Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ General Discussion _ GenderGaffe, GenderGate : Kinder, Gendler Wikipediots
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
¼coming …
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/ …
This thread is spun off from a previous thread that got moved to the Editors Forum.
Jon 
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-February/000493.html
In which Joseph Reagle discovers the true meaning of “Good Faith Collaboration†…
QUOTE
[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
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-February/000462.html
QUOTE
[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.
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
All Quiet on the Women Front —
Good Gosh, have they moved to a Seekrit List already ???
Jon 
Posted by: 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
Posted by: EricBarbour
Well, now we know what those WikiTwits do all day, instead of encyclopedia management---
they sit around and message each other pointlessly.
Posted by: 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.
QUOTE
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-February/000516.html
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:
http://www.google.co.uk/images?q=%22jean+shorts%22&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. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:501%28c%293_Letter.png
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 17th February 2011, 10:18pm) 
Exercise for the Reader. What is wrong with that argument?
Hint. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:501%28c%293_Letter.png
Hint. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:501%28c%293_Letter.png
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 (Jayen466Â (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...?
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 18th February 2011, 3:23am)
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 17th February 2011, 10:18pm)
Exercise for the Reader. What is wrong with that argument?
Hint. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:501%28c%293_Letter.png
It's not just that Google isn't fraudulently calling itself a “charityâ€; 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…?
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,
General Amity (Ret.)
Posted by: 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.
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 18th February 2011, 10:28am)
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
Posted by: Ottava
QUOTE
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:
http://www.google.co.uk/images?q=%22jean+shorts%22&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.
Posted by: HRIP7
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 18th February 2011, 3:46pm)
QUOTE
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:
http://www.google.co.uk/images?q=%22jean+shorts%22&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.
Quite. I http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-February/063985.html the question earlier today what was happening with that. No reply as yet.
Posted by: HRIP7
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 18th February 2011, 3:28pm)
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.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:People_using_vacuum_cleaners
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 18th February 2011, 3:28pm)
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.
Posted by: HRIP7
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Fri 18th February 2011, 4:18am)
Exercise for the Reader. What is wrong with that argument?
Hint. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:501%28c%293_Letter.png
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 http://www.webcitation.org/5wazorbnP, but some people http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-February/000576.html of the problem, even over there, and http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-February/000544.html. 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.
Posted by: Ottava
QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Fri 18th February 2011, 1:59pm)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:People_using_vacuum_cleaners
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?
Posted by: SB_Johnny
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 18th February 2011, 4:28pm)
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.
Posted by: EricBarbour
QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Fri 18th February 2011, 1:18pm)
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 http://www.nolo.com/products/how-to-form-a-nonprofit-corporation-NNP.html, and read it.
Posted by: Kelly Martin
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Fri 18th February 2011, 5:17pm)
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.Posted by: Jon Awbrey
You can't make this stuff up …
QUOTE
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-February/000615.html
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:
http://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
http://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:
http://www.girlscouts.org/councilfinder/
For those of you outside of the US, please contact the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts — http://www.wagggs.org/
email wagggs at wagggsworld dot org — and/or the USA Girl Scouts Overseas —
http://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?
Posted by: Peter Damian
QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Fri 18th February 2011, 6:59pm)
Actually, I disagree. It's the prevalent mindset. It's like the guys with the Playboy calendar in the office dominating the atmosphere.
[Ambiguity redacted]. Someone (as recently as the early 1990s) who worked at the Sun (famous English tabloid) told me they kept, in full view of the whole office, a top 10 list of the secretaries they would like to shag , reviewed monthly.
Some of the female staff might have been amused by this. Not all, I imagine. These days, probabaly none.
[edit] There is something Herostratus says that seemed extraordinarily sexist, TMMAL. I've altered 'male' to 'female' and changed the male names to female ones, to make it obvious.
QUOTE
Finally Anna, Beth, and some others - and I'll include myself - not as a matter of being female, but as a matter of being clueless and insensitive - would it be asking too much for you to back off and give the brothers some space? I have a talk page on the English Wikipedia and am willing to engage there with other females in in combative tests of verbal jousting skill.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-February/000590.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-February/000590.html
Posted by: Peter Damian
QUOTE
Wikipedia is an open wiki. This means that every element of humanity that you despise, every element that despises what you love, and even elements which you were never really acquainted with before exist there.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-February/000612.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-February/000612.html
Except for banned editors.
