feelings are shared for 
the project Women's sport. At the beginning I believed in a real sports Women 
community. But each is taken in the different sport  (ffotball, hockey, ...)and 
in its region (Australia, England, Canada). Thus there is not enough solidarity 
between us. A male americain contributor caused me many concerns on the Women's 
ici hockey  in the United States. No solidarity of my main Canadian associate 
(user Maple Leaf) brought me towards a resignation: I withdrew from the 
project. It would have been fanstatique that the women have a sports gratitude 
and recognition but I believe that it interresse only 1 or 2 persons on 
thousands of contributors, I believe that soon I shall leave Wikipedized. I see 
not many advantages for the Women ice Hockey and for me as the reporter in 
formation. However I shall give some photos (via my wiki commons)  of  
competitions of Canadian Women ice hockey

In French now: Je veux avant tout remercier Laura Hale pour tout  son travail. 
Mes sentiments
 sont partagés pour le projet. Au début j'ai cru en une véritable 
communauté féminine sportive. Mais chacune est prise dans sa discipline 
sportive et dans sa région (Australie, Angleterre, Canada). Donc il y a 
peu de solidarité entre nous. Un contributeur masculin americain m'a 
causé beaucoup de soucis sur le hockey féminin universitaires aux 
États-Unis.  Le mangue de solidarité de mon principal collaborateur 
canadien (Maple Leaf) m'a amené vers une démission : je me suis retiré 
du project. Il aurait été fanstatique que les femmes aient une 
reconnaissance sportive mais je crois que cela n'interresse que 2 ou 3 
personnes sur des milliers de contributeurs, Je crois que bientôt je 
quitterai Wikipédia. Je ne vois plus beaucoup d'avantages pour les 
sports féminins et pour moi comme reporteur en formation. Toutefois je 
donnerai quelques photos ( via mon compte wiki commons) des dernières 
compétitions de hockey féminin canadien dans laquelle je suis 
photographe-journaliste en formation.

Je vous remercie

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

Re: [Gendergap] WikiProject Women's sport

[Gillian White]

If anyone wants to follow up the development of these ideas, a report is
published on Outreach here: http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/NEXT.

Whiteghost.ink

On 17 January 2012 06:58, Gillian White  wrote:

> No, I don't mind. I am not on the Cultural Partnerships list but have
> always had a big interest in culture. I think Laura is a leader of things
> to do with sport and she seems to know what is needed and be driving it
> along. Others could perhaps join in to make similar improvements to sport
> and sports history. Presumably, sporting organisations could assist WP, the
> way that some GLAM organisations now have, if their needs were worked out.
> I don't follow the progress of sports in WP but it seems that Laura is
> applying what has been learned in GLAM to a different field and her
> championing of it is producing results that could be built on.
>
> Whiteghost.ink
>
>
> On 17 January 2012 05:35, Sarah Stierch  wrote:
>
>>  It looks like this conversation has moved beyond the concept of gender
>> and into the question of "sport versus GLAM". Whiteghost.ink and Laura, I'd
>> like to forward/move this conversation to the Cultural Partnerships Mailing
>> List, if you two don't mind? I think it's a pretty valuable conversation!
>>
>> -Sarah
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/16/12 5:59 AM, Gillian White wrote:
>>
>> Well, yes, sport or GLAM? It is arguable. “That which we call a rose by
>> any other name would smell as sweet” as Juliet said. (Although it was in
>> her interest to think that: her parents thought there was a great deal in a
>> name). Nevertheless, here we are not talking about love. We are talking
>> about sport and GLAMs in a big project. Articles on the Olympics (and I
>> make no distinction between the Olympics, the Paralympics and women’s
>> participation in either of them) are articles about élite athletes and the
>> organisations designed to help them achieve that impressively high level
>> are sporting organisations, not GLAMs. They are sports and should be
>> categorised as such for the reasons I give below.
>>
>>
>>
>> WP is just a project and so what matters is what helps the project. There
>> certainly are arguments to be made about what culture is, but the
>> epistemological point about whether the Olympics and Olympians are sport or
>> GLAM or both comes down to something quite pragmatic: what will help the
>> project to achieve its purpose and what will help it achieve its objectives
>> on the way to its grand vision? Those objectives are simply to write and
>> maintain good articles.
>>
>>
>>
>> In the broad sociological sense, of course sport is culture too, in the
>> sense that culture is a way of life and in the sense that *G*alleries, *L
>> *ibraries,* A*rchives, *M*useums,* S*port, *H*istory, *E*ducation, 
>> *E*ntertainment,
>> *P*olitics and *S*cience all are. So we could keep going and call it
>> GLAMSHEEPS.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, as the scope of that would unmanageable, we would only have to
>> start breaking it up again according to the needs of the project, the
>> appropriate skill sets and what all the stakeholders accept. Projects need
>> to control their scope.
>>
>>
>>
>> I understood that the organisations responsible for looking after things
>> (the GLAMs), in spite of having similar skill sets as each other and
>> similar missions to WP, had hitherto been unlikely to engage with us
>> because of the perceived risk to the things they were looking after. So we
>> needed to understand their needs and they needed to understand our possible
>> contribution in order to fill gaps in the encyclopaedia's content - its
>> articles. To do that we made them a special category.
>>
>>
>>
>> What holds the GLAMs together as a category is probably the skill sets,
>> context and the mission - that’s probably the most important thing as we
>> try to talk to them or set up partnerships. So, in this sense, seed banks
>> such as the one here in New South Wales
>> http://www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/science/Horticultural_Research/nsw_seedbank/about_the_nsw_seedbankwould,
>>  somewhat surprisingly, be more of a GLAM than say, our Theatre or
>> Opera Companies.
>>
>>
>>
>> At bottom, the articles are more important than the categorisation.
>> However, the categorisation becomes important insofar as it assists the
>> project to make sense to the people whose contributions and support we
>> seek. It would not matter except for the effects on contributions and
>> credibility.  If we want contributions (of labour or money or images), we
>> have to be credible and make sense to them.  So if we went to the Art
>> Gallery or the Historic Houses Trust or the National Trust or the National
>> Library or the Natural History Museum, seeking some form of partnership
>> with them and saying we were already working with the Olympic Movement, I
>> daresay they would not easily accept that their organisations were similar.
>> It would be better to say that we were working with known Galleries,
>> Libraries, Archi

Re: [Gendergap] WikiProject Women's sport

[Gillian White]

No, I don't mind. I am not on the Cultural Partnerships list but have
always had a big interest in culture. I think Laura is a leader of things
to do with sport and she seems to know what is needed and be driving it
along. Others could perhaps join in to make similar improvements to sport
and sports history. Presumably, sporting organisations could assist WP, the
way that some GLAM organisations now have, if their needs were worked out.
I don't follow the progress of sports in WP but it seems that Laura is
applying what has been learned in GLAM to a different field and her
championing of it is producing results that could be built on.

Whiteghost.ink

On 17 January 2012 05:35, Sarah Stierch  wrote:

>  It looks like this conversation has moved beyond the concept of gender
> and into the question of "sport versus GLAM". Whiteghost.ink and Laura, I'd
> like to forward/move this conversation to the Cultural Partnerships Mailing
> List, if you two don't mind? I think it's a pretty valuable conversation!
>
> -Sarah
>
>
>
>
>
> On 1/16/12 5:59 AM, Gillian White wrote:
>
> Well, yes, sport or GLAM? It is arguable. “That which we call a rose by
> any other name would smell as sweet” as Juliet said. (Although it was in
> her interest to think that: her parents thought there was a great deal in a
> name). Nevertheless, here we are not talking about love. We are talking
> about sport and GLAMs in a big project. Articles on the Olympics (and I
> make no distinction between the Olympics, the Paralympics and women’s
> participation in either of them) are articles about élite athletes and the
> organisations designed to help them achieve that impressively high level
> are sporting organisations, not GLAMs. They are sports and should be
> categorised as such for the reasons I give below.
>
>
>
> WP is just a project and so what matters is what helps the project. There
> certainly are arguments to be made about what culture is, but the
> epistemological point about whether the Olympics and Olympians are sport or
> GLAM or both comes down to something quite pragmatic: what will help the
> project to achieve its purpose and what will help it achieve its objectives
> on the way to its grand vision? Those objectives are simply to write and
> maintain good articles.
>
>
>
> In the broad sociological sense, of course sport is culture too, in the
> sense that culture is a way of life and in the sense that *G*alleries, *L*
> ibraries,* A*rchives, *M*useums,* S*port, *H*istory, *E*ducation, 
> *E*ntertainment,
> *P*olitics and *S*cience all are. So we could keep going and call it
> GLAMSHEEPS.
>
>
>
> However, as the scope of that would unmanageable, we would only have to
> start breaking it up again according to the needs of the project, the
> appropriate skill sets and what all the stakeholders accept. Projects need
> to control their scope.
>
>
>
> I understood that the organisations responsible for looking after things
> (the GLAMs), in spite of having similar skill sets as each other and
> similar missions to WP, had hitherto been unlikely to engage with us
> because of the perceived risk to the things they were looking after. So we
> needed to understand their needs and they needed to understand our possible
> contribution in order to fill gaps in the encyclopaedia's content - its
> articles. To do that we made them a special category.
>
>
>
> What holds the GLAMs together as a category is probably the skill sets,
> context and the mission - that’s probably the most important thing as we
> try to talk to them or set up partnerships. So, in this sense, seed banks
> such as the one here in New South Wales
> http://www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/science/Horticultural_Research/nsw_seedbank/about_the_nsw_seedbankwould,
>  somewhat surprisingly, be more of a GLAM than say, our Theatre or
> Opera Companies.
>
>
>
> At bottom, the articles are more important than the categorisation.
> However, the categorisation becomes important insofar as it assists the
> project to make sense to the people whose contributions and support we
> seek. It would not matter except for the effects on contributions and
> credibility.  If we want contributions (of labour or money or images), we
> have to be credible and make sense to them.  So if we went to the Art
> Gallery or the Historic Houses Trust or the National Trust or the National
> Library or the Natural History Museum, seeking some form of partnership
> with them and saying we were already working with the Olympic Movement, I
> daresay they would not easily accept that their organisations were similar.
> It would be better to say that we were working with known Galleries,
> Libraries, Archives and Museums. As you say, sport is intensively followed
> in Australia and it is easier to get popular and financial support for it
> than it is for the arts, or for “culture” in the narrower sense, and that
> is another reason for separating it out from the broad culture and paying
> attention to it, all the more 

Re: [Gendergap] WikiProject Women's sport

[Sarah Stierch]

It looks like this conversation has moved beyond the concept of gender 
and into the question of "sport versus GLAM". Whiteghost.ink and Laura, 
I'd like to forward/move this conversation to the Cultural Partnerships 
Mailing List, if you two don't mind? I think it's a pretty valuable 
conversation!


-Sarah




On 1/16/12 5:59 AM, Gillian White wrote:


Well, yes, sport or GLAM? It is arguable. "That which we call a rose 
by any other name would smell as sweet" as Juliet said. (Although it 
was in her interest to think that: her parents thought there was a 
great deal in a name). Nevertheless, here we are not talking about 
love. We are talking about sport and GLAMs in a big project. Articles 
on the Olympics (and I make no distinction between the Olympics, the 
Paralympics and women's participation in either of them) are articles 
about élite athletes and the organisations designed to help them 
achieve that impressively high level are sporting organisations, not 
GLAMs. They are sports and should be categorised as such for the 
reasons I give below.


WP is just a project and so what matters is what helps the project. 
There certainly are arguments to be made about what culture is, but 
the epistemological point about whether the Olympics and Olympians are 
sport or GLAM or both comes down to something quite pragmatic: what 
will help the project to achieve its purpose and what will help it 
achieve its objectives on the way to its grand vision? Those 
objectives are simply to write and maintain good articles.


In the broad sociological sense, of course sport is culture too, in 
the sense that culture is a way of life and in the sense that 
*G*alleries, *L*ibraries,*A*rchives, *M*useums,*S*port, *H*istory, 
*E*ducation, *E*ntertainment, *P*olitics and *S*cience all are. So we 
could keep going and call it GLAMSHEEPS.


However, as the scope of that would unmanageable, we would only have 
to start breaking it up again according to the needs of the project, 
the appropriate skill sets and what all the stakeholders accept. 
Projects need to control their scope.


I understood that the organisations responsible for looking after 
things (the GLAMs), in spite of having similar skill sets as each 
other and similar missions to WP, had hitherto been unlikely to engage 
with us because of the perceived risk to the things they were looking 
after. So we needed to understand their needs and they needed to 
understand our possible contribution in order to fill gaps in the 
encyclopaedia's content - its articles. To do that we made them a 
special category.


