GenderGaffe, GenderGate : Kinder, Gendler Wikipediots, For Discussion of the Less Divine Comedies of WikiPutia Options

[Jon Awbrey]

¼coming …

Hide your dotters …

This thread is spun off from a previous thread that got moved to the Editors Forum.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[Jon Awbrey]

The Education Of Reagle

In which Joseph Reagle discovers the true meaning of “Good Faith Collaboration” …

[Gendergap] Hardcore images essay - HELP!
Oliver Keyes scire.facias at gmail.com
Wed Feb 16 15:20:49 UTC 2011

How about you all contribute to the discussion proper, rather than suggesting things
which, if made on-wiki, would result in an immediate block for inappropriate behaviour?

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Joseph Reagle <joseph.2008 at reagle.org>wrote:

> On Tuesday, February 15, 2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> > There are some excruciatingly naive arguments being made on the essay's talk page …
>
> Is this the sort of thing that would benefit from public pillory? For example,
> a posting on Geek Feminism blog or elsewhere? On one hand, I think
> such attitudes merit public critique, on the other, I wouldn't want such
> efforts to backfire and make Wikipedia even less appealing to possible
> contributors, particularly if this is just a rat hole.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Jon Awbrey]

George! William!! Herbert!!! Call Your Mother❢

[Gendergap] Hardcore images essay
George Herbert george.herbert at gmail.com
Tue Feb 15 00:23:43 UTC 2011

Question: Are female participants discouraged by the hardcore
pornographic or explicit content in certain topics or articles?

Do you find it offensive, degrading, discouraging?

The women I know (other than my mother, whom I have not asked) have
answered those questions generally with a "It doesn't bother me" or "I
don't care".

If there is either good ancedotal or statistical evidence that women
are actually discouraged or driven off by it, then let's by all means
address it, both here and elsewhere. But that claim has often been
made by a lot of men, who also suspiciously were themselves offended
by it, many of whom do themselves in fact object to any explicit
imagery without regard to NOTCENSORED, beyond reasonable values of
editorial judgement.

I am not going to lump Jimmy or Herostratus into that category, but
the vast bulk of energy expended to remove explicit content seems to
be done by people for whom the retort that Wikipedia is not censored
is, in fact, a completely legitimate and completely adequate response.
They in fact make it harder for reasonable editorial judgement types
to engage in discussion, as they're not very good at disguising their
underlying moral contempt for that material and their fears that it
will indelibly contaminate their precious children.

Actual offensiveness to women or discouragement of women contributors
are a potentially valid issue, if it can be corroborated.

Thanks.

[Jon Awbrey]

All Quiet on the Women Front —

Good Gosh, have they moved to a Seekrit List already ???

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Jon Awbrey]

Oh goody, they've gotten back to talking about porn again, and some of the funniest stuff you'll ever read in the Annals Of Wikipediot Circle-Jerkery.

And you know that's saying a lot …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[EricBarbour]

Well, now we know what those WikiTwits do all day, instead of encyclopedia management---
they sit around and message each other pointlessly.

[Jon Awbrey]

One of the arguments being made on the GG list is that the Commons don't need no stinkin' rules like the rest of the Wikipædiæ supposedly do.

Andreas Kolbe jayen466 at yahoo.com
Thu Feb 17 02:19:01 UTC 2011

Oliver Keyes wrote:

> This is true, but doesn't help with many projects.
> Some projects don't have WP:V as a core principle —
> what do we do with them? "inappropriate" images
> on Commons would not be bound by such standards.

I see Commons as different in nature from Wikipedia. Pages like this one

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Jean shorts

are in many ways an embarrassment for an educational project.

On the other hand, that page is pretty much the same as what you get when you do a Google image search for jean shorts:

www.google.co.uk/images?q="jean+shorts"&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1333&bih=929

Commons is just what it is. But I would like to retain the idea that Wikipedia is an educational resource. Wikipedia can link to Commons, including its collection of pornographic images, in articles on these topics.

Exercise for the Reader. What is wrong with that argument?

Hint. 501(‍c‍)(3)

[Somey]

Exercise for the Reader. What is wrong with that argument?

Hint. 501(‍c‍)(3)

It's not just that Google isn't fraudulently calling itself a "charity"; the fact is, the women on the Wikimedia Commons "Jean Shorts" category are hotter, far more of them are topless, and several of them are also wearing some sort of bondage gear, like chains or leather straps. The Google Images results actually have some men wearing really-short jean shorts, which the Commons category does not (there are some men in it, but they're either wearing regular shorts or they just happen to be in the same frame as a hot-looking female who's wearing them).

I believe Mr. Kolbe (Jayen466 (T-C-L-K-R-D) ) is also a WR member, so in the interests of general amity I won't accuse him of trying to "pull a fast one" in this case, but I would at least hope that he didn't think that nobody was going to actually check...? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

[Jon Awbrey]

Exercise for the Reader. What is wrong with that argument?

Hint. 501(‍c‍)(3)

It's not just that Google isn't fraudulently calling itself a “charity”; the fact is, the women on the Wikimedia Commons “Jean Shorts” category are hotter, far more of them are topless, and several of them are also wearing some sort of bondage gear, like chains or leather straps. The Google Images results actually have some men wearing really-short jean shorts, which the Commons category does not (there are some men in it, but they're either wearing regular shorts or they just happen to be in the same frame as a hot-looking female who's wearing them).

I believe Mr. Kolbe (Jayen466 (T-C-L-K-R-D) ) is also a WR member, so in the interests of general amity I won't accuse him of trying to “pull a fast one” in this case, but I would at least hope that he didn't think that nobody was going to actually check…? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

It's just one more example of the sort of brainfart that passes for thinking in a place where anyone with a brain gets banned on sight.

Your truly,

(IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/stimg9x0b4fsr2/1/folder_post_icons/icon9.gif) General Amity (Ret.)

[Kelly Martin]

I have SafeSearch off and it takes me to the bottom of the second page on Google before I get boobage, and I haven't yet found a pic that involves bondage gear. Of course both of these feature prominently on the first page of the Commons category, and I'm reasonably certain that one of the images on that category page qualifies as child porn (although I did not look at it full size so as to avoid being made certain enough to need to launder my hard drive, and could therefore be wrong).

The other thing I notice is that the Google Images results have multiple images of JUST the shorts, not being worn by anyone at all, and quite a few more where the image is cropped midriff to thigh so all you get are the shorts. There are no images of unworn shorts on the first page of the category, and only a handful of images cropped to show just the topic.

Of course, this just once again confirms what we've know for ages about Commons: it is, primarily, a porn repository that also happens to contain bits of other stuff. The vast bulk of its content is unsuitable for any legitimate general educational purpose.

Still, I doubt this has much direct impact on the participation of women at Wikipedia. Just because the porn is there doesn't mean you have to look at it, and while the communities tolerate, even encourage, the collection of such content, they also discourage people from linking to it randomly or creating galleries in likely-to-be-stumbled-upon places of nothing but porn (because doing that sort of thing makes Wikipedia look bad and is therefore a no-no). So the casual woman editor is unlikely to be confronted head-on with a big page of porno, at least early in her career.

I don't deny that the "Commons as Porn Repository" dynamic causes problems for Commons and for Wikimedia generally. I just don't think it's the major factor, or even a significant factor, that is discouraging women from participating.

[Jon Awbrey]

Still, I doubt this has much direct impact on the participation of women at Wikipedia. Just because the porn is there doesn't mean you have to look at it, and while the communities tolerate, even encourage, the collection of such content, they also discourage people from linking to it randomly or creating galleries in likely-to-be-stumbled-upon places of nothing but porn (because doing that sort of thing makes Wikipedia look bad and is therefore a no-no). So the casual woman editor is unlikely to be confronted head-on with a big page of porno, at least early in her career.

I don't deny that the “Commons as Porn Repository” dynamic causes problems for Commons and for Wikimedia generally. I just don't think it's the major factor, or even a significant factor, that is discouraging women from participating.

As always, we need to back away from the feelthy pictures and take a culture perspective on the scene. It's not just that anime or gaminess or risky wikiness is stored on servers paid for with tax-free donation dollars — it's the sort of people who do that sort of thing — and fact that they rule everything else there. It is their mindset that pervades the whole atmosphere. That is what drives adults, scholars, women, ad nauseated people out.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

[Ottava]

Andreas Kolbe jayen466 at yahoo.com:

On the other hand, that page is pretty much the same as what you get when you do a Google image search for jean shorts:

www.google.co.uk/images?q="jean+shorts"&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1333&bih=929

Commons is just what it is. But I would like to retain the idea that Wikipedia is an educational resource. Wikipedia can link to Commons, including its collection of pornographic images, in articles on these topics.

Google has safe search by default.

Lets be like Google. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[HRIP7]

Andreas Kolbe jayen466 at yahoo.com:

On the other hand, that page is pretty much the same as what you get when you do a Google image search for jean shorts:

www.google.co.uk/images?q="jean+shorts"&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1333&bih=929

Commons is just what it is. But I would like to retain the idea that Wikipedia is an educational resource. Wikipedia can link to Commons, including its collection of pornographic images, in articles on these topics.

Google has safe search by default.

Lets be like Google. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Quite. I asked the question earlier today what was happening with that. No reply as yet.

[HRIP7]

Of course, this just once again confirms what we've know for ages about Commons: it is, primarily, a porn repository that also happens to contain bits of other stuff. The vast bulk of its content is unsuitable for any legitimate general educational purpose.

Still, I doubt this has much direct impact on the participation of women at Wikipedia. Just because the porn is there doesn't mean you have to look at it, and while the communities tolerate, even encourage, the collection of such content, they also discourage people from linking to it randomly or creating galleries in likely-to-be-stumbled-upon places of nothing but porn (because doing that sort of thing makes Wikipedia look bad and is therefore a no-no). So the casual woman editor is unlikely to be confronted head-on with a big page of porno, at least early in her career.

Oh yeah?

I don't deny that the "Commons as Porn Repository" dynamic causes problems for Commons and for Wikimedia generally. I just don't think it's the major factor, or even a significant factor, that is discouraging women from participating.

Actually, I disagree. It's the prevalent mindset. It's like the guys with the Playboy calendar in the office dominating the atmosphere.

[HRIP7]

Exercise for the Reader. What is wrong with that argument?

Hint. 501(‍c‍)(3)

First, I have basically given up on Commons. The fact that Commons was not even able to adopt the sexual content policy, to whose draft I contributed for half a year, told me that working at the community level in Commons is a waste of time. Change will either come from the top, or not at all. Until such time, it is what it is, and there is nothing you or I can do about it.

There is no excuse for crap like this, but some people are aware of the problem, even over there, and do want to do something about it. It can only come from the top, like the BLP policy, because the community is too immature and porn-obsessed, or porn-tolerant, to get there by itself.

Secondly, just because Commons is full of stuff like this doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to be full of it, too.

Personally, I am fine with Commons hosting adult material, provided that all these Commons files have an age-related opt-in, as they do in Flickr, and remain invisible to everyone else. That's what I am working towards.

Seriously, what do you think would have to happen in Commons for the Foundation to lose its charitable status? Do you think the present magnitude of the problem is enough?

If so, draft a letter to the relevant IRS department that grants 501©(3) status. You'll find lots of people here who will sign up.

[Ottava]

Oh yeah?

I am surprised, but glad, that the files were not what I thought they would be in the worst possible situation - people using vacuum cleaners for sex - but how are topless girls vacuuming an "imitation of Christ" as their name says?

[SB_Johnny]

I am surprised, but glad, that the files were not what I thought they would be in the worst possible situation - people using vacuum cleaners for sex - but how are topless girls vacuuming an "imitation of Christ" as their name says?

I have to admit I'm mystified as well. I also can't really imagine "using vacuum cleaners for sex", but rule 34.

[EricBarbour]

If so, draft a letter to the relevant IRS department that grants 501©(3) status. You'll find lots of people here who will sign up.

That's a winning idea.
I'd like to see the WRers, who sit around and whine about how the WMF mishandles its business,
actually get together and crowdsource themselves an IRS complaint with many, many signatures
at the bottom.

Now, first we have to write a cogent argument for why their 501©3 status is
undeserved. Anyone care to try their hand?

I even know a fairly cheap, easy way to get started with a survey of applicable IRS regulations:
get a copy of this book, and read it.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Kelly Martin]

I have to admit I'm mystified as well. I also can't really imagine "using vacuum cleaners for sex", but rule 34.

Google "penile injury hoover dustette" if you want to have your imagination exercised.

[Jon Awbrey]

You can't make this stuff up …

James Salsman jsalsman at gmail.com
Sat Feb 19 03:21:14 UTC 2011

I've made preliminary inquires regarding the establishment of a Girl Scout merit badge or other achievement award in online encyclopedia improvement. There is precedent for such a program in the 1960's "Wing Scouts" Girl Scout aviation program:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing Scout#Wing Scouts in Northern California

San Francisco's Girl Scout camp, Camp Ida Smith, is due to be returned soon from the Department of Public Works after renovation of the Lake Merced pumping station — see p. 4, topic 12 of

www.girlscoutsnorcal.org/documents/08-07-07-MM-No-Co.pdf —

presenting an opportunity for the re-commissioning ceremony.

It is still not clear to me what is necessary to establish a new achievement award, but I would ask that list members in the US contact their local Girl Scouts USA Council in support of the proposal:

www.girlscouts.org/councilfinder/

For those of you outside of the US, please contact the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts — www.wagggs.org/

email wagggs at wagggsworld dot org — and/or the USA Girl Scouts Overseas —

www.girlscouts.org/who we are/overseas/committees/

or email kathryn.m.owen at eur dot army dot mil.

Richard, how have the New York Chapter efforts to contact the Girl Scouts been going?