[edit] Alas this discussion is giving way to every stereotype that men have of women. Lady of Shalott says that the ability to customise the look "is one thing that could make Wikipedia-editing more attractive to some users".
What does she mean by that? Well, she says at the end that she has a pink userpage and purple talk page. Perhaps she was joking.
The man at PC world told me that women have a very different take on how to buy a computer. My son built one from an old flat screen and various spare parts and memory boards and stuff. My daughter bought a slim and cool looking notebook in, er, pink. [OK that's enough stereotypes]
[edit] No wait a moment she wasn't joking, she really does have a talk page in shocking pink.
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 19th February 2011, 7:52am)
[edit] No wait a moment she wasn't joking, she really does have a talk page in shocking pink.
And somebody named "Venus" wants it in shocking blue....
Lady of Shalott?? How appropriate for somebody who must see the world reflected in the web.
Where is "La Belle Dame sans Merci"? We've seen the sans merci part, but La Belle Dame so far seems to be missing.
Posted by: Gruntled
QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Fri 18th February 2011, 6:59pm)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:People_using_vacuum_cleaners
Quite a lot of photos in the Vacuum cleaners category also show the people using them. Why have just these photos been singled out for their own category? Answers on a postcard please.
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Ottava @ Fri 18th February 2011, 4:28pm)
QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Fri 18th February 2011, 1:59pm)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:People_using_vacuum_cleaners
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?
Maybe it has something to do with the Cattychism according to Peaches Christ …
Jon
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
QUOTE
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-February/000621.html
Sat Feb 19 20:14:46 UTC 2011
Let's just get on with it, and put out the PR that we are celebrating and requesting women's participation as experts on the Wikipedia site.
Yeah, that'll fix it — just treat women the same way they treat experts.
Jon
Posted by: Ottava
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sat 19th February 2011, 3:29pm)
QUOTE
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-February/000621.html
Sat Feb 19 20:14:46 UTC 2011
Let's just get on with it, and put out the PR that we are celebrating and requesting women's participation as experts on the Wikipedia site.
Yeah, that'll fix it — just treat women the same way they treat experts.
Ban them for POV on female related articles?
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Ottava @ Sat 19th February 2011, 10:56pm)
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sat 19th February 2011, 3:29pm)
QUOTE
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-February/000621.html
Sat Feb 19 20:14:46 UTC 2011
Let's just get on with it, and put out the PR that we are celebrating and requesting women's participation as experts on the Wikipedia site.
Yeah, that'll fix it — just treat women the same way they treat experts.
Ban them for POV on female related articles?
Yeah, but Brownies will get merit badges for curating porn.
Jon
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
I'd better record this one before it disappears …
QUOTE
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-February/000635.html
Mon Feb 21 07:06:46 UTC 2011
* Previous message: [Gendergap] Nine Reasons Women Don't Edit Wikipedia
* Next message: [Gendergap] [[w:List of female role models]]
* Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 20:04, Sue Gardner <sgardner at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> I did a superfast compilation of online comments by women talking
> about why they don't edit Wikipedia:
>
> http://suegardner.org/2011/02/19/nine-reasons-why-women-dont-edit-wikipedia-in-their-own-words/
>
> A couple of things struck me: Most of the reasons cited by women for
> not editing probably apply to men too. Most are deeply rooted culture
> stuff that will take time to change. And I was particularly interested
> to read women saying they believe the bar for notability is higher for
> the topics they write about, than it is for 'male' or 'ungendered'
> topics.