What holds the GLAMs together as a category is probably the skill 
sets, context and the mission - that's probably the most important 
thing as we try to talk to them or set up partnerships. So, in this 
sense, seed banks such as the one here in New South Wales 
http://www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/science/Horticultural_Research/nsw_seedbank/about_the_nsw_seedbank 
would, somewhat surprisingly, be more of a GLAM than say, our Theatre 
or Opera Companies.


At bottom, the articles are more important than the categorisation. 
However, the categorisation becomes important insofar as it assists 
the project to make sense to the people whose contributions and 
support we seek. It would not matter except for the effects on 
contributions and credibility.  If we want contributions (of labour or 
money or images), we have to be credible and make sense to them.  So 
if we went to the Art Gallery or the Historic Houses Trust or the 
National Trust or the National Library or the Natural History Museum, 
seeking some form of partnership with them and saying we were already 
working with the Olympic Movement, I daresay they would not easily 
accept that their organisations were similar. It would be better to 
say that we were working with known Galleries, Libraries, Archives and 
Museums. As you say, sport is intensively followed in Australia and it 
is easier to get popular and financial support for it than it is for 
the arts, or for "culture" in the narrower sense, and that is another 
reason for separating it out from the broad culture and paying 
attention to it, all the more reason to be careful that potential GLAM 
supporters do not feel betrayed by the usual diversion of attention to 
sport. Politicians in particular are terrified of arts organisations 
and artists in case they do something scandalous (again) that is 
incomprehensible to the voting public. Sportspeople and their 
organisations on the other hand, are readily excused for their 
scandals and have easier access to sponsors and champions. So these 
differences in funding and understanding make a difference to the way 
we approach partners.


Thus, if everyone knows the Olympics as sport, then I guess it's 
sport. If you asked people in similar industries -- for example, if 
you asked a publisher, a curriculum developer, a reporter or writer, 
athlete or politician whether the Olympics was sport or culture they

Re: [Gendergap] WikiProject Women's sport

[Gillian White]

Well, yes, sport or GLAM? It is arguable. “That which we call a rose by any
other name would smell as sweet” as Juliet said. (Although it was in her
interest to think that: her parents thought there was a great deal in a
name). Nevertheless, here we are not talking about love. We are talking
about sport and GLAMs in a big project. Articles on the Olympics (and I
make no distinction between the Olympics, the Paralympics and women’s
participation in either of them) are articles about élite athletes and the
organisations designed to help them achieve that impressively high level
are sporting organisations, not GLAMs. They are sports and should be
categorised as such for the reasons I give below.



WP is just a project and so what matters is what helps the project. There
certainly are arguments to be made about what culture is, but the
epistemological point about whether the Olympics and Olympians are sport or
GLAM or both comes down to something quite pragmatic: what will help the
project to achieve its purpose and what will help it achieve its objectives
on the way to its grand vision? Those objectives are simply to write and
maintain good articles.



In the broad sociological sense, of course sport is culture too, in the
sense that culture is a way of life and in the sense that *G*alleries, *L*
ibraries,* A*rchives, *M*useums,* S*port, *H*istory, *E*ducation,
*E*ntertainment,
*P*olitics and *S*cience all are. So we could keep going and call it
GLAMSHEEPS.



However, as the scope of that would unmanageable, we would only have to
start breaking it up again according to the needs of the project, the
appropriate skill sets and what all the stakeholders accept. Projects need
to control their scope.



I understood that the organisations responsible for looking after things
(the GLAMs), in spite of having similar skill sets as each other and
similar missions to WP, had hitherto been unlikely to engage with us
because of the perceived risk to the things they were looking after. So we
needed to understand their needs and they needed to understand our possible
contribution in order to fill gaps in the encyclopaedia's content - its
articles. To do that we made them a special category.



What holds the GLAMs together as a category is probably the skill sets,
context and the mission - that’s probably the most important thing as we
try to talk to them or set up partnerships. So, in this sense, seed banks
such as the one here in New South Wales
http://www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/science/Horticultural_Research/nsw_seedbank/about_the_nsw_seedbankwould,
somewhat surprisingly, be more of a GLAM than say, our Theatre or
Opera Companies.



