There a Howdy do...I try and bring the gift of laughter to the big decennial birthday bash but, sadly, it did not go over very well .
Silly me, I thought that even if he didn't appreciate the joke, he might the linked video.

Clearly what Dikipedia needs most is a sense of humor about itself (Hint Jimbo:Chicks dig that).

But aren't we males all protective of our jimmies?

Heh heh. Direct approach didn't work, eh?

Next time, you might, maybe, try being sneaky. Jason Bourne style.
Post it everywhere EXCEPT on Jimbo's talkpage. Post it on talkpages of
inactive users, and get crazy people to mention it on AN/I or on
Jimboland. Never know, could make a great breaching experiment.....

That will never happen...

Their reaction isn't surprising though, under the circumstances. They're a bit sensitive now about how they're viewed by women, since one of their more recent talking points with the media is how they need more of them. Obviously they don't understand women, since as almost anyone with an ounce of sense will tell you, saying "we need more women" is precisely the sort of thing that prevents women from showing up and participating. (Why not just say, "we're unattractive nerds and we want to hit on you"? That would at least be refreshingly honest - they might go for that, though it's probably too late since they're already on record with the first thing.)

To some extent, gender diversity, racial diversity, and national/ethnic/cultural (NEC) diversity are three different things, though there's obviously going to be some overlap in terms of formulating how you achieve them. I would argue that you can, to some degree, help yourself achieve racial and NEC diversity by merely announcing that you want to improve in that area, but women, not so much.

Of course, that's just my opinion and I could always be wrong... but since the WMF doesn't seem to even have a plan for determining what it is that keeps women from participating, much less actually change the internal culture accordingly, I honestly just don't see it.

No. Need I remind you, what you mean is "a bunch of nerds saying we need more women whilst displaying 200 pictures of tit torture and uploading photos of one's own penis in public ... is precisely the sort of thing that prevents women from showing up and participating."

And why should they care? Girls would only spoil their mock debating society and war games.

Right! I wasn't even going to mention the porn, but absolutely, if they were serious about bringing in women they'd have to make a real effort to at least curtail that stuff, if not actually delete it. At a minimum. But then they'd almost be making it worse, because women would see right through it - you're cleaning up the porn because you want to impress us, you're not cleaning it up because you really believe it's the right thing to do.

I hope that doesn't sound too misogynist, coming from me...

The presence of large amounts of porn also impacts their ability to bring in Muslim participants, IMO - the Muslims who contribute to WP now are mostly doing so in spite of the porn, essentially holding their noses and averting their eyes as they hurry past, hoping the filth doesn't get splashed up into their faces by a passing herd of Western basement-dwellers as they go. (That's not to say that other religions are actually keen on porn, of course - it's just that Muslims seem to have a particularly dim view of it.)

True dat.





I used to love to do breaching experiments on there back in the day before it became Dikipedia, and the Junior Woodchuck League and Custodiocracy ruled them to be WP:Pointy at best and vandalism at worst.

Indeed.
I'm actually surprised one of Jimbo's geldings bothered to respond to it and that it lasted as long as it did, and when the inevitable finally arrived, it was King Dong his own bad self doing the chopping. Four years ago I'd been banned or at least blocked. Two years ago, it would have been "shot on sight" and I'd have a terse, threatening nasty-gram on my talkpage to delete and ignore. Lèse Jimbeaujesté is no longer a crime, tis become a pasttime. A small sign of progress, I suppose.




You Grok one of the key points I was trying to make with that exercise...unlike Horsehead Bookend over at the neverending sausage fest.
Notice too how the WMF loves to appoint women to high and high visibility positions every chance it gets. If the gender make up of the "workforce", reflected that of the board it would be at least a third or a quarter female I guesstimate. Yet, Sue Spidey Hand aside, in terms of the real money and power, it's still a Men's Mostly club. Can I haz Tokenism...

And another thing; how do they know exactly how many actual females edit WP?
Or for that matter how many female adminions there are?
They must have some sooper sekret, gender detecting spyware we don't yet know about!

Think they mostly use the flawed (but probably close enough for this question) study by the United Nations University.

From Sue Gardner's mostly forgotten blog:


She hasn't been very successful in implementing her ideas. Maybe she really doesn't understand women.

Hmmm...maybe some chilled champagne, a little Barry White music and some burning incense -- whenever I need to encourage chicks, that works for me!

You're working way too hard, you just need to learn how to strut.

http://www.threepanelsoul.com/view.php?date=2010-08-23

Okay, let's start at the beginning. This is how little self awareness Sue Gardner has. Prepare for:

Fact: Sue Gardner has a degree in journalism. According to her BLP she "worked for more than a decade as a producer, reporter and documentary-maker." She was traired as a writer and can write. She has written numerous newspaper articles, and has a personal blog.

Fact: She registered as editer Sue Gardner (T-C-L-K-R-D) in August 2006. Yes, 4 and a half years ago, and more than a year before becoming WMF executive director in Nov., 2007.

Fact: In that time, this is how many edits Gardner has on WP: a total of 154,000.

Wups, no that's wrong. I mean 154. In more than 4 years as an editor and more than 3 years as WMF's CEO. On an active day when she edits, she averages 2 edits a day. Most days, obviously she does not edit at all.

Fact: The only article Sue has edited more than her own userpage is the BLP of Pat Barker, a contemporary English novelist. On which she is the second-ranked editor. That BLP has a monthly view rate of about 3,000. http://stats.grok.se/en/201010/Pat%20Barker. Compare with an article like California, a standard encyclopedia type article which is viewed 500,000 times a month, or the article on Jupiter (250,000/month). Several hundred thousand page-views a month is typical for encyclopedia subjects typically tackled by "white male nerds" of the type that Ms. Gardner says she can spot 100 feet away. Even the article on feminism (supposedly a subject of interest to Gardner) gets 150,000 page views a month. Just for reference.

So, Sue Gardner doesn't edit much, despite that fact she she is ABLE to edit, she has edited, and the encyclopedia contains plenty of subjects of interest to her (so she says).

Now, Sue claims to be interested in the subject of why more women don't edit WP and why the women who do, don't edit more.

It seems to me that any person with an iota of genuine curiosity about this, were they female, might start out with the following bit of introspection:

"Hey, I MYSELF am a woman!! So, perhaps I could examine why *I* don't edit, and that would tell me more about why OTHER women don't edit!

Sue has not done this. Apparently the reason is NOT that she cannot get time away from her busy life of soccer-momming. And yes, she has a full time day job, but so also do a lot of the white male nerds she deprecates. And so, presumably, do a lot of the women Sue wants to edit for her on WP. Nope, that's not it.

Sue has actually been asked this. From her userpage FAQ:

COMMENT: That's nice of you to let us know that, Sue, but where's your drive to get out there and write content? You yourself are behaving completely passively about WP. It's almost as though your burning desire to get women to edit is just the politically correct claptrap you spin out as part of your dayjob, and is no way part of your private life, or your real interests. For those, you apparently blog. A blog on which you have total control....

So, as one of those white male nerds who has helped actually write that 5th most visited site that you're the CEO of, and that more than half of Americans use, I have a message for you, Ms. Gardner:

Personally, I don't take you and what you say, a bit seriously. And it's not due to your gender. It's due to your quite obvious hypocrisy. Your actions speak louder than your words.