>
> Thanks,
> Sue
>
hi sue, that sounds really interesting, i immediately tested the reasons
with people i know. the answers i got were:
* no time,
* no interest,
* what is wikipedia / you can edit wikipedia?
while "no time" is a very prominent and simple reason, this would match
every person. as at the end of the day it is a decision between editing
wikipedia and watch tv, edit wikipedia and hike, edit wikipedia and blog, …
then i looked at edit counts of arbitrarily chosen women i know the user
name of [1], starting with you as you wrote this email. as participating in
wikipedia is a social thing, i was wondering who dragged you into wikipedia,
and whom did you drag into it? and how? how much of your free time /
holiday do you spend for wikipedia?
coming from edit counts i then looked at user profiles, blogs, titters, etc
to get an impression about the internet / social network participation in
general. again a couple of arbitrary links [2].
then i was wondering about you, beeing related to the internet business and
the social aspects of it for an eternity in internet terms of time. and i
thought about richard branson, who stated in "loosing my virginity" that his
market surveys often include only one opinion: his own. if richard branson
is right, then we can take sue gardners edit count as indication, that the
whole thing is moving in the right direction
take your last trip i can remember, going to india. highly successful from a
professional pov, there is now a chapter, etc. you took the time to prepare
the travel, to read about the region and the people, you took the time to
blog/twitter about it, to write a report to the wmf board, but did you edit
the article about india? did you upload a foto to commons?
what needs to be changed that you would have done this?
rupert.
[1] just a few edit counts …
* sue in en:
http://toolserver.org/~river/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Sue%20Gardner&dbname=enwiki_p
* sue in commons:
http://toolserver.org/~river/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Sue%20Gardner&dbname=commonswiki_p
* angela recent contributions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Angela
* angela in en:
http://toolserver.org/~river/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Angela&dbname=enwiki_p
* delphine in fr:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sp%C3%A9cial:Contributions/Notafish
* [Jimbo Wales]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jimbo_Wales
[2] user profiles …
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sue_Gardner
* http://www.linkedin.com/in/suegardner
* http://au.linkedin.com/in/angelabeesley
* http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jimmy-wales/0/a8b/919
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo
Posted by: thekohser
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 21st February 2011, 9:00am)
I'd better record this one before it disappears …
QUOTE
...
coming from edit counts i then looked at user profiles, blogs, titters, etc
to get an impression about the internet / social network participation in
general. again a couple of arbitrary links
...
Posted by: MZMcBride
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 18th February 2011, 10:28am)
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.
Quit trying to shoot the red herring. Porn is clearly to blame here. Think of the children.
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-February/000652.html !!!
Jon
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-February/000648.html …
Posted by: thekohser
I hear that tomorrow (Thursday, February 24, 2011) there will be a couple of http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-February/000686.html at 7:00 PM at 87 3rd Avenue, 4th Floor, Brooklyn, NY 11217.
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 23rd February 2011, 9:26pm)
I hear that tomorrow (Thursday, February 24, 2011) there will be a couple of http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-February/000686.html at 7:00 PM at 87 3rd Avenue, 4th Floor, Brooklyn, NY 11217.
Oh, cut it out with yer wiki-stalking will ya …
QUOTE
First of all, thank you Pharos for helping us NY chics connect! Second, if there are any NY chics we missed, a few of us are having a real/virtual meeting tomorrow at 7:00pm. Two of us are meeting in real person (Resistor, Brooklyn), and two of us are meeting via skype. We will be brainstorming on things we can do locally and essentially create a plan of action
We will share with guys what we come up with.Super excited!! WOO HOO! Wish us luck!
Sandy
Just a couple of questions —
- Is “chics†pronounced like “chicks†or like “sheeks�
- Is “chics†a term dudes can use, too, or is it reserved for use among, er, the really chic chics?
Posted by: thekohser
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 23rd February 2011, 9:26pm)
I hear that tomorrow (Thursday, February 24, 2011) there will be a couple of http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-February/000686.html at 7:00 PM at 87 3rd Avenue, 4th Floor, Brooklyn, NY 11217.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-February/000697.html from Sandy!
QUOTE
A bunch of us got together tonight in NY. Unfortunately, we were not able to
connect to the other participants who were going to join us via Skype. (it
was quite funny, we ended trying to work from a stairwell in a VERY old NY
building to try to access the ladies, lol, but had no luck overcoming our
technical difficulties. )
connect to the other participants who were going to join us via Skype. (it
was quite funny, we ended trying to work from a stairwell in a VERY old NY
building to try to access the ladies, lol, but had no luck overcoming our
technical difficulties. )
Imagine that. Women gather in a http://www.nycresistor.com/about/ dedicated to electronics and fix-it solutions, and these chicks can't figure out how to make Skype work.