At bottom, the articles are more important than the categorisation.
However, the categorisation becomes important insofar as it assists the
project to make sense to the people whose contributions and support we
seek. It would not matter except for the effects on contributions and
credibility.  If we want contributions (of labour or money or images), we
have to be credible and make sense to them.  So if we went to the Art
Gallery or the Historic Houses Trust or the National Trust or the National
Library or the Natural History Museum, seeking some form of partnership
with them and saying we were already working with the Olympic Movement, I
daresay they would not easily accept that their organisations were similar.
It would be better to say that we were working with known Galleries,
Libraries, Archives and Museums. As you say, sport is intensively followed
in Australia and it is easier to get popular and financial support for it
than it is for the arts, or for “culture” in the narrower sense, and that
is another reason for separating it out from the broad culture and paying
attention to it, all the more reason to be careful that potential GLAM
supporters do not feel betrayed by the usual diversion of attention to
sport. Politicians in particular are terrified of arts organisations and
artists in case they do something scandalous (again) that is
incomprehensible to the voting public. Sportspeople and their organisations
on the other hand, are readily excused for their scandals and have easier
access to sponsors and champions. So these differences in funding and
understanding make a difference to the way we approach partners.



Thus, if everyone knows the Olympics as sport, then I guess it’s sport. If
you asked people in similar industries – for example, if you asked a
publisher, a curriculum developer, a reporter or writer, athlete or
politician whether the Olympics was sport or culture they would say:
“sport.” If you asked Priya if she was contributing to Australian culture
or sport, I think she would say “sport”.



I am glad someone is paying attention to sport and especially to women in
sport as I am not much interested in it. Personally, I wanted to help WP
with articles on the kind of culture that is found in GLAMs which I have
been devotedly visiting and studying all my life.

Whiteghost.

Re: [Gendergap] WikiProject Women's sport

[Laura Hale]

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Gillian White wrote:

> This is great because it means that all the excellent work on the
> paralympics and paralympians can be moved to "Sport" where they belong.
>

Paralympic articles and Paralympians are already under sport. :D It is
fantastic that Australian Paralympians are covered under several
Wikiprojects like Australia, Sport and the Paralympics.


> Articles about women’s sport are not primarily GLAM articles, they are
> sports articles, just as articles about women artists are primarily GLAM
> articles.
>

Yes, articles about Australian Paralympians done as part of the HOPAU GLAM
program, that are part of the biggest GLAM incentive contribution effort to
date and in a country where culture identity is tied into sport are
primarily GLAM articles, just like articles about female artists are
primarily GLAM articles.


>   Describing an article on [[Priya Cooper]] as a GLAM article, as we have
> been doing, is as confusing as it would be to describe the article on
> Bernini’s wonderful [[Apollo and Daphne (Bernini)]] as an article on the
> sport of archery.
>

No, it is a GLAM article.  Priya Cooper is a huge part of Australian
sporting culture.  The article was written as part of the HOPAU GLAM
project.  Images were donated by the Australian Paralympic Committee.  The
work was supported by the library called the National Sport Information
Centre. :D  Isn't it fantastic the opportunity this GLAM has presented to
improve women's content related to Australia?  And it isn't just an issue
of improving sport content, but women's content and disability related
content! :D  So awesome!  Priya Cooper was the first GA in the
APC/NSIC/HOPAU GLAM effort.  Hopefully, we have many more to come.  It
would be great to have a list of other GAs/FAs/DYKs/FLs featuring women
that were done as part GLAM movement.



> So this sports portal means things can be made less confusing.
>
>
>
The sport portal and sport Wikiproject have been around for a while. :)
If you want to learn more about the GLAM project,
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/HOPAU it is there.  The Wikiproject
about Women's sport is completely independent of the Wikiproject. :)




> The obvious overlaps between women and sports (for example, individual
> sportswomen and women’s sport, such as individual paralympians or sporting
> competitions like the Olympics) are comparable to the obvious overlaps
> between GLAM and women (for example, women artists or exhibitions of their
> work). Now, with their primary category made clearer, it should all be more
> coherent. Good.
>


The overlap between GLAM is obvious and coherent.  It is fantastic that
culturally important women are getting recognition on Wikipedia by having
images donated by cultural institutions to support them, by having a GLAM
support efforts to improve these articles, and by providing resources and
access to resources to continue to support them. :D
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/HOPAU/W2G also provides a fantastic
opportunity for women in Australia to work on this and gain access to
opportunities they might not otherwise have.  It is fantastic, and
coherent.  You should hear the passion from institutional stakeholders in
our GLAM about this. :D



>
> There are opportunities for good GLAM articles when all three converge –
> GLAM, sport and women.
>


Yes these are good opportunities when a GLAM project,
http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/HOPAU , can converge to encourage the
improvement of culturally important articles like Priya Cooper. :D
 Hopefully, we can get more GLAM opportunities to improve similar content.

