> It's not that there is bad behaviour that's okay with men and not okay
> with
> women. It's that women may notice it earlier or be more upset by it, more
> likely to be seen as "thin-skinned," rather than legitimately sensitive.
> In
> an environment that had more women, certain kinds of sensiti
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 3:29 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 9 September 2012 22:20, Kathleen McCook wrote:
>
> > I sense the raised (ironic) eyebrow in this question and since you know
> > the answer, I need not tell you,
>
>
> I think it was a genuine question, and one I had too.
It's not that
On 9/9/12, Kathleen McCook wrote:
> I don't know why either.
I think it is because the subject line is being changed each time. In
some e-mail clients that shows up as a new thread each time (other
e-mail clients recognise some other thread identifier, I'm not quite
sure of the mechanics myself).
You just need to stop changing the subject line of your e-mail.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I don't know why either. I will send a research paper citation and stop.
--Kathleen
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
> On 9/9/12, Kathleen McCook wrote:
> > Well, it's simple. Be polite and non-confrontational and don't make the
> new
> > contributor feel they have no business t
Antin and others:
==
As Wikipedia has become an indispensable source of online
information, concerns about who writes, edits, and main-
tains it have come to the forefront. In particular, the 2010
UNU-MERIT survey found evidence of a signi cant gender
skew: fewer than 13% of Wikipe
On 9/9/12, Kathleen McCook wrote:
> Well, it's simple. Be polite and non-confrontational and don't make the new
> contributor feel they have no business trying.
Good advice. Though quite why a new thread is being started each time,
I'm not sure. I'm trying to be as polite and non-confrontational
Well, it's simple. Be polite and non-confrontational and don't make the new
contributor feel they have no business trying.
Wikipedians are only about 20% female and the world is about 50%...so
there must be some noise on this channel.
Perhaps males have a higher tolerance for confrontation. Seems
On 9 September 2012 22:20, Kathleen McCook wrote:
> I sense the raised (ironic) eyebrow in this question and since you know
> the answer, I need not tell you,
I think it was a genuine question, and one I had too.
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
Wik
I sense the raised (ironic) eyebrow in this question and since you know
the answer, I need not tell you,
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Martijn Hoekstra
wrote:
> This is quite interesting in the light of engaging a female editorship.
> Could you give examples of behaviours that drive off female
On 9 September 2012 18:51, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
> This is quite interesting in the light of engaging a female editorship.
> Could you give examples of behaviours that drive off female potential
> editors, but are ok with male prospective editors?
>
>
Not a sensible formulation. We know reasonab
This is quite interesting in the light of engaging a female editorship.
Could you give examples of behaviours that drive off female potential
editors, but are ok with male prospective editors?
On Sep 9, 2012 10:57 AM, "Kathleen McCook" wrote:
> The Wikipedia community fosters a young male zeitgei
> For academics "personal communication" is
> indeed sometimes an acceptable way to annotate a citation. But for this
> type of issue an open letter to the New Yorker is surely better all
> round.
>
> Charles
Really, I don't know why a personal communication would not be sufficient
for us, provid
And very effectively too. May you spend years at the coalface...
If you are not familiar with the "coalface" that is being involved in
solving and discussing problems in a practical and effective way,
improving the project.
Fred
> There is no reason you need to like me. I was trying to make a fe
> The point is that the number of women editors is far smaller than men.
> Is this not true, based on the statistics?
> I am giving some reasons why many capable new contributors may withdraw
> due to the response they receive from some editors.
> Every woman is not Molly Ivins and when women leav
On 9 Sep 2012, at 11:13, David Gerard wrote:
> On 8 September 2012 14:21, Kathleen McCook wrote:
>
>> When I sent a post I get a message that it was being held for moderation;
>> then this gets posted.
>> Is there something one does to be unmoderated?
>
>
> Everyone starts moderated. I clear
There is no reason you need to like me. I was trying to make a few points
about the process.
--Kathleen
She's definitely adding to the dialogue, even if I don't like her line of
thought.
Fred
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> > On 8 September 2012 14:21, Kathleen McCook wro
The point is that the number of women editors is far smaller than men.
Is this not true, based on the statistics?
I am giving some reasons why many capable new contributors may withdraw
due to the response they receive from some editors.
Every woman is not Molly Ivins and when women leave as contr
On 9 September 2012 11:02, George Herbert wrote:
> Even within the community, we still have primary / secondary / tertiary
> source and verifiability standards confusion.
>
> Good point. Saying "secondary sources" like a mantra seems to have failed
us here (and is the one point of failure I can i
Everybody here who contributes runs into a brick wall from time to time
and has to give up regarding some matter. The factual basis of the theory
about gender you're advancing is not established; as everyone experiences
the same frustrations.
I've tried to edit certain articles controlled by point
> On 8 September 2012 14:21, Kathleen McCook wrote:
>
>> When I sent a post I get a message that it was being held for
>> moderation;
>> then this gets posted.
>> Is there something one does to be unmoderated?
>
>
> Everyone starts moderated. I clear the mod queue each morning and
> unmoderate th
On 8 September 2012 14:21, Kathleen McCook wrote:
> When I sent a post I get a message that it was being held for moderation;
> then this gets posted.
> Is there something one does to be unmoderated?
Everyone starts moderated. I clear the mod queue each morning and
unmoderate the non-spammers.
Even within the community, we still have primary / secondary / tertiary source
and verifiability standards confusion.
George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 9, 2012, at 12:00 AM, Luca Motoc wrote:
> Yes.
>
> 2012/9/8 Katie Chan
>
>> Really? An author wanting us to correct inacc
Yes.
2012/9/8 Katie Chan
> Really? An author wanting us to correct inaccuracy on article talking
> about his inspiration for a book is bullying, trying to dictate Wikipedia
> content, and is throwing his weight around?
>
> If there's someone throwing their weight around here, look in the mirror
I am baffled by this conversation. Roth is not trying to "bully" anyone; he
is trying to clarify a very bad situation. There is no reason he should
give over his creative spirit to Wikipedia. He is fighting for his artistic
life. And many many people al over the literary landscape are taking note.
Good point.
I am a teacher so tend to rely on refereed journals as reliable
sources...tho science writer *J**onah Lehrer* even calls these into
question.
=
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
> Depends on the explanation I suppose. But "reliable source" is jargon
The Wikipedia community fosters a young male zeitgeist.This IS an attitude
problem that causes women to drop out. I have been a long time low level
contributor and thus have had a variety of response to efforts I have made.
Persistence has shown me that what one editor sees as "not credible" may be
Fred, you say" Roth is an elderly man googling" and I am wondering if there
is an age at which people using Wikipedia in the estimation of this list
become unfit to drive?
Roth is an active writer and renowned, Nobel Prize finalist...right this
moment..to dismiss him as "an elderly man googling" u
The hazing of trying to be an administrator is also addressed in this
series.
More troubling is what the Roth article links to, namely: Atlantic, July
2012--" How Wikipedia Is Running Out of Admins"
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/3-charts-that-show-how-wikipedia-is-running-ou
When I sent a post I get a message that it was being held for moderation;
then this gets posted.
Is there something one does to be unmoderated?
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 9:16 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 8 September 2012 13:48, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
> > That is the sort of thing that happens in a
30 matches
Mail list logo