QUOTE
However, can definitely say that we had REALLY good energy and i think the
beginning of something very cool
beginning of something very cool
Sandy's communications expertise still shines, however.
Posted by: Kelly Martin
QUOTE
Wikipedia has set as it's (sic) goal increasing the number of [female] editors from under 15% to 25% over the next few years.
Easy solution to that: just get rid of roughly half the male editors; if you do that without losing any of the female editors that should push the female participation rate to around 25%.It's not as if Wikipedia can't afford to lose about half of its editors. I'm sure in any random grouping of editors at least 30% or so are discardable with no negative impact on the project.
However, please make sure that you don't get rid of any of the editors who know the difference between "it's" and "its".
Posted by: Kelly Martin
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 23rd February 2011, 9:02pm)
Just a couple of questions —
Bah, everyone who is anyone knows that it's spelled "chix" (singular: chik) in this context. Shame on you, Sandy!- Is “chics†pronounced like “chicks†or like “sheeks�
- Is “chics†a term dudes can use, too, or is it reserved for use among, er, the really chic chics?
Posted by: Zoloft
So.
The project is sort of a Winkiubator to hatch out and protect a bunch of Wiki-chix?
Perhaps my ancient Animal Husbandry classes will finally be of use.
Maybe we can get a brood hatched out and pecking away by Easter Sunday.
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
In a related story …
Mallary Jean Tenore • “http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/118696/why-women-dont-contribute-to-opinion-pages-as-often-as-men-what-we-can-do-about-it/†• Poynter • 25 Feb 2011
QUOTE
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
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Fri 25th February 2011, 4:02pm)
In a related story …
Mallary Jean Tenore • “http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/118696/why-women-dont-contribute-to-opinion-pages-as-often-as-men-what-we-can-do-about-it/†• Poynter • 25 Feb 2011
QUOTE
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
Follow up comment …
QUOTE
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 Wikipediaâ€.
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.
— https://www.facebook.com/people/Jonny-Cache/1039153428 • http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/118696/why-women-dont-contribute-to-opinion-pages-as-often-as-men-what-we-can-do-about-it/#comment-156307834
Posted by: Malleus
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sat 26th February 2011, 1:08am)
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 Wikipediaâ€.
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.
— https://www.facebook.com/people/Jonny-Cache/1039153428 • http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/118696/why-women-dont-contribute-to-opinion-pages-as-often-as-men-what-we-can-do-about-it/#comment-156307834
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.
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Malleus @ Fri 25th February 2011, 8:42pm)
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sat 26th February 2011, 1:08am)
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 Wikipediaâ€.
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.
— https://www.facebook.com/people/Jonny-Cache/1039153428 • http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/118696/why-women-dont-contribute-to-opinion-pages-as-often-as-men-what-we-can-do-about-it/#comment-156307834
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
Posted by: Malleus
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sat 26th February 2011, 1:56am)
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
Hopefully someone with a better understanding of English than you.
Posted by: Zoloft
QUOTE(Malleus @ Fri 25th February 2011, 5:59pm)
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sat 26th February 2011, 1:56am)
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
Hopefully someone with a better understanding of English than you.Jon
Malleus, once one's ego grows sufficiently massive, even your focus casts a shadow. Think of Sauron's gaze from Mordor, or that Oprah started her own cable network.
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Fri 25th February 2011, 10:12pm)
QUOTE(Malleus @ Fri 25th February 2011, 5:59pm)
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sat 26th February 2011, 1:56am)
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.
Hopefully someone with a better understanding of English than you.
Malleus, once one's ego grows sufficiently massive, even your focus casts a shadow. Think of Sauron's gaze from Mordor, or that Oprah started her own cable network.
Thank You. Close Enough.
Jon
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Fri 25th February 2011, 8:12pm)
QUOTE(Malleus @ Fri 25th February 2011, 5:59pm)
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sat 26th February 2011, 1:56am)
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
Hopefully someone with a better understanding of English than you.Jon
Malleus, once one's ego grows sufficiently massive, even your focus casts a shadow. Think of Sauron's gaze from Mordor, or that Oprah started her own cable network.
The penumbra adumbra
no doubtBetween the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Between the conception
And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
Between the desire
And the spasm
Between the potency
And the existence
Between the essence
And the descent
We have people who first have to change this ONE little bit.....
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Fri 25th February 2011, 4:02pm)
In a related story …
Mallary Jean Tenore • “http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/118696/why-women-dont-contribute-to-opinion-pages-as-often-as-men-what-we-can-do-about-it/†• Poynter • 25 Feb 2011
QUOTE
My reasons for following media coverage on this issue may be tangential to the main arc of interest. 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 quite expressly 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.
— https://www.facebook.com/people/Jonny-Cache/1039153428 • https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=203106399700359&id=1039153428
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
GenderGoof Group Gropes Gender Groggily —
Looks like they've settled into the usual routine of selling each other T-shirts …
QUOTE
[Gendergap] Wikipedia Merchandise
Collective Action collective_action at hotmail.com
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-March/000714.html
Hi all,
I was wanting to create T-Shirts for sale to people supporting Women4Wikipedia using the images on the page found at http://women4wikipedia.net
I was wondering if they could be added to the official merchandise shop on cafepress.com since the Wikipedia name may well be trademarked — besides it just seems the most logical way to go about it?
This is the page where the current cafepress.com designs were decided:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Merchandise
I'm not sure how to go about things from this point though and whether our designs can be used? The small header image is licenced CC0 but the larger image further down on the page is currently not in the public domain. I need to know what license is most appropriate should we be given permission to add it to the official Wikipedia merchandise designs. This larger image is also available in varying colours for different coloured T-shirts, as is the header.
regards
Rosie Williams
http://collectiveaction.com.au
@collectiveact
Posted by: thekohser
Wow, the layout found at http://women4wikipedia.net may be the worst I've ever seen for a website.
Posted by: Zoloft
QUOTE
"Blog
Women4Wikipedia Blog Drive
Are you a woman who has editied Wikipedia or would you like to have a shot?"
Women4Wikipedia Blog Drive
Are you a woman who has editied Wikipedia or would you like to have a shot?"
Yaaagh!
Posted by: Kelly Martin
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Mon 7th March 2011, 2:14am)
QUOTE
"Blog
Women4Wikipedia Blog Drive
Are you a woman who has editied Wikipedia or would you like to have a shot?"
Yaaagh!Women4Wikipedia Blog Drive
Are you a woman who has editied Wikipedia or would you like to have a shot?"
I'll take a shot of whatever you've been having, dear. "Editied"? Really?
Posted by: Zoloft
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 7th March 2011, 4:26am)
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Mon 7th March 2011, 2:14am)
QUOTE
"Blog
Women4Wikipedia Blog Drive
Are you a woman who has editied Wikipedia or would you like to have a shot?"
Yaaagh!Women4Wikipedia Blog Drive
Are you a woman who has editied Wikipedia or would you like to have a shot?"
I'll take a shot of whatever you've been having, dear. "Editied"? Really?
Sadly, there is a lot more Mangle-lish on that page. Grammar, word usage, and other parsing errors abound.
I now draw a discreet veil across the screen. Avert your eyes, fair souls.
Posted by: Alison
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 7th March 2011, 4:26am)
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Mon 7th March 2011, 2:14am)
QUOTE
"Blog
Women4Wikipedia Blog Drive
Are you a woman who has editied Wikipedia or would you like to have a shot?"
Yaaagh!Women4Wikipedia Blog Drive
Are you a woman who has editied Wikipedia or would you like to have a shot?"
I'll take a shot of whatever you've been having, dear. "Editied"? Really?
That's embarrassing. <gag>
Also:
CODE
Domain name: women4wikipedia.net
Registrant Contact:
Fletcher, Brenton Reece Pty Ltd
Rosie Williams ()
Fax:
82/37 Kogarah Lane, Reid
Reid, 2612
AU
Registrant Contact:
Fletcher, Brenton Reece Pty Ltd
Rosie Williams ()
Fax:
82/37 Kogarah Lane, Reid
Reid, 2612
AU
The site appears to be owned and run by Rosie Williams and Brenton Fletcher of Collective Action, in Australia. Read more here;
http://collectiveaction.com.au/posts/14
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-March/000755.html