If you know any women Wikimedians in Australia, please encourage them to
participate in http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/HOPAU/W2G because it
would be fantastic to have women participate, to have women improve women's
oriented content, and for them to have an opportunity to attend the London
Paralympics to cover the games live… especially if they cover them with a
focus on women competitors.


-- 
twitter: purplepopple
blog: ozziesport.com
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] WikiProject Women's sport

[Gillian White]

This is great because it means that all the excellent work on the
paralympics and paralympians can be moved to "Sport" where they belong.
Articles about women’s sport are not primarily GLAM articles, they are
sports articles, just as articles about women artists are primarily GLAM
articles.  Describing an article on [[Priya Cooper]] as a GLAM article, as
we have been doing, is as confusing as it would be to describe the article
on Bernini’s wonderful [[Apollo and Daphne (Bernini)]] as an article on the
sport of archery. So this sports portal means things can be made less
confusing.


The obvious overlaps between women and sports (for example, individual
sportswomen and women’s sport, such as individual paralympians or sporting
competitions like the Olympics) are comparable to the obvious overlaps
between GLAM and women (for example, women artists or exhibitions of their
work). Now, with their primary category made clearer, it should all be more
coherent. Good.


There are opportunities for good GLAM articles when all three converge –
GLAM, sport and women. For example, there is currently an exhibition on at
the [[Museum of Sydney]] about surfing
http://www.hht.net.au/whats_on/highlights/exhibitions/surf_city and there
is an event coming up at the [[State Library of New South Wales]] about the
history of cricket including the first women’s cricket team.
http://www.sl.nsw.gov.au/events/events_talks/events/out_of_the_vaults_the_first_xi.html




Such exhibitions at libraries or galleries using archival or artistic
material and highlighting women’s historical engagement in sport could
contribute to good GLAM articles if someone had the time.  I will myself
try to resist, since there is already so much to do in GLAM and also in the
GLAM/ women nexus in which I am interested. I am so far behind already in
my own goals in this area, that scuttling about in the encyclopaedia, I
feel like the [[White Rabbit]]: “...late, late for a very important date!”

[[Whiteghost.ink]]

On 15 January 2012 03:09, Sarah Stierch  wrote:

>  Hi everyone,
>
> A few months ago Laura Hale founded WP:Women's sport on English
> Wikipedia.[1] While it's not an area I tend to work in, I've noticed it
> popping up on my radar with a French-English-Hebrew speaking editor named
> Genevieve2 who has been posting about it on WP:Feminism and WP:Women's
> History talk pages.
>
> Some of you might have interest in the project, right now Genevieve is
> trying to inspire folks to participate in writing an article and major
> women's sports in North America.[2] It might interest some of you, or
> perhaps inspire some of you to translate or write related articles in
> whatever language of your choice!
>
> And if you're in the mood to get a bit fiery or involved in conversation,
> a discussion about gender in articles (i.e. "This is a men's football
> tournament," for the SuperBowl, for example) has been brought up on the
> talk page.[3]  (It also appears to me that the people involved in the
> conversation are male, correct me if I'm wrong, of course!)
>
> Great work Laura at starting the project and Genevieve (who I don't
> believe is on this list, yet) for promoting collaboration amongst
> Wikipedians. It's been nice to see my cohorts from WP:Feminism jumping into
> handle some tough tasks of copy editing issues on some articles.
>
> -Sarah
>
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women%27s_sport
> [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Genevieve2/sandbox0001A
> [3]
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women%27s_sport#Statement_of_gender
>
> --
> *Sarah Stierch*
> *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
> >>Support the sharing of free knowledge around the world: donate 
> >>today
> <<
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap