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]

In a related story …

Mallary Jean Tenore • “Why women don’t contribute to opinion pages as often as men & What we can do about it” • Poynter • 25 Feb 2011

There are several threads at The Wikipedia Review on this and related topics:

• Blog Post: "Wikipedia Is Sexist"
• NYT Learning Network Discussion
• Wikipedia Women Facebook Group
• WMF GenderGap Discussion Forum
• Concern About Porn On Wikipedia
• The Truth According To Wikipedia
• Media Coverage Around The World

— Jon Awbrey • 25 Feb 2011 (3:30 PM)

[Jon Awbrey]

In a related story …

Mallary Jean Tenore • “Why women don’t contribute to opinion pages as often as men & What we can do about it” • Poynter • 25 Feb 2011

There are several threads at The Wikipedia Review on this and related topics:

• Blog Post: "Wikipedia Is Sexist"
• NYT Learning Network Discussion
• Wikipedia Women Facebook Group
• WMF GenderGap Discussion Forum
• Concern About Porn On Wikipedia
• The Truth According To Wikipedia
• Media Coverage Around The World

— Jon Awbrey • 25 Feb 2011 (3:30 PM)

Follow up comment …

I think it is important for the rationality of this discussion to draw a distinction between opinion pages at large and what Mallary Jean Tenore called “non-news sites, such as Wikipedia”.

The above article falls within the penumbra of a Wikimedia Foundation focus on upping the percentage of women contributing to Wikipedia. Increasing the levels of participation in avowedly democratic enterprises is a good thing. But Wikipedia is avowed rather explicitly not to be an experiment in democracy, nor is it even remotely democratic in point of fact. Indeed, trying to correct the defects of Wikipedia Culture by recruiting more participants of any class or kind is like trying to correct the defects of a Ponzi scheme by pumping more dollars into it. And that is not a good thing.

In short, I think we have to be clear about the vast differences between the two types of participation before we try to judge what is beneficial and what is not.

— Jon Awbrey • 25 Feb 2011 (8:04 PM)

[Malleus]

I think it is important for the rationality of this discussion to draw a distinction between opinion pages at large and what Mallary Jean Tenore called “non-news sites, such as Wikipedia”.

The above article falls within the penumbra of a Wikimedia Foundation focus on upping the percentage of women contributing to Wikipedia. Increasing the levels of participation in avowedly democratic enterprises is a good thing. But Wikipedia is avowed rather explicitly not to be an experiment in democracy, nor is it even remotely democratic in point of fact. Indeed, trying to correct the defects of Wikipedia Culture by recruiting more participants of any class or kind is like trying to correct the defects of a Ponzi scheme by pumping more dollars into it. And that is not a good thing.

In short, I think we have to be clear about the vast differences between the two types of participation before we try to judge what is beneficial and what is not.

— Jon Awbrey • 25 Feb 2011 (8:04 PM)

Anyone who who would choose to (incorrectly) use the word "penumbra" in that way is clearly a pretentious ass. How can a shadow "fall within a focus"? Big words, small brains.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Jon Awbrey]

I think it is important for the rationality of this discussion to draw a distinction between opinion pages at large and what Mallary Jean Tenore called “non-news sites, such as Wikipedia”.

The above article falls within the penumbra of a Wikimedia Foundation focus on upping the percentage of women contributing to Wikipedia. Increasing the levels of participation in avowedly democratic enterprises is a good thing. But Wikipedia is avowed rather explicitly not to be an experiment in democracy, nor is it even remotely democratic in point of fact. Indeed, trying to correct the defects of Wikipedia Culture by recruiting more participants of any class or kind is like trying to correct the defects of a Ponzi scheme by pumping more dollars into it. And that is not a good thing.

In short, I think we have to be clear about the vast differences between the two types of participation before we try to judge what is beneficial and what is not.

— Jon Awbrey • 25 Feb 2011 (8:04 PM)

Anyone who who would choose to (incorrectly) use the word "penumbra" in that way is clearly a pretentious ass. How can a shadow "fall within a focus"? Big words, small brains.

I'm watching the end of Monk and then on to Fringe. Someone else will have to explain the Logic of the Darkside to this dimwit.

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