This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Interesting and moving article here by Rebecca Solnit about how 2014 was the year "women’s voices assumed an unprecedented power". SlimVirgin(talk) 05:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing. I have high hopes for women on Wikipedia in 2015. Lightbreather (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
It is an op-ed, and one that is distinctly US-centric. There is unlikely to be an appropriate article and creating one might be point-y. - Sitush (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. Although the article is US centric, and an op-ed, none of those things make it unusable. And it does say things from other parts of the world too. I think there are lots of article about "Women in X" where x is a country or discipline or field. We also have articles like "X in 2011" where x is a country etc. So, creating a new article is kosher IMO.OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
If that is your opinion then be bold. - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I feel we may already have some appropriate article and someone might point it out. Even if not, I would like to wait for a day or two and hop to get some more opinions :-) This page is for collaboration after all.OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
There certainly is a good deal of material from the 2012 Delhi gang rape article - that's the one that caused the "boys will be boys" comment to go around the world. I added this to that article and I think that it's worth copying here. It is from the one-year anniversary section.
Observers agree that the victim's ordeal has brought a change to public conversations about women's issues, with men joining in the discussions as well. A young woman who had taken part in the protests at the time of the rape said a year later, "A welcome change is that the taboo on discussing rape and sexual violence has been broken. The protests brought debates and discussions to our homes." She also said that since the rape and protests the media is now providing coverage of sexual violence. However, she saw "absolutely no change in the rape culture and related brutality. The streets are not safe. Teasing [Eve teasing] and catcalling or worse are to be found everywhere. Sexual harassment in public places as well as inside the home is still rampant." She added, "I do acknowledge, however, that a year is too less to undo what patriarchy has done over centuries. It is too embedded in our homes, our institutions and in our laws. The police may be a little more receptive, but it is not out of a sense of duty but out of the fear of censure".[1]
I also remember several other quotes from women that have long worked with woman-related issues saying that in all their days they had never seen anything like the attitude change re the willingness to discuss violence against women. It may be a bit of a struggle to come up with an article as far as focus goes, but I'm sure something can be figured out. Gandydancer (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses ! Today seems to be a good day for finding sources on google [1] I am saving some of today's search page results because the results are likely to become diffuse in the coming days or weeks. Going through the results gives more ideas about what could be included. It seems 2014 has been both good and bad for women in many ways, in many parts of the world. I am likely to be away for some time. I think we have plentiful material, ideas, and an idea about basic structure, to start the article and you or someone else should probably go ahead. I am unfamiliar with many of the articles / events listed above, but will read them up and add my bit here and there as I can.OrangesRyellow (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
If someone gets this started, it would be a good idea to work on a draft in user space. If we want to nominate it for DYK, that has to happen within five days of it appearing in main space, so starting on a user page buys extra time. SlimVirgin(talk) 02:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I was inclined to starting it in the mainspace, but am having trouble coming up with a lead (providing a starting overview / introduction ). If someone could come up with a lead ( either as a userspace draft or mainspace ) it might be easier to work on from there.OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I may try to find words for a lead. I don't want to promise I'll do it, though, but I'll take a look. Or if someone else starts one, I'll be happy to help out. We could start it in someone's user space or at WT:GGTF/Women in 2014. SlimVirgin(talk) 02:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Break
I have started the draft in GGTF space, as suggested at WT:GGTF/Women in 2014 . Please take a look.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Transcluding it below for now, ( and hatting it ) so that everyone may find it easier to take a look. The aim is to get as much help as possible. Looks like it is going to be a major task noting all the things that need noting, and can only be done collaboratively.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The transclusion seems to have made the toc disappear, so I'm removing it until I can see how to fix it. SlimVirgin(talk) 04:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure the article could be beefed up, perhaps including negative events for women as well as positives, but the article could go into article space now. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
SlimVirgin Lucky me gets credit while you did almost 100% of the job. Not fair :-)The article is ready for mainspace, and you are more familiar with doing page moves. Both titles look fine to me. So, you can choose and go ahead -- please.OrangesRyellow (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Can only say "WOW" !! I never knew such a fine article could be worked up in such a short time. I had lost my enthusiasm for editing last year, but it is returning just by watching you work up this article !!OrangesRyellow (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, OrangesRyellow. Don't underestimate your own role, by the way. You had the idea and you got it started. I probably wouldn't have done either. So well done for that.
I'm about to nominate it for DYK, by the way (in both our names), unless you'd like to do it. I was thinking of something like: "Did you know that commentators, including Rebecca Solnit, called 2014 a watershed year for women's rights?" SlimVirgin(talk) 16:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Outstanding idea. May I suggest including a picture in the DYK? Either the photo of Malala Yousafzai or Michelle Obama would likely work. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Or perhaps Rebecca Solnit. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks SlimVirgin. I would be glad to see it as a DYK and am happy to see you do it as I am yet to do a DYK, and would not know my way around there. And thanks again for including my name in it :-)OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
The nomination is at Template:Did you know nominations/Women's rights in 2014. Unfortunately I now have to review someone else's before it can go ahead (this is one of the reasons I decided last year not to do this again). :)
Smallbones, I've added the photo of Michelle Obama for now. SlimVirgin(talk) 17:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, Michelle Obama made no sense in the context of the hook, so I've swapped it for Solnit. Thanks for cropping that, Smallbones. SlimVirgin(talk) 17:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I've just noticed that the DYK image has to be in the article, so that won't work either. Perhaps we can leave it without an image. Re: reviewing another article, I was lucky to find an interesting one by Ruby2010 to review, so that worked out well. See her The Lady's Realm. SlimVirgin(talk) 18:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
The Women's rights in 2014 article, as it stands, is quite badly flawed. I've left various comments at Talk:Women's rights in 2014 and at the DYK nomination, although I've only scratched the surface regarding the problems. I'm trying to collaborate but am quite prepared to be bold about things if no-one addresses the obvious issues. Please will someone at least respond to the comments there. - Sitush (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
While all articles on WP could use additional eyes and be improved, I think it's POV of you to unilaterally declare it "badly flawed". Sitush, do you share the goals of the task force? Those goals are to increase the recruitment and retention of women editors, and also to increase Wikipedia coverage of topics/articles under-represented due to systemic bias, which occurs on Wikipedia because we have so few women editors. I recall you wrote that you desired to see this task force disbanded. [2]. OrangesRyellos and SlimVirgin, thanks for doing the work to collect so many sources and put together this interesting article. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Heartfelt thanks. The encouragement was certainly needed. Sitush not only wants the task force disbanded, but also expressed opposition to the article even before it was created. Please see his 15:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC) above within this section. It is obvious he has a malicious interest in this task force and that article. It is obvious he wants to gut the article. He has no credibility left among the eds here, or on that article. I would like it very much if Sitush would leave that article. I do not see his contributions as being constructive, and it is not as if he alone on Wikipedia can help improve that article. If there is something to be done with that article, there are lots of other eds on Wikipedia, and I am quite prepared to engage with any issues if other eds bring them up, and want to work constructively on that article. ( but not with Sitush or his cohorts ). Thanks.OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I have to say I share many of the same misgivings about this article as Sitush. I've never seen an article constructed almost entirely from op-eds. Many of the subjects in it should, and some do already, have their own articles but this article is just peoples' claims about the impact of these subjects when we have no idea what impact, if any, they are going to have. For instance, the idea of something being a watershed moment (or year in this case) can't be made in that moment. Such claims are the realm of academic retrospection usually years to decades after the fact when their actual impact can be verified. Capeo (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I do as well... IMO the "watershed" is nothing more than media hype. I am trying to keep my objections to myself because of the nature of this group, but it does seem like sort of a fluff piece. However, trying to be more positive, it may be a way to survey recent happenings... I am working on the sad state of abortion rights in 2014 - though again I'm sure that it is somewhere else. But perhaps nice to have a 2014 recap? Yes, I think so... Gandydancer (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
If anyone is not "prepared to engage" with other contributors, as OrangesRyellow says above, then they probably should not be editing at all. I made my comments above and at the article talk in good faith; alas, those who keep raising my months-old remark about disbanding are being disingenuous because I clarified the position several times during the recent high-profile ArbCom case. I know for sure that there are others who think that the article has fundamental problems, aside from those who have commented here. Lots of articles have problems, yes, but they don't get fixed by brushing them under the carpet. Wikipedia articles are not the place to engage in cheerleading: we either respect WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK, WP:RS etc or we just give up and let the place turn into a free-for-all. If we work on the basis that this particular article has been lauded as an example of GGTF collaboration, it is a pretty poor showcase. But that doesn't mean it is irredeemable. - Sitush (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
And if people don't respond to my queries at the article talk then I'll obviously escalate the matter. Freezing me out will not work and is the antithesis of the Wikipedia ethos. - Sitush (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
@Capeo, Gandydancer. Academic sources takes years in making, and we do not sit back simply because they have not been written. We are working with the best sources available currently, and that is fine. There may have been a problem if the "watershed year" had been written in Wikipedia's voice. But nobody has done anything like that. It is not as if we must have academic sources documenting the real and the absolute truth for some information to be encyclopedic. If that be the rule, even academic sources are not above making mistakes, it would be easy to show scholars viciously criticizing/degrading other scholars or scholarly works ( to support my point ). and we will be left with a blank pedia. Wouldn't that be an absurd situation ? OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
OrangesRyellow and SlimVirgin: Looks good. Well done. Lightbreather (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
@ OrangesRyellow To clarify my position, I simply do not see 1014 as a "watershed" year for women's rights. For the article to collect various sources that feel it was and use them as a basis for the article's is, IMO, a mistake. Sure stuff happened, but if we've reached a tipping point I'd have to say that we sure did not set the bar very high. For example, in the US women's abortion rights are being taken away more every day with no end in sight. See: [3] BTW, please no more of your irritating, condescending language about blank pedias and absurd situations. Gandydancer (talk) 05:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I share the concerns that have been raised, and I'm also very concerned that aside from the lede, the article us WP:OR. As I said on the article talk page, it seems like the list of events have been picked by editors (especially since criteria for inclusion isn't defined and there's nothing saying that the entries are part of a list in a reliable source) instead of summarizing such lists in reliable sources. It is likely that we will need to wait until history, and reliable sources, tells us whether or not this was a watershed year. Ca2james (talk) 06:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
@ Gandydancer, I am baffled how my comment could be condescending in tone. I am sorry if it came off as condescending, that was not my intention at all, and I assure you that I take you and your comments with all due regard. Perhaps you could address my argument itself now. The blank pedia and absurdity of the situation part is a valid part of my argument IMO.OrangesRyellow (talk) 07:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
@ Ca2james You too seem to be criticizing the sourcing because it cannot be established as historical truth. The search for absolute historical truth is unnecessary. Encyclopedic content does not need to be the absolute historical truth. And something does not become truth just because some historian says it, a lot of what historians say is also debatable. We need not postpone noting things until debates have been "finally" settled by historians.OrangesRyellow (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
OrangesRyellow, the thing is scholars and historians are RSs that potentially can be written in Wikipedia's voice if there isn't notable disagreement in the field in question. If there is then that's noted and attributed. Op-eds on the other hand almost invariably need attribution and should supplement articles not be their focus. Op-eds generally always suffer from recentism. Personally what I think we should have done, and still should do actually, is to use the many good sources you collected to expand existing articles and use them as a springboard to gather more sources about some of the incidents in question to see if new articles could be made. In doing that we'd actually get more of this material onto wikipedia and, in my opinion, it would be more in line with policy. Capeo (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC
@ OrangesRyellow I really can't understand how you can instruct me on the most basic editing practices for our articles and then claim to be baffled when I find it irritating and condescending. I've been editing since 2006 - surely you don't think that I'm too dumb to have realized that "Academic sources takes years in making, and we do not sit back simply because they have not been written...It is not as if we must have academic sources documenting the real and the absolute truth for some information to be encyclopedic." For example, I work on the Colony collapse disorder honey bee article where we have been seeing huge bee die offs for years, most likely due to a new type of pesticide, but the "real" or "absolute" truth is not yet in. This is a pretty basic pattern for many of our articles but we don't wait for the "truth" to arrive before we write about it. I don't know what could be more basic than an understanding of this concept except perhaps to a new editor, but even then it's not hard to grasp since it's so obvious. So yes, it is irritating and condescending that you feel that I need to have these basics explained to me. Furthermore, I've never even argued that the opinions expressed that believe that 2014 was a watershed year can't be included in the article because they do not meet guidelines. I have only said that In my opinion 2014 was not a watershed year, which is fine and I don't believe that I should now need to go on and on in this disagreement. I don't like to argue and I hope that this is the end of it. Gandydancer (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Break 2
Capeo. A lot of op-ed based information can also be written in Wikipedia's voice, but let us not get into that here because that does not pertain to the situation at hand. Sorry if I misunderstand you, and sorry for summarizing your objection in my words. I think your objection roughly boils down to a) schcolarly sources are generally superior, b) the same material can be adjusted in other articles. a) is mostly correct in itself, but is not a valid objection to using op-eds. If it was, we would have had a blanket policy ban on op-eds. How much op-ed based content is used depends on the context of article topic and also on the state of development of sources on the topic. In the present context, op-eds are the most suitable and best available sources as yet. I don't think it is valid to hold back article writing because we do not have those potentially superior sources which do not exist as yet. Even if scholarly sources do become available, one could still object that sources documenting some judicial decisions, or some other type of sourcing would be superior. b) is not a valid objection because there could be alternate parking spots for almost all the content in almost any wikipedia article. It does not matter. If a topic is valid, we can and should give it coverage under its own heading, and this is very much a valid encyclopedic topic. A lot of topics are such that they need to duplicate some content from some other article, but it does not mean that the articles should be merged unless the two topics converge to a very substantial degree, or one of the topics is not worth a stand-alone article, etc. In the present case, we seem to have a problem of "too much/many" information/sources on the topic, and the topic is obviously worth a stand alone article, and we may soon face a situation where we might have to create some spin-off articles because the article on the present topic is becoming too big. P.S. I cannot take credit for collecting the sources for that article because most of it was done by SV, and some more eds have also made contributions now. Regards.OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
OrangesRyellow You note "In the present context, op-eds are the most suitable and best available sources as yet," and I think that gets to the heart of the problem for me. To me it means the topic itself is not sufficiently notable for a stand alone article and suffers heavily from recentism and sensationalism. Every year there is no shortage of opinion pieces claiming some special significance to the events of a given year. That's what these publications do at the end of the year in their opinion and editorial sections. 99% of the time they're wrong or in the very least overblown. And the rest of the sources are just a collection of events added in to try to justify that it was indeed a special year in women's rights which means we're attaching significance to them ourselves in some of those cases.
Like I said, these sources should have been used to bolster the existing Women's Rights articles, either History or by Country, and used to expand or create individual articles if suitably notable. Right now it's just a laundry list of events that don't add up to a cogent article. I see a massive amount of good work going into an article that I believe will end up getting deleted in a year or two because there isn't going to be a good enough argument to be made that 2014 was especially significant in the history of women's rights when the same amount of effort would increase the quality of a couple dozen articles related to women's rights. Obviously the latter can and should still be done. All that said, good luck with it. I hope I can be proven wrong. Capeo (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Ca2james, regarding your concerns of original research, according to WP:OR, "to demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented". The topic of the article is Women's rights in 2014. For all the references I've checked, the cited sources describe the content as women's rights related and occurring in 2014, and they directly support the material being presented, so there does not seem to be an OR issue. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
BoboMeowCat, my concern is that the way the events are chosen to be added to the article is WP:OR because the lede discusses whether or not it was a watershed year for women. By implication, the events that are included are watershed events. It's the implication part that I find unsettling, because I think it's too soon to know whether or not it was actually a watershed year and what those watershed events might be. Moreover, we should be reporting what the reliable sources say, not writing the story ourselves... which is what I sense is happening with the article.
OrangesRyellow, I'm not saying that there's ever an absolute historical truth. I'm also not saying that it's necessary to wait until historians make a final decision, because that will never happen. I am saying that the subject needs some historical perspective and scholarly reliable sources and that it seems to be too soon to be writing about this topic. You are correct that I am criticizing the sourcing: the lede discusses whether 2014 was a watershed year and that's the kind of topic that needs some historical perspective; and the body appears to be a bunch of events that have been cherry-picked by editors to support the idea that 2014 was a watershed year. I agree with Capeo that all those sources would be better added to existing articles. Ca2james (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
@ Capeo. Most of the sources are not year-end sources. The year end sources are useful for providing an overview of the year, and that is how they are mostly used.. I think some of the objections may be simply because people have not seen year-round-up articles before, and this looks like " a new thing". I have seen and worked on such articles before, and am quite comfortable with them. I suppose others will also get more accustomed to these articles as they see more of these. I am likely to start an article for 2015 during mid-2015 itself (unless someone beats me to it ), and will expect no opposition then because people would have become used to articles like this. Cheers.OrangesRyellow (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
OrangesRyellow, it seems like you're dismissing the concerns that Capeo has raised as just not being familiar with this type of article, which comes across as more condescending than I think you intended it to be. I looked through your contribution history and found the articles on Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2012 and Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2010 that you contributed to. Those articles similar but not the same as this one: they don't open with a lead that describes either year as being a watershed year and each incident is a short statement in a bulleted list generally delineated by month. If this article was a bulleted list without the lede describing it as possibly a watershed year, my concerns would be lessened. Ca2james (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Ca2james In addition to describing 2014 as a "watershed" year, the lead also includes mention of criticism and disagreement that it was a "watershed" year, and quote that it was actually "a bad year for women". After reading your multiple comments and concerns regarding "cherry picking", it's actually reading more like NPOV concern than OR concern I think. Reading over the current article text regarding violence against women, rape, harassment etc, I don't see the current article as overly positive; however, if you are aware of additional sources which further describe set backs and/or hardships or lack of real progress in terms of women's rights, boldly add or discuss such additions on talk page. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The majority of the lede says that it was a watershed year and one sentence saying it wasn't doesn't balance out the rest of the sentences. The weight is clearly overwhelmingly on the "watershed year" side.
I think you're right that I have NPOV concerns as opposed to (or as well as) OR concerns with this article. The way I see it, the article is really two articles that are smushed together: one that discusses whether or not 2014 was a watershed year for women, and the other that lists events related to women's rights that occurred in 2014. By conflating the two, the implication is that these events created a watershed year which is an editor conclusion, not one that's supported by reliable sources ... and so we have WP:SYNTH or WP:OR or WP:NPOV problems.
How about moving the body of the article into a List of women's rights events in 2014 article and moving the lede into an History of feminism article? That way, the list of events isn't used to support the pov that 2014 was a watershed year. Ca2james (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
It is not necessary to give equal weight to opposing views. The lead only says what reliable sources say, and it is based on, and an overview of, events which took place in 2014, which are detailed in the body. It is not as if the lead is talking about 1914 and the events are from 2014. The lead and body are one article and it is wrong to say that the lead is due to ed conclusion. Your suggestion to split the article is due to the wrong claim that the lead is an ed conclusion. It comes from RSs. OrangesRyellow (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Lead sections are supposed to summarise the article, and articles should be balanced per WP:DUE. Instead, at the outset, this one drove the article by setting out the premise. While the article generally is improving a bit, the lead is lagging behind. It doesn't reflect particularly well and, honestly, I've always been told by my betters here (regulars at FAC etc) that including quotes in leads is usually a bad idea.
Why are we still having a discussion here anyway? This stuff should all be at Talk:Women's rights in 2014. - Sitush (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article talk page template
Does the project have an article talk page template? I checked the archive and I hope I'm not opening a can of worms by just asking about it, but it would seem that having one might be helpful to add to articles about people or subjects that the GGTF is trying to save and/or maintain. Thx and Happy Holidays, --Scalhotrod(Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't see one. I would be willing to help put together a broad topical project banner, maybe something along the lines of Template:WikiProject Christianity, if editors here wanted to maybe merge some of the possibly inactive existing related projects into one single entity with a common banner. John Carter (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
"Holy templates, Batman" that's quite a template. That's got to be the "Mother of all templates"... OK, kidding aside, how can I help? Personally, I like seeing a dedicated page where all of the details and uses can be listed along with a link on the main page so that its easy to find as with other projects. --Scalhotrod(Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Opposition?
Before I start working on this, anyone feel that this is a bad idea? --Scalhotrod(Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussions on reddit about proposal for WikiProject Women
Discussions on reddit about proposal for WikiProject Women should be of interest to members of GGTF:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Although the information available on Northeastern Nigeria, and on the refugees in neighboring countries fleeing violence by Boko Haram is somewhat limited, there is still much that could be done to improve the Wikipedia articles about this geographical area. It's rather distressing to see that despite all the tweets about "Bring Back Our Girls", neither Wikipedia nor major news outlets have made it a priority to assemble the basic encyclopedic information about this part of the world. --Djembayz (talk)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Women on the net are harassed, targeted more, but get less help. Lets make more effort to identify and heighten sensitivity to harassment and stalking of women on this pedia
A sampling of what women face, how it is a a serious assault, but are treated in an insensitive, ineffectual way by those who should help. Amanda Hess, Why Women Aren’t Welcome on the Internet.OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC) This seems to be an influential and pivotal part of last year's discourse. Soraya Chemaly, "There’s No Comparing Male and Female Harassment Online", Time. I wanted to show a quote from this article here, but decided not to because every other sentence is also worth quoting.OrangesRyellow (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Djembayz, do you mean how to respond if editors feel they are being harassed on Wikipedia? So far as I know there is no procedure, except for on-wiki dispute resolution, which means the target is forced to interact with the person they want to avoid. This has always been a major problem with Wikipedia's DR processes, one that I think has a very bad effect on editor retention. SlimVirgin(talk) 16:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The DR process is not for addressing harassment, as you have pointed out. However, the repulsive character of that process can be mitigated by having all parties post in their own sections, as is done on some arbcom pages, additionally, I think a strict rule that all comments must be directed only at the person's chairing the DR process ( even if saying something about some other user ) will also help reduce the nastiness. I find that three-fourths of all harassment victims on net are women [4], so, steps like these could be a good thing for everyone, while addressing the gender gap at the same time. That we don't seem to have a proper protocol for addressing harassment seems shocking in light of the stats.OrangesRyellow (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
There was talk of creating a button for people to click on, where only certain people would see the results, but I can't recall what happened. There are lots of suggestions, but nothing changes (except that editors are leaving or editing less). SlimVirgin(talk) 21:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
@ SlimVirgin The button would be a useless step. Someone getting daily 100 negative results would claim that the negative results are because they are doing some kind of vandal-fighting etc., the vandals are in a conspiracy to skew the negative results against him / her, and the negative results would be overlooked even if there are millions of negative clicks !
The problem is that we have fightbots and enablers. The fightbot would not stop because -- well -- they are fightbots. The enablers won't stop because they are people who put the cart before the horse. They have arrived at their conclusions before they have done "investigation" ( can it be useful to talk to people as intelligent as that ? ) These enablers start with the conclusion "Mr. foo is right", and then go on to offer excuses and convoluted arguments to make Mr. x right. Presto ! Mr. x does become right ( mostly because of arguments and excuses from enablers ) These enablers are like religious apologists. Its no use trying to convince them against what they are saying. So, the "editors are leaving or editing less" story will continue to be repeated again and again. I won't pretend to have a solution. I don't. Since I don't have a solution, I won't urge people who are leaving to stay. I have no right to do so unless I can solve the problem, and my assessment is that this story will continue to get repeated again and again.OrangesRyellow (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I tend to think that seeing the Internet as different to real life is generally a mistake. Everything happens in real life; the Internet is just one of the tools that we use as part of our real lives. So it seems to me likely that there is nothing special about harassment in the Internet space. In particular, it seems to me likely that those who carry out harassment using the Internet also carry out harassment in real life; the reason that it seems different is that the Internet makes harassment more efficient (as it makes pretty much all forms of communication more efficient) and so one harasser can spread their harassment around to more victims.
Does that seem a reasonable assessment? If so, then I think it should follow that our strategies for dealing with harassment online should be the same as in the rest of life, but taking advantage of the Internet's efficiency to make them more effective, not searching for new ways of dealing with an old problem. GoldenRing (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Or, at least, not searching for new ways of dealing with the old problem just because it's on the Internet. GoldenRing (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
What you say is quite correct, but there is one difference between real world and Wikipedia. If you want people to recognize an old problem, some folks, even some "respected" folks, will turn up to demand proof. Even if you try to provide proof, you will be confronted with massive amounts of whataboutery, misdirection, obfuscation, convoluted arguments, character assassinations, conspiracy theories and all other sorts of pedantry every inch of the way, and anything else that you may try to do on wikipedia will be met with obstructions and hostility. Deal with it.OrangesRyellow (talk) 07:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure even that is particularly different, is it? We certainly went through a period of that happening in real life. Is the only difference that WP is about a decade behind on this? GoldenRing (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
You nailed it so well, it sent a chill down my spine. Worry not, I am feeling better now. I had become alarmed we must do it all, all over again. But I am optimistic that since most of the world has moved on during the past decade, Wikipedia will also catch up eventually, and, of course, we shall help it do so. Cheers !OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Anal bleaching
If anyone has the stomach for it, there is a discussion at Talk:Anal bleaching#Picture about whether to include two explicit (non-medical) photographs of women. The images were removed, then restored by Tutelary. One IP has posted that he has "already jerked off three times to this article." Sarah (SV)(talk) 19:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
How is this not a blatant canvassing attempt? You're notifying this wikiproject, trying to frame this as a gendered issue when really it's a content issue, and attempting to frame an IP who posted that months ago as being a current issue. Where's the honesty here and seriously, what is the motive for notifying this wikiproject? Tutelary (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it qualifies as canvassing because the article anal bleaching seems to pertain to task force goal of improving articles of interest to women. I'm not personally too interested in bleaching my butt, but according to that article's text the procedure is predominately utilized by women. Question: are we attempting to provide women who want to legitimately increase their factual knowledge of this subject with encyclopedic information? If so, the proposed pics were inadequate. They weren't even the same woman before and after so it didn't increase knowledge of actual results of this procedure. Also, there's apparently no proof the porn model used as the after shot was even bleached, as opposed to photoshopped. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
From WP:CANVASS – Appropriate notification: An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: ... A central location (such as the Village pump or other relevant noticeboards) for discussions that have a wider impact such as policy or guideline discussions.
How is this noticeboard not a central location for discussions that have a wider impact on Wikipedia? It was set up to have a wider impact on Wikipedia by increasing the number of female editors. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Inappropriate Project Image?
Most people like the image or would prefer to discus substantive matters here -- Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm new here (and I probably won't be staying long), so quite likely this debate has already taken place and been decided. But, especially in case it hasn't, I'd like to say that the Project's image of a woman showing her biceps under the caption 'Women can [Edit]' seems dangerously counterproductive. It invites suggestions that the woman must be stupid because she thinks editing is a matter of brawn instead of brains, that those involved in the project really ought to be able to see this, and that, whether fairly or not, this almost inevitably raises the question as to what their failure to see this says about them and the Project and its chances of succeeding, and so on. As a quick fix, I think the 'Mind the Gap' image is fine, and could do as a temporary fix until somebody finds a better Picture, but I would prefer to let that change be made by those more involved in the project tnan I am.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
It's adapted from a well known WWII poster, see We Can Do It!. I guess things like this are in the eye of the beholder, but even without knowing its history I don't see the problems mentioned. No one could imagine it was seriously suggesting that people put on blue overalls and roll up their sleeves prior to editing Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 11:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, Johnuniq. So not only does it unwittingly suggest that female editors must be stupid, it now seemingly also unwittingly suggests that male editors must be Nazis. I'm not saying it's 'seriously' suggesting these things, I'm saying that's what it is liable to suggest unseriously but insultingly in some people's minds (as it self-evidently has in mine - otherwise I couldn't have written what I have written). And as such it seems to be an instance of the project unnecessarily shooting itself in the foot. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Johnuniq. While I'm not particularly attached to the image. I honestly don't see a problem with the task force using it.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, BoboMeowCat, but which part of "It invites suggestions that the woman must be stupid" do you "honestly not see a problem" with? Tlhslobus (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I honestly don't see it as "suggesting that the women must be stupid". That interpretation seems a bit far fetched. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
That's why I said 'invites suggestions' rather than 'suggesting'. There is a difference, though I have neither the time nor the inclination to try to explain it. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Wait... What? You mean I have been putting on blue overalls and rolling up my sleeves prior to editing Wikipedia when I didn't have to? Can I stop working on spherical jigsaw puzzles as well? ;) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
No, Guy Macon, you can't. Or at least not according to this entirely appropriate and entirely 'problem-free' poster. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
LOL, the image is fine. What's next, a request that a woman in a niqāb be used instead[5]?--Milowent • hasspoken 16:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, Milowent, that Muslim veil picture would at least have the advantage that everybody would immediately realize it was insulting women editors, so that it would get promptly removed, unlike this one.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikipe-tan on the wiki-globe
We can always use Wikipe-tan, I know women and girls trend to things that are cute (Not all but a-lot). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I really hope you aren't being serious.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
At this point why not? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I look at It this way, we should be trying to lure in more college aged to 30s ranged women to Wikipedia, the younger generation is full of new ideas. Also like it or not cuteness sells. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Knowledgekid87, for your intelligent, serious, and constructive suggestion. I expect someone would have to add a slogan such as 'Women can 'Edit'. I don't know whether it's the ideal image (and in any case that decision isn't really one for me), though as far as I'm concerned it at least doesn't have the problems that I see in the current one. However, given the initial responses I received, the fact that I think it's sensible may well end up counting against it. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Still, it seems that my view that this poster potentially makes women editors look stupid and is an instance of the project shooting itself in the foot is apparently as absurd as suggesting
that our poster should be one of women editors blinded by a Muslim veil. And I'm outnumbered 4 to 1. So according to our Civility guidelines, I guess I must be a 'jerk', formerly known as a 'dick', formerly known as a 'fuckhead'. So I guess I'd better quit the project, and just keep my mouth shut next time it seems to me that it's shooting itself in the foot. Goodbye. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Not at all! You are just the sort of editor we need. You took the time to present your opinion. You're not a dick at all. But I'd guess that you are young and not familiar with the history of the poster, is that correct? Gandydancer (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
1)Thanks for your kind words, Gandydancer, they are much appreciated. No, I'm not young (I'm 61), but I wasn't familiar with the history of the poster, at least not at first, possibly because, like 95% of this world, I'm not American (I'm Irish). Though, as already mentioned, knowing the history just makes it worse (at least in my view), by also unwittingly implying that male editors such as me are Nazis. It may also unwittingly insult the WWII generation, through being inapropriately used (at least in my view), and perhaps also through ageist connotations (inviting the suggestion that she's so old and out-of-touch with computers that she thinks you need brawn to edit - essentially an ageist version of the already mentioned unwitting implication that the woman muxt be stupid). It may well also be somewhat culturally insensitive to German, Italian, Japanese and other such editors (from the countries that lost WWII), though I wouldn't really know whether it is (my own country stayed neutral).
2)And of course I'm well aware that I'm not a 'dick' - nobody is, except according to our Wikipedia Civility guidelines until about 3 months ago (we're probably stuck with 'jerk' at present as the least bad solution currently available). 'Dick' was originally 'fuckhead' in an article which basically defined a 'fuckhead' as anybody being bullied by a mob (officially as punishment for allegedly being 'anti-social'). So when I found myself being criticized and ridiculed in a 4 to 1 minority, I simply decided to call a spade a spade. I can't call it feeling 'mobbed' (the normal technical term) as that would mean feeling 'bullied', which might be deemed a wicked personal attack (almost as bad as using the word 'you' in a dispute, according to our loony rules), and Arbcom once informed me (coincidentally the last time I felt 'mobbed') that the 'dick-fuckhead' articles had nothing to do with bullying, and how dare I waste their time with such a suggestion (they gave no explanation as to why I was wrong to claim they implicitly incited bullying, not even that Jimbo Wales had personally made about 9 edits to the Dick article). So it came as not much of a surprise to me that Arbcom recently kept a male editor with dozens of blocks and chose to permanently kick out 2 other editors (1 female, 1 unstated gender) instead.
3)Contrary to what someone else says below, I'm not really leaving because of 'a disagreement over an image'. I decided to leave because I have better ways of spending my time than putting up with being outnumbered 4 to 1 and having my stated views subjected to (in my view) unwarranted ridicule (the fact that the issue is something as relatively trivial as an image is all the more reason for not putting up with it). Incidentally, this is (at least arguably) what I'm supposed to do according to Wikipedia's loony Civility rules - it would be 'uncivil' of me to stay, since, by being mobbed, I have been 'shown' to be a 'jerk/dick/fuckhead'. But as I indicated at the start of this section, I probably wasn't going to be staying long anyway, so this matter probably just speeded up my departure by at most a few days. However my experience doesn't bode too well for the likely treatment of other newcomers to this project.
4)I note however that here on my Talk Page this section did get me accused of insulting the Greatest Generation. Plus, in a week when large numbers of people in Paris have been murdered by Islamofascists objecting to allegedly 'blasphemous' images, part of the ridicule has at least appeared to imply that I'm some kind of Muslim fundamentalist who wants to ban images of unveiled women. Per WP:AGF, I guess I've got to assume that the implication is every bit as unwitting as the earlier-mentioned unwitting implication that male editors are Nazis, but it still isn't pleasant. (My none-too-sympathetic attitude to Islam can be partly read on my User page, at least those bits of my attitude that aren't outlawed by Ireland's blasphemy law). So maybe the issue of this particular image seems less trivial to others than it does to me, at least judging by the way I promptly got treated.
5)Also in the real world outside these Talk pages, AGF does not operate, so while it will still be reasonably clear that any implication that women are stupid is unintended, many people can be expected to assume, rightly or wrongly, that the implication that male editors are Nazis (or 'somewhat like Nazis') either is or may be at least partly intended, and that is potentially very damaging to this project.
(Note: Knowledge87's following comment is addressed to GandyDancer, not to me.) Tlhslobus (talk) 09:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
That's a problem that I addressed above, what audience are we looking to bring in here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I personally prefer the "We can edit" image to Wikipe-tan on wiki-globe, and I certainly don't want Tlhslobus to leave, but I do think that anyone who would leave over a disagreement over such an image is unlikely to be able to stomach the hardcore battleground craziness that's currently wikipedia. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
See item 3 of my above reply to Gandydancer.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Alternative theory: You are completely misinterpreting "Wikipedia's loony Civility rules". I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Anybody can interpret rules however they like. I am interpreting the jerk-dick-fuckhead part of those rules by what I see as their common sense meaning in context when they were originally created (by Jimbo among others) and long preserved (albeit of course superficially toned down), and as they presumably remain preserved in the minds of many of those who created and preserved them (regardless of the fact that officially the actual wording has changed, etc) or of those who just read them, and by how they have all too often functioned in practice, both in my experience and in the reported experience of others, with the consequences that we all see in terms of Wikipedia's toxic environment. I agree that this is not how they are officially supposed to be interpreted, and not always how they operate in practice, but at least as far as I'm concerned in this particular case that is somewhat beside the point. But I have neither the time nor the inclination for yet another endless and pointless argument on the matter. I am basically just describing as best I can my reasons for leaving this project (and explaining what I meant by some of the things I said when saying that I was leaving and why), rather than having some quasi-theological dispute about the correct interpretation of some of our sacred texts.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Tlhslobus , you introduced yourself saying "I'm new here" but a look at your talk page shows you've been here since 2009. What gives? Gandydancer (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I meant I was new to this project, and thus didn't know whether my objections to the image had already been discussed by others and settled. Sorry if that confused you, Gandydancer. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not a member of GGTF, but every time a thread like this gets started which strikes me as painfully irrelevant and distracting, even if not intentionally undermining, it drives me crazy. Shall we fight over fonts next? I've participated in many projects and never seen it like this, even the Article Rescue Squadron, which historically has gotten lots of heat.
Now, on to better things, who is going to start an article on Audrey Cooper[6]? If not already notable, she became so yesterday.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I've started the article, but it's the stubbiest stub possible, and needs 1 more ref (shouldn't be hard to find). Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, now I see. In my imagination you were a young kid new to WP and I did not look for your history here. Now that I'm more aware of who you are and your history, my reaction has changed considerably and you would likely find me not so "kind" after all. It was not your fault but mine, and I regret my knee-jerk reaction to your post. As for myself, I agree with most of the others in that the symbol works just fine. Gandydancer (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Milowent; I feel somewhat responsible and I'm sorry for that. Gandydancer (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's a thought, why don't we paint the whole of Wikipedia pink? Since it is apparently a fact that women are hypnotically drawn to anything 'cute', perhaps a pink background to all articles will also act like a magnet. In case anyone missed it I'm being ironic. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Ironic or not You are blowing this way out of proportion, its a wikiproject logo not a major redesign of a website. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I used the We Can Do It slogan when training new women editors for Ada Lovelace events, using variations when showing them how to create a user account. My demo accounts were called Can We Do It?; Yes We Can Do it!; Do It, We Can!. But Milo mentions the ARS above too and that has been criticised for having a paramilitary tone, contrary to WP:BATTLEGROUND. If you wanted another, softer image, then how about the placeholder image (right)? The idea is to suggest the absence of women; a vacancy to be filled. Andrew D. (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Too pessimistic. Does not inspire good cheer and enthusiasm, not at all. Is demoralizing even. I think this thread is exceedingly unproductive, with potential for even more unproductive activities, and should be archived immediately.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not good. It's from a different time and place -- 1943 Rosie the Riveter. Almost no one rivets anymore and it shouldn't be some astounding thing that -- OMG! Women can edit! (who knew?). Besides Geraldine Doyle only worked in the plant for two weeks, and she's kind of overly made up, plus prototypically white and American. Use this one , which is much more quietly, confidently womanly without being girlish or frivolous. NE Ent 21:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. OK, I just can't keep quiet anymore: WHO GIVES A FUCK! This is what I hate about left wing politics, we have endless arguments about stupid bullshit while the right continues to pass laws putting the rights of women to control their own bodies back to the 19th century. I joined this project over a week ago and I haven't seen anything constructive going on yet. Can we do something real? Something that actually matters besides arguing over some icon. For the record I like the Rosie the Rivetter image and I'm kind of amazed people who are feminists don't know the history of it but I'm old and often amazed at how much of what I consider to be basic history many Americans don't know. But if we want to change it then change it but just make a decision and get to some real work. Sorry, if I'm offending anyone, as people often sarcastically tell me in the real world "don't hold back tell us what you really think". --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. I too thought the matter was settled. I like parodies of the Rosie image. It's iconic, fun, and historical (not just in the era of WWII either). It's also used by several Wikimedia-related groups, so it's not as if we're reinventing the wheel here. Ongepotchket (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Autumn Jackson (the woman who claims to be Bill Cosby's illegitimate daughter)
Autumn Jackson is the woman who claims to be Bill Cosby’s daughter and was convicted of extortion back in the 90’s regarding her threats to go to tabloids with this.
I’ve raised concerns regarding the Autumn Jackson BLP at the BLP noticeboard [7], but have gotten minimal feedback, so posting here as well because I noticed the Bill Cosby sexual abuse case was referenced in the task force created Women's rights in 2014 article, and I was hoping some contributors here might be able to fill in a lot of blanks that currently seem problematic in the Autumn Jackson BLP regarding the overturning of her extortion conviction, appeals etc. [8],[9], which are not included in current BLP --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Any support for a male editor not charmed by gender-specific profanity?
Even going to ANI didn't help this male editor get any satisfaction. Let's acknowledge that the fellow got too grouchy during his content dispute, but even so-- how on earth can the website expect to have anybody keep editing, if this is how we treat our volunteers? -- Djembayz (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
WP:DICK is the historical title of the second part of the WP:TRIFECTA. It was not intended as a reference to the male anatomy, but, as per our dick article, "as a pejorative term for individuals who are considered to be rude, abrasive, inconsiderate, or otherwise contemptible." It has since been renamed to Meta:Don't be a jerk which retains most of the latter meaning without also directly referring to male anatomy... but this only happened in October 2014. So I hesitate to be too severe on anyone from before that time who uses the old version. As for the editor being upset at being called "son" after himself calling the other "kid" ... yeah. So minor support at best. Really, he lives in a glass house and throws stones. Actually, no. Let me say I support sternly lecturing the both of them. Kid, son, seem both appropriate titles, since they're each acting immaturely. They've completely stopped discussing anything of substance, and have now focused completely on namecalling. --GRuban (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Women who have no interest in GGTF
This isn't heading anywhere constructive. Sarah (SV)(talk) 23:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Re this statement that was made in a previous discussion:
There are many women - probably indeed a majority - who have no interest in this project, often seemingly because it has a political bent.[10]
A handful of editors who have commented on this discussion page have repeatedly questioned whether or not there is a gender gap, and they often ask for evidence. Evidence has been provided again and again, and can be found on this project's Media and Resources list.
The editor who made the "There are many women" statement above makes this statement regularly, without providing evidence. Although I believe he could provide evidence of some women expressing why they have no interest in this project, he cannot claim that "many" have no interest in it. As far as I know, no surveys have been done re why women Wikipedia editors are or aren't interested in this project, or why women do or don't participate. (There are some women on the list of participants.)
As for GGTF politics, there are at least two camps: one agrees that there are a gender gap and sexism on Wikipedia, another says there might be a gender gap (they're unconvinced) and they're pretty sure, if not certain, that sexism isn't a problem. I'll leave it to the reader to decide how that effects the groups ability to productively discuss, and especially to act upon, ideas that might help close the gap or to decrease sexism. Lightbreather (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I've not seen anyone say that there is no gender gap, although there has been much debate regarding the extent of it. The evidence for my comment, which was carefully worded, is based on replies to threads in which you personally have generally had some involvement. I've not canvassed for opinion but you are aware from your own canvassing and invitations etc that the political aspect crops up quite frequently. I don't think it fair to link to diffs of all the occasions when I have seen this, mainly because it drags the unwilling into the debate. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I hear you, Sitush. It's just that generalized comments like that need addressing.
BTW, what you're calling "canvassing"?
On January 9, I asked couple dozen women to consider a PROPOSAL at the META (NOT Wikipedia) IdeaLab for a women-only project.[11]
On january 16 - based on discussion at that proposal's talk page - I invited roughly the same group of women to join a test women-only area in my user space.[12]
Also, Sitush, you wrote only yesterday: content appears to be a secondary goal [at GGTF], although the hope is that content bias will improve by reducing the alleged gap.[13] "Alleged gap" means "there might - or might not - be a gap." You inserted "severity of the" between alleged and gap a few minutes later,[14] but the original was a revealing slip about your opinion of the gender gap. Lightbreather (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
View all Wikipedians as gender-neutral & there'll be much less disputes in this area. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
GoodDay, this isn't the gender-neutral task force. Men outnumber women 9-to-1 on Wikipedia. That's why there's a gender gap task force, and the gap cannot (realistically) be narrowed by asking thousands of editors to ignore gender. It ain't gonna happen. Lightbreather (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Eventually, it will happen. After many AE, ANI, ARCA reports, the gender-neutral approach will be adopted. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The comment mentioned above was in response to an issue I brought up (#Less obvious articles). I would be quite grateful if my mostly practical suggestion wasn't sucked into an inter-task force debate about factions and ideological battle lines.
That is why I brought Sitush's comment about politics down here, instead of replying there. Lightbreather (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Lightbreather for goodness sake let this drop. Women have as many opinions as there are women, don't all think alike, agree or enjoy the same things. In my opinion this project promotes a political agenda that I don't agree with because I feel it is building barriers to collaborative editing that are not in the interests of the encyclopedia. I haven't encountered sexism but others may have. I can only speak for myself but nobody has reverted my edits or disagreed with me for sexist reasons. We really ought to judge editors by the quality of their edits to article space not by their gender or appearances at the drama and talk pages. I see no need to know an editor's gender or politics because this is an encyclopedia not a soapbox and edits should conform to a neutral point of view. J3Mrs (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
J3Mrs I agree that women's (and men's) experiences and opinions vary, on and off Wikipedia, and I respect that. However, when people sit on this discussion page looking for every opportunity to share their opinions about how many women are or are not interested in this task force, and their opinions about why, they are engaging in politics. Those who support the status quo have every bit as much of an agenda, perhaps even more because they have more to lose, as those who advocate for change. Lightbreather (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I thought project talk pages were for expressing opinions, or even dissent. Try reading the comments not reading who wrote them. Since this project only wants editors who support a political agenda the only loser as is the encyclopedia. The gender gap will only be solved by collaboration not by seeking to alienate a section of the community. J3Mrs (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
It is essential that Wikipedians be able to discuss issues affecting the project, including those that may arise from societal issues, in an intelligent, calm, and mature fashion. Editors may come to a given discussion with different views concerning what problem (if any) exists and what steps (if any) should be taken to try to address it. However, editors are expected to participate in such discussions in a collegial and constructive frame of mind. Those who fail to do so may be asked to step away from further participation.
Are Sitush's statements LB has just pinged me in some sort of gravedancing mode[15] and you are aware from your own canvassing and invitations[16] mature and collegial? Are I doubt that you will get many takers here, though, because this seems primarily to be a political forum rather than a content-based one[17] and There are many women - probably indeed a majority - who have no interest in this project, often seemingly because it has a political bent[18] constructive? (Rhetorical, of course, and I don't expect an answer.) Lightbreather (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not discussing editors, I came here to ask you to drop this. J3Mrs (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I would ask that Sitush stop coming here exclusively to complain about how horrible we are every time someone tries to have a discussion about the topic. I do think LB should drop it, as by now she should know it is a fool's errand to think Sitush is ever going to say anything constructive on this page, as it hasn't happened yet. I'm aware he's been helpful outside of this project. It'd be better for all to treat him like the pollution he is and just ignore him until he has enough rope to hang himself. Plus responding to his baloney sets a bar for him to know how much baloney he has to trash-talk to get a response next time. As for LB dropping it, agreed, although I can't be the only one who has noticed Sitush has made dozens of edits on this page to say almost nothing of use to date. Maybe consider asking for him to rein it in a bit as well. Ongepotchket (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Ongepotchket if you consider your post civil, that says more about you than the person you are complaining about. You should remove the personal attack. Discuss ideas not personalities. J3Mrs (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm with J3Mrs: Lightbreather, please drop this type of posts. Those comments could have been a starting point for a discussion about why not all women post here, don't want to get involved, or don't support proposals like your koffeeklatsch. Instead, your posts come across to me as "someone said something offensive to me! How dare he!! We've got to do something - gather our forces and fight fight fight against this misogynist rascal! Let no statement of his go unexamined!" I'm sure that's not your intent in posting about the editor in question and quoting his edits but that's how it comes across to me - as dramatic, political, aggressively combative, and focusing on editors instead of their statements.... And it misses the opportunity to fix things. It's exhausting and depressing and feels so pointless. So please, instead of talking about how awful other editors are or how awful their statements are, can we talk about getting more women involved? Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Considering closing the thread here and taking the issue to forum that is more relevant to disputes between users. The relevance to the task force itself seems minimal.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Question at the Village Pump
There is a question at the Village Pump that should be of interest to this group:
Thanks to Bosstopher for bringing this to my attention, which may be of interest to other members of this task force. People at /r/MensRights and /r/WikiInAction (a GamerGate affiliated subreddit) are complaining about the proposal for WikiProject Women. Lightbreather (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The one point I see here Light that you should really consider is the all women editors thing. Per [19] the policy of the WMF says that there has to be equal access. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. You're setting a nasty precedent here, Light, one that would work for WikiProject WhitesOnly. You don't cure discrimination by introducing more discrimination. --GRuban (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Looks like canvassing on both sides, and this thing has also been canvassed on the WMF gendergap mailing list. Most likely, it will even itself out but for LB to say what she has is basically a pot/kettle situation. - Sitush (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Good work LB. Considering some serious, persistent tomfoolery against the goals of the project, and considering the dire need to achieve the goals of this project ( for improving Wikipedia, and making it a safer place ), your proposal is a good step. I myself was thinking that such a step has become necessary due to pragmatic reasons. Thanks for taking the initiative. This is when I am male. Only a few males are narrow-minded or obscurantists (example), but they are a serious enough problem to require a serious tackle. To live in denial of the problem may be cute, but would be foolish and dangerous in the long run. Concrete steps like yours should get all support.OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore it must be done."? Making a part of Wikipedia that some people can't participate in due to birth is terrible. Again, what will you say to the people who want to make a Whites-only part (on the very reasonable grounds that racists are treated worse than women)? --GRuban (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I think I may be highly mistaken in properly understanding what you have said, but if you are saying what it seems to me that you are saying on first reading -- In my book, racists should not get any space on Wikipedia, let alone a racist-only space. I appreciate LBs initiative because I have been making some soundbites, while she has gone ahead and taken a concrete step. Again, I now have an alternate understanding of what you have said ( which is much more likely to be correct ) and I would surely support a whites-only space if I found that white-hatred was becoming a major problem and such a problem that attempts to address that problem in open space were being constantly and persistently railroaded and rendered useless.OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Hyperbole. There are many women who are far from being "constantly and persistently railroaded and rendered useless." They have said so, although most of them seem to steer well clear of this project. - Sitush (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Oranges: I am saying that discrimination is bad, not just discrimination against groups you don't like. --GRuban (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I've already said that I probably won't join this project as I'm not a fan of women-only spaces, but it is only discriminatory if no-one else is allowed to set up an x–only space of their own.
The comparison I would make is a group of women walking into a pub, choosing a table and sitting down at it, in the middle of their conversation some bloke grabs a chair, plonks himself down and insists on joining in. The women get up and move elsewhere but he insists on following them around, even though they make it clear that it is against their wishes.
There have been repeated comments on this talk page about "this is irrelevant to this project" and "lets rip up this project and start again". So a group of women have put forward a proposal to enable them to move to a different table, where the conversation they have will always be relevant, it ought to make the irrelevant–mongers here celebrate, but apparently not. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, TVF. It's not like I'm proposing a mutiny, or to hijack The Project (the pub) and close the doors to men - just one effing table. Lightbreather (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm calling you on those "many women" and "most of them" comments, Sitush. How many is "many"? This is rhetorical, and I'm not expecting an answer, but the fact is, yes, there are some women who aren't experiencing the problems that others have reported. Also, there are almost certainly some who are experiencing problems, but not reporting them, or simply leaving the project. And then there are some who experience problems, and report it - and try to do something about it. Evidence was called for repeatedly to show that there are problems, and evidence has been repeatedly presented.
I should very much appreciate it if you would quit denying and discounting problems with dismissive assessments like "Hyperbole." Hyperbole? How about the "many" and "most of" statements that you cannot quantify and present no evidence for but present here and elsewhere? Yes, some women survive on Wikipedia; some even thrive in this environment. Because some that you know say they don't have gender-gap related problems on Wikipedia does not mean that there are no women here having gender-related problems. So enough of that baloney, please. Lightbreather (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been in hospital. My stuff above isn't all from people that I "know" but I cannot post people's emails etc here. Some have said it on-wiki, more have not; it is up to them whether they want to take that step but the same can be said for those whom you are speaking for in this debate but who are absent. You know, of course, that there is no way to engineer a society so that every member/potential member is happy to be here. It is almost always going mostly to reflect the greatest happiness of the greatest number, so we need to persuade a majority of people already here that things could be happier for them. While some people may be shamed into it, most quite obviously don't seem to care sufficiently one way or the other and are carrying on as usual. This is a lot of inertia to be overcome but it is not impossible. The two other options are to mount a huge off-wiki campaign that causes a load of like-minded people to turn up and force change, or a diktat from the "government". The first of these alternate strategies could get very nasty and lead to a massive civil war, and I doubt that the WMF could draw up a meaningful diktat because they would just be tinkering round the edges of the issue, eg: some sort of civility enforcement that would backfire big time due to subjectivity and might not even be addressing a particularly significant cause of the gap.
The core ethos of WP is collaboration, which is perhaps a remarkable thing in itself if you accept the figures that the typical en-Wikipedian is a 20-something socially-inept male. Your proposal should fail, ironically, because it is overtly sexist, exclusionary and contrary to that ethos. We are unlikely to change the demographics of Wikipedia by creating ghettoes or by adopting, however unintentionally, a "them versus us" stance. In fact, those involved will likely just be painting a target on their backs for the men's rights trolls etc. And someone will surely try to create a "whites-only" space, "Bosnians-only", "Hindus-only" or some other daft thing based on the precedent - you know that the idiots are out there, and you just know that those spaces would not be A Good Thing. Don't you?
We need proper numbers etc so that we can discern the causes of the gap on this project, which is fairly unique even in the WP scope, let alone the wider web. Then we should attempt to address those areas, where practical. (For example, one alleged cause is that proportionately more women than men simply are not interested in this sort of thing - we would probably struggle to change that one, although we might make a dint in it.) It seems to me that this is where WMF money should be going because it has the best chance of leading to a quantifiable return; it certainly seems likely to be a more useful approach than throwing money into a wishing-well and talking among ourselves, although I'm not even sure why this particular well needs funding. I realise that the data collection will not be an easy exercise but also know that some people with expertise in this type of stats-gathering have offered to provide pointers both here and on the GG mailing list. Bearing in mind the number of times they do it, the instances where real change emerges from men gabbing, "setting the world to rights" and mutually backslapping round a pub table, to use your analogy, are very few. - Sitush (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I too have not followed the Gamergate arb case, and to tell you the truth the whole thing confuses me. I just cannot follow all the evidence and arguments and can't tell who the players are without a scorecard. In short, I suspect this case will just cause more confusion.
I don't think we need to question the good faith of the arbs (and I haven't seen much of that type of questioning anyway), but we do need to question whether the ArbCom and the admin system in general have come to embody a type of institutionalized sexism on Wikipedia.
I strongly suggest that something be done along the line of a petition to the WMF Board, narrowly focused on asking them to do a very few things, e.g.
reaffirming their commitment to reducing the gender gap on Wikipedia
take steps to identify and remove institutionalized sexism on Wikipedia, and
specifically, move to prevent incivility and prevent personal attacks against women editors
In the form of a petition it would prevent the endless wrangling of an RfC, coming from individual editors rather than "the community as a whole." Of course, folks who disagree should be given a place to express themselves, e.g. on the talk-page.
I'd consider this to be a major success if only 100 editors signed the petition - that should be easy enough to do.
I'm confused about the institutionalised sexism bit. What steps do you think WMF should be considering? Since you seem to be suggesting that ArbCom and the admin corps may embody it, I've got the horrible feeling that this might be a move to achieve some sort of positive discrimination in those bodies in an attempt to achieve gender balance regardless of ability/suitability. And why are the issues of incivility and personal attacks against women editors any different to those against other editors, especially since it seems to me that many, and perhaps most, people seem not to explicitly identify their gender anyway.
Are you talking of an en-WP petition or a meta one? That is, asking the WMF to act globally or just in a small scope? In either case, getting 100 signatures is likely to be so easy that the petition carries no real weight. How many active contributors are there nowadays? WAsn't there recently a petition relating to MediaViewer or some other software change? How many signed up to that? - Sitush (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry - nobody would force you to sign it. You'd even be able to express your opposition to it. Some folks understand the problem, some people don't. This would be focused on the folks who understand the problem and want to do something about it, rather than trying to express the full range of views of the entire community. Please remember that "None is blinder than he who won't see." Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not worried. I'm just confused about the point. A petition without a meaningful point is not worth having, and what you describe as the thing to support seems to be so vague as to be worthless. If it makes you feel good then fine but it doesn't seem to be aimed at doing anything in particular on the face of it. That's why I'm querying what the message really is, what you are actually wanting WMF to do in practical terms rather than as some sort of confirmation of a general attitude that is already embedded in ToU, policy etc. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Seems the point of the petition would be to bring wider attn to the gender gap on wikipedia and also to bring wider attn to the current lack of proactive steps to address it. That being said, all task force members are welcome to take steps with the intention to increase recruitment and retention of female editors, and also to take steps to address the problem that topics related to women are under-represented on WP due to systemic bias. Sitush, despite your prolific participation on task force talk page, I cannot immediately recall ever seeing you take such steps, but you are more than welcome to so so. However, I would like to politely ask that you please do not continue to participate on this talk page only in a capacity that seems interested in hindering the efforts of others. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Not hindering but rather finessing. Too many proposals here seem to be an excess of gung-ho over substance, too much "we should do something" and not enough "is this one actually going to achieve anything". Think, then act (or perhaps "engage brain, then mouth", as my mother would say). We want to recruit and retain, so we should find out why we seem to be failing to do that, not wafting vaguely at things. Some big PR/re-affirmation exercise is not going to attract new people of the sort that we need: it might attract a few dyed-in-the-wool people with POV tendencies but sending out a message that WP might have a problem and no solution is counter-productive, certainly at the recruitment phase. That some here seem unable to appreciate the constructive nature of my comments speaks volumes, I'm afraid. I am not opposed to any efforts that might meaningfully cause a reduction in the gap, although I do harbour doubts that it will ever get to 50:50 for reasons that have nothing to do with the environment itself. And, yes, I have suggested what should be done, so presumably either your memory is faulty or you simply missed it. - Sitush (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Just what does the ArbCom vote have to do with any kind of "gender gap" or "systematic bias" on Wikipedia? As it happens, the GamerGate controversy article has some pretty serious NPOV concerns, and several active editors who have been POV-pushing and edit warring to push the article toward a more strident anti-GG tone. So just because an article that follows Wikipedia's rules on neutrality and accurate sourcing might not reflect the tone of an article in Jezebel or The Mary Sue, this is suddenly evidence of "gender bias"? And Wikimedia Foundation needs to be called in to push the article toward a more "feminist" editorial line? The mindset at work here is wrong on so many levels, I hardly know where to begin.
The Guardian article is nothing less than pure bullshit, and a pretty blatant attempt at off-WP canvassing. As it stands, there is no attempt to push the article in a "pro-Gamergate" direction. There's only a very heated battle over what NPOV and citing from reliable sources actually mandate with regard to this article. As I see it, the division is between those who want the article as neutral as possible given the nature of current reliable sources (and considering overwhelmingly negative media slant on GG, the article will probably lean at least a bit anti-GG, just given the nature of reliable sources), versus those who want to see the article to take on the tone of full-throated condemnation of GamerGate. The ArbCom consensus seems to be moving toward moderation of the latter tendency, but that's pretty far from creating a "pro-GamerGate" article or "purging feminist editors". Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Smallbones, I agree that the petition seems like a reasonable step. More exposure to the issue of the gender gap, and also more attention to the current lack of proactive steps to address the gender gap, certainly sounds like a step in the right direction.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I would sign such a petition. Lightbreather (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
But can you, or Sarah, or ... write it up?! Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Smallbones, thanks for suggesting this. I have no idea how the Board of Trustees would regard something like that, but it's definitely worth a try, because Wikipedians aren't going to solve this alone. Perhaps we could give some thought to how to word it. Sarah (SV)(talk) 19:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I should not be the one to present such a petition because there are a number of editors on Wikipedia who misunderstand my efforts to improve civility and to support women editors. That is clear from the response to the few proposals I've made on these subjects. I think it would be great if the petition were co-sponsored by two highly respected and productive editors, or better yet (IMO) admins: one man and one woman. However, I would love to sign such a petition. Lightbreather (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
"The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House"
The push for eventual parity ... often means that the first women in traditionally male spaces ... are saddled with the responsibility of taking abuse until a critical mass is reached and (hopefully) the culture shifts, and of making that space more woman-friendly. ... Asking individual women to enter hostile spaces to make them better is really asking women to make men better – and to make men better at women’s own risk. But it shouldn’t be women’s responsibility to fix men or deal with their misogyny. Instead, men should be taking it upon themselves to treat women with respect, and demand their other male colleagues do the same.
It's an issue Joseph Reagle (Reagle) touched on recently when he discussed a 1984 essay by Audre Lorde, "The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House". Lorde wrote: "What does it mean when the tools of a racist patriarchy are used to examine the fruits of that same patriarchy? It means that only the most narrow perimeters of change are possible and allowable." Jayen466 has argued this several times about women on Wikipedia.
Having experienced the last seven months of GGTF, I wonder whether we should be encouraging women to edit Wikipedia. Is it fair to ask women for their unpaid labour in exchange for the kind of treatment we've seen some women experience, in order that a critical mass is eventually reached? I also wonder what we can do, as Valenti argues should be happening, to encourage male editors and admins to be more pro-active in dealing with the problems. SlimVirgin(talk) 16:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I am reminded of similar discussions about Reddit culture. Does anyone think that if they had tried to critique Michael Brutsch (Violentacrez) on Reddit itself, they would have had any effect, let alone got an apology out of him for the way he treated women? Surely not. Redditors would have downvoted, derided, flamed, trolled, etc. anyone who tried.
In the same way, I think that trying to work within Wikipedia to change the grain of the culture is the wrong approach. Instead document what is happening, blog, use social media, share your results with journalists and the general public.
If you need an example from Wikipedia's own history, Categorygate (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-04-29/In_the_media) showed the way to change things. It was public condemnation that galvanised Wikipedia into action (and even so it was a battle to just put this little bit of injustice right). What would have happened if the writer had clicked "Edit" and made her complaint here in Wikipedia instead? She would have been ignored, and quite possibly been insulted to boot. AndreasJN466 17:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
@Jayen466: I wonder whether it's worth starting an off-wiki discussion board. SlimVirgin(talk) 21:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Everybody should certainly realize that Wikipedia is a very conservative organization in the sense that it can seem impossible to get anything changed. Nevertheless, you should also realize that equality for women on Wikipedia is a cause that is certain to win in the long run. This is the 21st century, the WMF is based in the USA, the board has committed to narrowing the gender gap, and I believe that its majority are women.
So I do not think it is time to give up on intra-Wiki processes. Rather movement forward on all fronts is called for. If you see harassment on-Wiki, confront it as politely (and as directly) as possible. Let everybody see it close-up. You can also report it to the press, at the same time, for larger issues. You can also take it up with the WMF staff and with the WMF Board. Some folks might thinks that if you're "negotiating" on-Wiki with other editors, it would be bad-faith to go to the Board or to the press with your complaint. No way - just let everybody know upfront that you are going to tell the truth to whomever will listen- you're not negotiating with anybody. And you're going to win. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
"...Instead, men should be taking it upon themselves to treat women with respect, and demand their other male colleagues do the same." Many of us men do try to treat women with respect. In practice, we are not allowed "demand their other male colleagues do the same" as that would be considered a personal attack. But it's more complicated than that because most of us have all sorts of reasons, some more legitimate than others, for not getting involved even if it weren't an illegal 'personal attack'. To give just one such reason, we have far too many people trying to revert our work at the best of times without creating more enemies to revert our work. And so on. In other words, reform has to come primarily from women both inside and outside Wikipedia forcing it on Wikipedia (as well as male politicians outside Wikipedia who need women's votes, and perhaps also male corporate leaders who need women as customers, and so on).
Meanwhile you can help make life easier for those women fighting from inside Wikipedia by supporting the current proposal for funding to create a 'safe space' for women within Wikipedia (here and here), which I would see as at least partly a kind of 'shelter for verbally battered women' not too dissimilar from shelters for physically battered women (that's by way of reply to the widespread accusation there that it discriminates against men, as if it would somehow be illegal discrimination to refuse to allow men into shelters for physically battered women).Tlhslobus (talk) 08:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Tlhslobus I hate ideas like this. It encourages the idea that women are fragile and powerless and need their own space because the "normal" world is just too difficult for them to deal with. When women get harassed the response shouldn't be to retreat into a "safe space" where men aren't allowed but to call out the people doing the harassing and do something about it. Also, I think feminism isn't just about women its about men too. I LIKE working with women, they are often more collaborative then men and I want more of them participating in the every day world of Wikipedia not to be walled off into their own space. Of course I realize in some situations (battered women) safe spaces are a necessity but I think they are counter productive to collaborative environments like this. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
... [A]rticles about women tend to emphasize the fact that they are about a woman by overusing words like “woman,” “female,” or “lady” while articles about men tend not to contain words like “man,” “masculine,” or “gentleman.” Words like “married,” “divorced,” “children,” or “family” are also much more frequently used in articles about women, they say.
The team thinks this kind of bias is evidence for the practice among Wikipedia editors of considering maleness as the “null gender.”
A more positive finding was that "women on Wikipedia are covered well" in the six Wikipedia language editions the researchers looked at, compared with the coverage in three other databases. Sarah (SV)(talk) 01:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I have not read the article, although I saw the note on the mailing list. My suspicion is that it is true, and that part of the reason it is true is because women like to emphasise things that women do. We have a host of specific projects that actually encourage that - scientists, authors etc - and thus to some degree encourage the ghettoisation. What we would really need is some sort of analysis of who contributed what to those articles, in terms of their gender. And, yet again, that would require spending money and somehow discounting the people who do not self-identify or who might be deliberately choosing to obfuscate. - Sitush (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this article helps Wikipedia at all, it may have been done by a respected group of people but women exhibit different levels of sensitivity as do all humans. By pointing out defects in the articles I can picture people going "Oh yeah there is that too" to tack things on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi KK, not sure what you mean about different levels of sensitivity. The study pointed to structural and lexical gender biases, namely that women subjects tend to be discussed in terms of other people, particularly men (daughter/wife/mother/girlfriend of X). I wish I could remember which biography this was, but I recall one where the first sentence said that the subject was the wife of a notable person and the daughter of another. Then it told us why she was notable. The former title Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) is a notorious example of this kind of bias.
The difference in the way men and women are represented suggests that women might be discriminated against in search rankings, the researchers say, because search algorithms use structural and lexical information from Wikipedia. They offer this advice: "To reduce such effects, the editor community could pay particular attention to the gender balance of links included in articles about men and women, and could adopt a more gender-balanced vocabulary when writing articles about notable people."
Sarah, your reference to that Sarah Brown title reminded me of the lead sentence of the Calamity Jane article, which says she was "known for her claim of being an acquaintance of Wild Bill Hickok" among other interesting but questionably lead-worthy things. Lightbreather (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Right, that's a good example. Sarah (SV)(talk) 20:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
The whole lead is three sentences, and these are the second and third:
She is said to have also exhibited kindness and compassion, especially to the sick and needy. This contrast helped to make her a famous frontier figure.
This is mentioned nowhere else in the article. So what's the lead? She claimed to know Wild Bill Hickok, and she was kind and compassionate. Ugh! Lightbreather (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
The Calamity Jane article is nothing more than another example of a poorly written article about a very difficult subject - a figure from the Wild West in which fact and fancy have become so intertwined that it is now hard to tell which is which. In fact, it was hard to tell even while she was alive since she and others just made most of it up. So that she knew Wild Bill is certainly something that should be in the lead - she's buried right next to him in Dead Wood, SD. It's part of her claim to fame. I think that the both of you should read the lead of the Billy the Kid article. You guys would hit the roof if "The Kid" were a woman rather than a man. Gandydancer (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
This looks like a good book if anyone is ever interested in expanding it (currently used only once in the article): James D. McLaird, Calamity Jane: The Woman and the Legend, University of Oklahoma Press, 2012. Sarah (SV)(talk) 00:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I kind of felt bad that one of my first contributions was a rather negative rant so, here is an attempt to be more constructive. I'm new so if this has been dealt with already I apologize and please just point me to the info. I'm an engineer and one of the first things I learned is that you can't solve a problem if you don't really understand it and often the sort of "common sense" understanding that people assume turns out to be very far from the truth. In my case it was software development and research (which I considered a total waste of time when I heard it was being done) that demonstrated the things I and most people thought were big problems (e.g., how to write code better and faster) weren't the big problems at all (the real problems were communication between business and tech people). So I was wondering do we have any idea WHY there is a gender gap? For example, is it because the same number of women as men start out as editors but more women leave or is it because we just don't get as many women to even try? And when women do leave do we know why? It seems to me that knowing that kind of info might be a big step toward devising appropriate solutions and stopping us from wasting time on things that may seem rational but not really matter. Have surveys been done? Do we have detailed statistics on men vs women retention, etc? BTW, I have noticed some reports in parts of the project space and I'm starting to go through them but thought it wouldn't hurt to ask in case there is a nice executive summary overview someone can point me to. Also, just FYI, I usually reply pretty quickly to messages but starting tomorrow I will be out of commission for a few days. Not doing anything fun alas. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Search the archives, I guess. This issue, and your logical approach to it, has been raised umpteen times by various people, including me. "Proper" scientific (cf: emotional/kneejerk) suggestions have also been mooted and suggestions have been made regarding funding it through the WMF. The problem is that such things seems to get shut down every time, either via over-hasty archiving, often involving an admin who should know better, or by what has the appearance of being a meatpuppetry exercise whereby anyone who challenges or proposes something that might actually move things forward is not "of the faith" and should be ignored. Instead, daft proposals such as vague petitions to the WMF take to the fore. It is farcical, when we are all working to the same end. I really do not understand what the hell is going on but I do know that the current apparently accepted approach will achieve sod all. All that is happening is a lot of cheerleading and no action. It makes the entire project look silly, directionless and WP:NOTHERE. The mailing list is not much better but does occasionally rise above poking the bear etc. The last thing that an anti-faction group should do is behave like the worst sort of faction. - Sitush (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Go to the main project page and click on the Media and Resources tabs. As for everything Sitush said, of course he's entitled to his opinion, but it's just that. He often writes as if he speaks for the project, but he does not. There are hardly any women - the subject of the gender gap - participating here anymore. Lightbreather (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
A perfectly reasonable question from a new participant. For a briefer intro than the media and resources pages mentioned above there is a Gender Gap page. You'll find that some of the data you seek is being assembled in a government study and in a project called Women and Wikipedia. This bit of information about Latina editors is also worth looking at, as are the comments on this post. This list of prudent safety measures for women on Wikipedia suggests that participation in open online communities without moderation or enforcement of user conduct standards may be a risky business. Despite the non discrimination policy of WMF (the San Francisco-based organization hosting the website), some Wikipedia community members actively oppose maintaining US standards on workplace sexual harassment (as indicated in this thread on thoughts on editor retention and women), and are unreceptive to women seeking to spend their volunteer time in a civilized atmosphere. A question that remains unresolved for both male and female editors is how to implement effective processes to prevent harassment of online contributors. Since there's no control group in which neither male nor female editors are harassed, it can't be conclusively proven that harassment has a disparate impact on male, female, or other-gendered editors.
MadScientistX11, as a person coming to this with a fresh set of eyes, if you are able to synthesize the information you find into an executive summary of some sort, that would be a significant contribution! --Djembayz (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Excellent answer, Djembayz. Lightbreather (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Djembayz, I agree with Lightbreather that was a great response thanks. I had some fairly major surgery on my spine on monday so I'm not going to be at full strength for a while but just wanted to acknowledge the response and say I will check out the refs you left above and if I think I can create some exec summary that would be of value I will take a shot. I like writing things like that actually, looking over what other people have said and trying to distill out the most important points, of course a lot of what we do here on articles is like that anyway. There is also a new project on mentoring that I'm involved in and I've mentioned this project to the mentoring leader. Perhaps there could be some synergy there. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Can anyone help?
There was an obvious gap so a went ahead and created a bit of a place-holder at Feminism in Taiwan. Anyone with a spare 5 minutes is encouraged to help out! Cheers, St★lwart111 05:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
It's an interesting article, Stalwart111, thanks for creating it. The reference to the "uniquely Taiwanese concepts of gender" has made me want to read more about it. Sarah (SV)(talk) 22:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Sarah, and thanks for the thanks. I was surprised to find it red-linked at WP:RA. I had previously created Gambling in Taiwan after finding that at RA too, and sources weren't too hard to find. Likewise, there are plenty of sources out there relating to feminism in Taiwan. Some fascinating books. The break-away from China and the influence of Japan and the US has had some interesting results. Its especially interesting how modern Taiwanese women view the roles of wife and mother. Anyway, if your reading is enlightening, please feel free to add to the article. It is very bare-bones at the moment. St★lwart111 22:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Latest on the Kaffeeklatsch test area
The MfD for the Kaffeeklatsch was closed with the result page kept,[20] and this notice[21] re the WMF non discrimination policy was put on my page by Harej. (Thanks, Harej.)
I don't know how the proposed WikiProject Women at the IdeaLab will fare, but one step at a time, I guess. Lightbreather (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I think it cuts down at least 90% of the objections. Lightbreather (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it was ever in doubt. Anyone who was trying to cite WMF non-discrimination was bound to fail and that is pretty obvious if you can actually read. It doesn't necessarily mean it is a good idea and I am narked that LB has just pinged me in some sort of gravedancing mode when I never even commented at the MfD. I look forward to seeing the outcome of the next batch of invitations but, please, let's have some decorum and not feed the trolls. As I said recently in an earlier thread here, behaving like a faction when your intention is to oppose a faction is probably not a great idea: rise above it. - Sitush (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Please do not misrepresent why I pinged you. You linked to a Kaffeeklatsch discussion[22] in a comment you made in that discussion, so when I learned that the MfD result was "page kept," I pinged you and the three other people in that conversation who mentioned the klatsch.[23] That's all. Lightbreather (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
And "gravedancing mode"? That was unnecessary. Lightbreather (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
What was unnecessary was the ping. For future reference, I have ARCA and this page watchlisted. - Sitush (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
You're using "unnecessary" in the sense of "unneeded." Got it. You're referring to my ping as "gravedancing" was uncalled for - something to "rise above" even. Got it? Lightbreather (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad to see it was kept, Lightbreather. Hope it generates plenty of good klatsch.
Emma Sulkowicz (creator of Mattress Performance: Carry That Weight)
I noticed the task force created article: Women's rights in 2014 contains mention of Emma Sulkowicz. Perhaps someone familiar with Sulkowicz and her project can look over her wiki page for accuracy. For example, the current article stresses Sulkowicz never went to the police, which I think is inaccurate. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I found a few promising sources for Campus Safety and Accountability Act, but I'll probably need some help with creating a stub because I'm not familiar with writing about legislation. How do you think this should this be described in the lead? Should it be called "proposed legislation"?
@BoboMeowCat: I think "proposed legislation" would be correct. I've looked at a few sources but haven't found anything that explains what stage it is at. Sarah (SV)(talk) 04:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I created a stub for Campus Safety and Accountability Act. The article could use additional sources and the existing sources could be expanded, if anyone has the time or interest. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm interested. Thank you, BoboMeowCat. Looking forward to expanding it. I am more than a bit surprised to see an article about it didn't exist already. Ongepotchket (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Ongepotchket, you were right to be surprised it didn't already exist, because apparently it did already exist under a slightly different name: Campus Accountability and Safety Act. Oddly, this has been in the news a lot lately (related to Sulkowicz and Gillibrand) and is being referred to as "Campus Safety and Accountability Act" by the media, but the other article has references to the slightly different title. It seems one title should be a redirect after we figure out correct title, but I'm not sure how to do that. @SlimVirgin: regarding how to fix this.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
@BoboMeowCat: the new article has only one recent edit (yours when you created it), so assuming Campus Accountability and Safety Act is correct, the easiest thing would be to redirect Campus Safety and Accountability Act to that title (edit the new article to say #REDIRECT Campus Accountability and Safety Act). See Wikipedia:Redirect. You can then add whatever new content you created to the old article. Where both articles have a longer history, it's possible to merge the histories to retain the list of contributors, but where it's one recent edit, a simple redirect is fine. Sarah (SV)(talk) 22:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I deleted my newly created stub and redirected it to Campus Accountability and Safety Act. Looking over the existing article on topic I think it could use attention from task force. (Pinging @Ongepotchket: who expressed interest). Current article does not seem balanced. It's heavy on the criticism of the bill and fails to mention the motivation behind the bill (the high rate of sexual assault on college campuses). I will also try to improve it when I have time but if anyone else has time or interest please take a look. (ps -when searching for sources search both "Campus Safety and Accountability Act" as well as "Campus Accountability and Safety Act" considering the media describes it both ways. I also already linked 3 sources above). --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Less obvious articles
Has the project made any attempts to identify topics that aren't about women's biographies, biology of women, feminism and women's studies? I'm thinking about cultural practices, social niches, hobbies, sports, games, books, etc., etc., etc., that are particularly popular among women or associated with women. As a history buff, I'm thinking this would be an important strategy to pursue since individual women in history tend not to leave that many traces in sources.
I don't think so. I've often thought of tackling Sati (practice) because it looks like it could use some re-organisation etc but I've always shied from it for fear of unwittingly causing some sort of cultural offence. - Sitush (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's certainly about women's history, but I'm also thinking of much more general articles. Just off the top of my head, I'm thinking about stuff like sewing or parenting. And before anyone accuses me of assigning traditional roles to women, this is exactly the topics that tend to be underrepresented. And they happen to have been female domains throughout history, and in many ways stile are.
The articles we suggest seems like they're mostly chosen from activist's perspective. That's certainly a type of editor we should appeal to, but I'm assuming that not all women editors of the future are going to be activists. So what are their interests, hobbies, passions, etc? To make a somewhat provocative example, if there are more female Wikipedians interested in improving Twilight and New Kids on the Block than Virginia Woolf, why not attempt to tap that resource?
I sometimes think DIY and other lifehacky topics are not covered as much as they ought to be, considering how obsessive a hobby they are for some (not me). As for me, I'm interested in expanding articles about authors and illustrators, mostly of juvenile fiction because I see a lot of gaps there. The Anastasia books, a couple of stubs on books by Lois Lowry, expanding on some articles on Beverly Cleary books. This Place Has No Atmosphere by Paula Danziger will probably be my first article, if it doesn't exist. Once that gives me practice I will maybe create several more articles for Danziger's books. She has almost as many books as Judy Blume but so few of them have pages, or even stubs. Barthe DeClements is a writer of less importance whom I'd like to expand upon, but being notoriously reclusive during her lifetime means there is very little out there to bulk up an article. Finally, Roald Dahl has some truly great short stories for adults that I'd like to cover, extensively if possible. These are a few my plans for the future, and I hope to collaborate with helpful GGTF editors. I have no interest in dealing with those who seek out endless drama with female editors, though, so I am unsure of a timeline at present. I have been working on these drafts for so long, waiting for the contention to die down. I am definitely the target demographic for something like the GGTF. I have a lot I could contribute but I've chosen not to because of the haranguing and constant berating from certain male editors towards female editors. I have no interest in becoming their next target du jour, so like too many women I have read about, I refrain from editing. Though that will end soon, as it's obvious they're not going to find something better to do. Ongepotchket (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Ongepotchket, do it yourself stuff was one of the areas my wife suggested when I asked about potential topics. And I definitely recognize this as something that my male friends and I aren't terribly interested in, especially the decorative kind. In Sweden, there's a subset of simpler handicrafts that most here would refer to as pyssel ("crafting; tweaking; lighter handiwork", possibly related to "puzzle") which involves a wide range of simple arts and crafts like paper collages, beadwork (including peg array art), embroidering, etc. this is something that strikes me as a hobby dominated by women.
These are the type of general areas that I think might be worth looking at alongside the type of articles we're already suggesting as GGTF open tasks.
My apologies. I was picking up on your comment about the cultural things, of which Sati is certainly one. Slim may have the thing to hand but I can dig it out if not: earlier this week I think it was The Guardian, of which she is fond of quoting, reported on recent figures for UK university entry, relating to the 2014 cohort. They demonstrated that quite substantially more women than men had begun a UK university course in the year but also, IIRC, that the numbers were very significantly skewed as to what (hate to say it) are considered "traditional" roles. (There is a massive vocational skew for things such as nursing, btw). Despite a lot of pushing since the days of Margaret Thatcher, the ratio of men to women was massively on the male side when it came to engineering and science courses and massively on the women's side when it came to nursing, teaching etc. So, I suppose, like it or not, your point about sewing and parenting probably still has actual merit even though many would like to see it gone.
I doubt that you will get many takers here, though, because this seems primarily to be a political forum rather than a content-based one: content appears to be a secondary goal, although the hope is that content bias will improve by reducing the alleged severity of the gap. - Sitush (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I would chime in that medical issues that affect women may also be under-represented on the project. This came up back in September, when it was noted we had no article on back labor, which I then started (and others improved). Considering about 30% of women have back labor during labor, I found it crazy that we had no article on it (especially considering we seem to have articles on every possible thing that could go wrong to a penis, and have for many years.)--Milowent • hasspoken 14:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Whether this project is political or not, it has plenty of open tasks related to content. Is there no interest in expanding this beyond women's biographies and explicitly feminist topics?
Peter , please feel free to post a link to an article related to women, yet outside the realm of biographies and feminist topics that you believe needs improvement and attention from this project, specifying your concerns. There's a good chance if you do that, task force members will assist you in improving the article. FYI, Sitush does not speak for WP:GGTF and you may actually find that threads dominated by him get less than average attn because it appears many members have become frustrated by lack of positive contributions to project and ongoing criticism. This project is actually highly content based. Your suggestions are not at all unreasonable, so if you'd like to assist GGTF please don't let detractor discourage your efforts. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
My gut feeling is "no" at the present time but I'll happily be proved wrong. There are many women - probably indeed a majority - who have no interest in this project, often seemingly because it has a political bent. It may not be the best venue to achieve progress in the way you desire although, yes, improving the coverage of what I'll loosely term gender-related content is one of the ultimate goals. FWIW, I think biographies feature among the most numerous and popular articles, regardless of gender and what happens here may just be mirroring that trend. - Sitush (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this amendment by BoboMeowCat, I'm surprised to see the notion that anyone speaks for this project: that is not how Wikipedia works generally, although I think the military history project has co-ordinators. I've just taken another look at the lists to which Peter Isotalo linked and, woah!, that is one long, outdated mess that maybe could do with a co-ordinator or two. For example, Beekeeping is listed there but the comment doesn't seem to match the current state of the article at all. Does anyone object to me removing it? - Sitush (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Struck some of that - the beekeeping thing is not in the women's section. My apologies. - Sitush (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm simply going by what drives me to write article content: Stuff I Happen to Find Interesting (SIHFI). SIHFI is seldom political even if I consider myself to be a fairly political person. But no matter how much I would like to will myself to write more about, say, queer theory, it still hasn't fascinated me as much as describing galleys and medieval cuisine. And whether biographies are popular or not, they're still just one aspect of what we do.
I'm going to look around for suitable non-obvious topics. I'll notify the task force here when I do.
Well, in recent months there's been a need for help updating articles about the localities in north eastern Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad, and the Central African Republic, where women are fleeing for their lives. Just keeping current with sources like Relief Web and allAfrica.com would be a start. You'd think these articles would be "obvious", but given the level of participation, evidently they aren't. --Djembayz (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Milowent, I suspect that you are right, although medical articles are particularly tricky to write because of WP:MEDRS etc - that scares the life out of me! I've just taken a look at Diverticulitis, which I'd always thought was much more common in women than in men. I can't spot where our article says that, so either I've missed it, I am wrong or the article could use a well-sourced tweak. - Sitush (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I am wrong - see this, although I've no idea if it is reliable or not. - Sitush (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
That's a very good point, Milowent. If anyone is worried about the technicalities of medicine, perhaps WP:MED can help out. Maybe even the indomitable Doc James might be recruited. :-)
Doc James and other WP:MED folk are very helpful when asked for help. Medical articles are hard to edit because of MEDRS but it is possible to get changes to stick. I did it, way back, and I have plans for more changes. I take those changes fairly slowly to make sure they'll be OK. Ca2james (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I honestly think the best thing to do is worry less about trying to figure out what women might prefer to edit and concentrate more on creating an editing environment that more women will find welcoming. Recruit them. Support them. And let them edit whatever they want to. Lightbreather (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The Task Force already endorses topics that seems to be what "women might prefer to edit". I don't see how recruitment would be made more difficult by broadening the range of suggested topics and articles.
As a first attempt, I added[24]modern art to the open tasks list. Women are only included in lists, but without any descriptions. Frida Kahlo's absence strikes me as particularly notable.
If you enjoy drawing up lists of needed articles, they are always helpful for people putting together editathons. One of the more challenging things about lists is figuring out a place to put links to existing lists of articles needed so that people can find them. Lists of articles needed based on an individual reference source can be useful, because they make it easy for "completionist" editors to simply plow through batches of articles. You might be surprised how much you could find for new lists by visiting a reference collection at a public or academic library. I always like to add a sample citation to cut and paste when making these lists, to save the editors time, and encourage them to add the footnotes.
By contrast, lists of needed articles for editathons tend to focus on more specialized sources available at the sponsoring institutions.
You might want to try participating remotely in editathons yourself by adding some female-related content. Even if you just add the material that's available on the open web, it can really speed things up for the participants sitting next to the specialized sources at the event. Two examples or editathons would be the upcoming Black History Month editathons such as WikiDC editathons or AfroCrowd. Actually, adding female-related content for any any upcoming meetup is always welcome. It's really fun when you're an in-person participant to see that somebody participating remotely wants to make your efforts a success. Participating remotely is a good way to support the GLAM institutions, and the people organizing the events. Just add a section that says "Participating remotely" (or put (remotely) after your user name), and add your results on the editathon page. Even though the topic of an editathon tends be less obvious articles that you wouldn't work on on your own, when a GLAM organization identifies something as worth writing about, it will generally be something that is significant for scholars and researchers.
Another good thing about participating remotely is that you have someone at the event who can e-mail, chat, or leave on-wiki messages when you're working on something together. Collaborating in real time is fun, because you can just do the part you like, like infoboxes, or talk page assessment, or images, and let someone else do the parts that are harder for you. --Djembayz (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
How the heck?
The article appears to meet GNG. This thread risks becoming just an argument between Lightbreather and her detractors. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
How the heck did Wikipedia end up with an article about Fucking Machines dot com? And what's more, how the heck did it become a "good article"? Lightbreather (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
After reading it I'd say it's because it's a pretty good article. The machines drew commentary from notable people and led to a fairly notable attempt to appeal a denied trademark. I'm not sure what the problem here is. Capeo (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't see an issue either, both sexes enjoy pornography. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Capeo and Knowledgekid87, for your kind words about my quality improvement efforts on Wikipedia to improve articles related to freedom of speech and censorship to higher levels of quality including WP:GA and WP:FA. Please also note that the article includes commentary from secondary sources written by women, including: Carly Milne, Regina Lynn, Annalee Newitz of AlterNet, author Violet Blue, author Audacia Ray, Bonnie Ruberg of The Village Voice, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History, Jessica Roy of The New York Observer, author Sarah Schaschek -- indeed, the majority of the secondary-source-commentary in the article itself is cited to female authors. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Lightbreather, if you try to turn the gender gap task force into a crusade to remove articles - especially good articles - you will lose support. That's not what we're here for. Make discussion more civil - great! Write more articles of interest to women - great! Remove articles because you don't like the subject matter, so therefore they must be harmful, and couldn't possibly be well written ... not so good. --GRuban (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I for one fully support the WP:ROPE that LB is setting up for herself, it shows much about the contributor and their editing character. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
So much for keeping my name out of your mouth.[25]Lightbreather (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I think this should be closed as I am not sure what the point of this thread is. What action (if any) do you want done? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm all for closing it. What action? None. I just think a group that's supposedly working to help recruit and keep women editors ought to know that there's stuff like this out there. Better to know than to have some noob show up and say, "WTF? Why the heck does Wikipedia have articles like this? And they're called good articles?" At least people who think that it does reflect poorly on the project can be prepared with some answer and an appeal to stay, even if you feel soiled working here sometimes. Lightbreather (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough although with all of the content Wikipedia has I would hope more experienced editors by now would have responses to these type of things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
That's at least a reasonable request, that we should have a response. The response is that we, Wikipedia, have articles about many far worse things: torture, mass murder, child abuse, genocide, and more. All the evil that mankind has ever invented. (And yet no one complains about those, strangely enough.) Our articles are not an endorsement, they are just statements of fact; we document the world as it is, not as we wish as it should be. If the existence of articles on those doesn't make you feel soiled, but the existence of articles on kinky pornography does, you should consider reevaluating your priorities. --GRuban (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Not that I am trying to justify above the article's existence, but when I see the Good Article icon pop up on an article like this, I just grin and chuckle. I consider it affirmation that as serious as this project is and should be taken, it still manages to "stop and smell the flowers" or in this case "stop to watch some porn". That said, I also think its beneficial for the project for lesser represented ideas and topics to get positive attention like GA status. --Scalhotrod(Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
African countries lead the way in the use of the "women situtation room" - an example of a space specifically for women's concerns
@Djembayz: First I think that is a ridiculous comparison and frankly somewhat insulting to the very real risks of violence that the women being reported on and the women doing reporting in Africa face every day. To compare that with gender bias on Wikipedia is just ludicrous. They have to have spaces like these in African nations because the women doing the reporting face serious threats of violence. And I'll repeat my main two objections about the notoin of a "safe space" for women editors: 1) It is a very belittling view of feminism to think that women are so delicate and fragile that they have to have their own space just to edit and collaborate. 2) I think it circumvents one of what should be the benefits we are trying to achieve from bridging "the gap", that we want women to participate as full fledged editors with everyone else, not as second class editors walled off in their safe space. Women have a more collaborative style in general than men, while Wikipedia is far more civil than most places on the Internet there is still a lot of BS, especially passive aggressive BS here and virtually all of it, at least in my experience, comes from men. Also, I can just see where this might eventually lead: the mens rights groups will be demanding their own spaces, etc. Walling women off into their own private spaces on the site doesn't really address the actual problems, it doesn't change the behavior of the men who act like jerks and make women (and many male editors I think as well) leave in frustration. We need solutions not PC band aids. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
One last point, according to Wikipedia:Discrimination: "Wikipedia should not give privilege in writing and freedom of speech to some editors and readers at the expense of others, and thus Wikipedia should not tolerate discriminatory content or discussion. Likewise, users should not be able to use a valid Wikipedia policy or guideline in a discriminatory manner or to achieve a discriminatory end. Statuses of editors and readers that should be protected from discrimination on Wikipedia include:... Sex" It seems to me that the safe space is in direct conflict with this. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I can see how you would take it that way, but that wasn't quite where I was going here. We've been looking at resolving questions of harassment and conflicts involving gender-related harassment from more of an HR viewpoint on the site, and that's being rejected by some on a variety of grounds. Roughly, if I have understood correctly, there are some who feel that the site must be "self organizing", and that being "self organizing" precludes any HR function, some who feel that everything must be done transparently and in public (including some who would not simply want oversight over WMF office actions, but would prefer to eliminate office actions altogether as an option), and the rather vocal contingent who feels that anyone who finds the atmosphere too rough and unpleasant should just go elsewhere. Given that this site is estimated to be 90% male, we wouldn't necessarily want a "womens situation room", but rather a "gender situation room" for dealing with gender-related harassment. One thing that deters people from seeking redress in situations of gender-related harassment is the fear of further public attention. This "situation room" model has a piece that's missing from the HR model-- the "gender sensitive reporting". Essentially these groups have figured out how to compile data, and cover this data in the media, in a way that makes women feel safe coming forward. Your point is well taken, that this is just a website, and not the same as election-related violence. What is the same, however, is being in a central location where conflicts are resolved in the public eye, with consequences for the reputations of individuals that may have permanent, real life implications. (Should also note that since most people on this website are pretty civilized, the need for this sort of thing is not apparent until you run into the rougher sections of the site.) --Djembayz (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I didn't follow a lot of that, for example I'm not sure what "HR viewpoint" means in this context but I haven't had time yet to review the stuff on the project and once I do, I'm sure that I'll understand those points. But here are some responses to the parts I did get. You said "some who feel that everything must be done transparently". Count me in on that "some". I think transparency is one of the coolest things Wikipedia has going for it and that make it work as well as it does. And while I hadn't thought about it the lack of transparency in a "women's situation room" is another reason that I think it never will and never should fly. Transparency doesn't guarantee truth or civility but it makes them both much more likely. I'm far much more likely to exaggerate my complaints about another editor if I know that they can't read what I'm writing. Its just human nature, we are governed by emotions and if I'm having an emotional outburst about someone on my keyboard my natural tendency is to exaggerate how bad they are. One of the things that keeps that in check here and that make Wikipedia, for all its faults, still the most civil open Internet environment I've ever participated in is the policy of maximum transparency. Actually, I had an idea as well but I'll start another section as its really completely different than the room idea. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
These points on transparency deserve a thoughtful response. Perhaps someone else would like to weigh in on this? --Djembayz (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Grant proposals on Meta regarding the Gender Gap
The grant proposals on the Meta site for funding on the Gender Gap will give you an idea of an initial approach to promoting a more hospitable community for women. One thing that is clear from the Diversity Conference and the experience of other communities is that you need paid people, who have the community and its interests as their primary job, to make diversity work-- not volunteers. My guess is this is not just because a paid person has more time, it is also because a person who is paid to represent the interests of their organization can be required to undertake difficult or unpleasant tasks, and can be required to avoid conflicts of interest.
Two things to look at in the proposals: One, you'll see that there is a "PR panic button" incorporated in these proposals as a way to help community volunteers avoid running into media disasters. Two, when looking through these proposals it is important to consider whether they will also work to prevent gender-related harassment of our male editors.
Even those of us who do not have experience in an HR department, or in gender-related community outreach may have valuable input regarding the proposals for Gender Gap grants. Different sets of eyes can make us aware of possibilities we would never have considered, and help define the needs these community roles need to fill, so that the people assuming these roles are able to work well in a diverse, international setting. --Djembayz (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Are there any connections between our group and these researchers? Should there be? Would anyone object if I reached out to them just to let them know about this group and that we are available to help if they can use it? I wouldn't represent myself as a spokesperson for the group or anything. BTW, I have a lot of experience working with agencies that sponsor government research. Although, my experience probably is mostly not relevant, it was working for agencies like NIST, DARPA, and the USAF on computer science research (no weapons research, it was general AI and software engineering). Still, the fact that I kind of speak that language might help, to some extent all government research has similar issues, e.g., how to present complex ideas in ways that the suits can understand. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
MadScientistX11, sure, if you think it would be helpful, by all means let them know, and thanks for offering to do it. Sarah (SV)(talk) 21:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, I'm going to have to step back for the time being. I had an operation on my spine last week. I thought it would be nice to get away from the Internet for a while but they actually had Internet access in the hospital from the TV including a nice keyboard. Actually, it was a new hospital and they were having problems with the Internet access for a few patients (including me) and my nurse said "but you are a computer genius maybe you can fix it" Well if you knew me you would know that even in bed with IV's going I'm not going to pass up that kind of challenge. And I did fix it, it was really simple actually. I was typing from my hospital bed last time but I was also on steroids (which make my hyper) and serious pain killers. Anyway once I got home I realized recovery was going to take some time and I shouldn't do anything requiring serious concentration or collaboration for a while. I should be back at least to medium strength in a few weeks and if no one has contacted them by then I will be more than happy to. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
@MadScientistX11: I know the situation you describe exactly (except for the part about being called a computer genius; I'm afraid I have never had that pleasure!). Take your time and get well. It's a good idea to contact them, and perhaps someone has done it already, but you can decide later whether you feel up to it. The one benefit of being a volunteer is that we're allowed to decide that we've had enough whenever we want to. Sarah (SV)(talk) 23:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I reached out to these researchers a few months ago. They have yet to reply. --Mssemantics (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Jodi Schneider has asked for help on the GG mailing list with Draft:Yvonne Sintes, an article about the first female air traffic controller and commercial airline captain in the UK, in case anyone here is interested. Jodi would like help especially with a timeline of Sintes's family-life and career, and suggested Sintes's autobiography, Trailblazer in Flight, as a source. Sarah (SV)(talk) 20:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Women as "information-storage devices"
Nathaniel Tkacz, in his Wikipedia and the Politics of Openness, University of Chicago Press, 2015, writes that women are arguably viewed by Wikipedia as "information-storage devices whose inclusion is desired in order to increase the resource base of the project. Women add to the pool – the market? – of available information" (p. 12).
The argument is that women are viewed as essential only because they are information carriers, not because gender equality is an end in itself.
I've only started reading this, so I don't know where he takes the argument. I think it's a little unfair on some of the people who have pushed to close the gender gap, who I believe do view gender equality as an end in itself. Even so it's a point that has concerned me for a long time. It's clear that attracting more women is good for Wikipedia, and for women in general because of the spread of the female perspective. But is it good for the women – the individual "information-storage devices" – who are encouraged to edit? I'm not at all sure that it is, especially given the current culture. Sarah (SV)(talk) 19:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, to what extent have we tried to attract any editors with the suggestion that they themselves will benefit from it?
Peter, it's implicit: come and join us, it's fun, you'll love it, you'll be part of this important thing. I think presentation of the gender gap has been difficult for the Foundation. On the one hand, they want to stress how few women there are so that others are encouraged, but they don't want to acknowledge how sexist it can be in case that does the opposite. Sarah (SV)(talk) 21:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Sarah, maybe I'm out of touch, but my perception is that the implicitness of Wikipedia as personal enjoyment is lacking. I mean, how exactly are we informing people about the joys of editing?
Overall, I'd say that Gardner is correct in the sense that it's a logical conclusion of WP:NOT. But being called up as a "storage device" doesn't make it particularly exciting. I agree that it's too diplomatic.
I don't think gender equality should be a goal in itself. In fact, nothing about the makeup of editors should be an end in itself. If, for example, we only had one good and highly prolific editor, that could somehow singlehandedly write and maintain all the articles the encyclopedia needed, that would be fine, though by definition that editor could not personally embody multiple genders, races, classes, nationalities or whatnot. Don't forget, we're not here to be editors for the sake of chatting with other editors, having fun editing, politicking, diplomacying, and adminning. We're here to write an encyclopedia. It just so happens that we are merely human, so it is quite useful to represent different genders, races, classes, nationalities and whatnot, and making editing more fun and less painful for everyone is also helpful ... but that's not an end in itself. It's just a means. The end is writing the world's best free encyclopedia. --GRuban (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
That's the technocrat's view on under-representation, though. If we extended that to it's logical conclusion, we should also ban everything from quirky userboxes to barnstars. I mean, we're here to write articles, not to enjoy ourselves, right?
"Ban"? Where did I say "ban"? There is nothing wrong with enjoying ourselves, it just should not be our primary goal. But yes, in numerous cases, people who do not write an encyclopedia but solely hand out barnstars, make userboxes, and such, do get blocked and/or banned. It's called Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia, and you will see it as a block reason every month on WP:ANI, if not every week. --GRuban (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course women are "information-storage devices", but they are much more, they are human beings. Of course our purpose here is to build an encyclopedia, but as in everything we do we must first aspire to be civilized human beings. Would I rather build an encyclopedia or be a civilized human being? The latter, of course. Can we build an encyclopedia without being civilized human beings? - only a very limited one. I see no contradiction in aspiring to be first a civilized human being and then a Wikipedian.
The key to being both a civilized human being and a Wikipedian is respect for our fellow human beings. Those who use Wikipedia as a medium of disrespect, who bully fellow editors, who try to exclude people based on gender, race, religion, nationality, or whatever other aspect of humanity they might choose are undermining us all, as well as undermining the encyclopedia.
I can get very upset when I see people doing this openly. Please excuse me if I get carried away at times, but as long as I'm around this project, bullies will be dealt with firmly.
If women feel they are being used solely as "information-storage devices", it's time to create a fork where every editor will be respected. The editors of the new encyclopedia will be better off for it, and, I suspect that in the long run, Wikipedia will be better off as well. I personally don't think we've reached that point yet, but it's getting close. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it can be painful to come up against total rejection of the standard anti-harassment measures adopted by real-life organizations, and wonder if women are simply being used for public relations purposes and "building the brand". There's plenty of money for public relations and programmers, but volunteers are supposed to devise an anti-harassment function all on their own, and make it stick, against organized efforts by trolls both on and offsite. And if "the community" fails to police itself, well that's "the community's" fault. There comes a point where you feel like you are being cynically exploited by people who came in to your movement, took control of all the money and lawyers, and who really know better. --Djembayz (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that completely misses the point. 90%+ of the information we use to create articles comes from other sources, not our own expertise. The knowledge is more procedural. And (the identified parts of) the content problem are that we don't have as many articles (even pro-rata), or such long articles, or the same level of integration on "female" subjects as on "male" subjects. If we lost some large percentage of male editors (and their contributions) this would no longer be the case. These issues can all be resolved (once identified) without recruiting more female editors. However recruiting more female editors would tend to fix this "automatically", as well as any unidentified parts of the problem. It is not that we want "women's knowledge" in a addition to "men's knowledge" but that we want to add more of the "women's viewpoint" which results in a different set of editing preferences. (It would also probably strengthen "mixed" content, to a lesser degree, and "male" content to still smaller degree.)
All the best: RichFarmbrough, 02:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC).
Curvy and buxom
Could someone take a look at the actions taken as a result of this non-discussion? Back in 2012, User:Hydroxonium removed redirects from curvy and buxom to Female body shape and replaced them with soft links to Wiktionary instead. I've just now reversed this.[27][28] Could the members of this project review the above? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I would be very careful about redirects of this kind. Female body shape is much more complex than individual adjectives like "curvy" or "buxom". Redirecting them to a specific article like that is very subjective. They could be redirected at any number of articles, including topics that have nothing to do with the body of the human female.
Go for the safe and boring option here: soft redirects to Wiktionary across the board.
I guess I just don't agree. They were originally redirects which were then changed without any discussion from outside editors. I restored the redirects when I found I could no longer visit the parent topic which discusses these two types. A soft redirect should be avoided. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe the procedural history is relevant here. What's your argument for redirecting straight adjectives to specific articles in the first place?
The procedural history is directly relevant, as it demonstrates a common, primarily understanding of the term prior to the link to Wiktionary. How are these terms subjective? Please read the article on female body type. They refer only to that article. What else could they refer to here? Examples, please. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Procedural history counts for bupkus, especially if the Wiktionary link was left alone without complaint for several years.
And it's not just that this is fairly subjective. This is clearly well-meaning, but it also has a bad aftertaste of normative description. Not neutral. To me, these terms are dictionary entries, not search term entries to encyclopedic topics.
Vandalism is often hidden for years at a time deep inside the body of an article until someone finally comes across it and removes it. I've removed vandalism that was "left alone without complaint for several years" many times. So, your "squeaky wheel" argument doesn't hold true. The redirect was altered without notice and without discussion. I merely reverted back to the original as I couldn't find the article when I typed in the two terms. I think that counts for quite a bit as 1) the original creator of the redirect was trying to target the most likely article, and 2) I came to the same conclusion several years later. Where I come from, that's called a consensus by agreement. In any case, let's address your alternative examples. All of the examples you give for "buxom" are already covered in the female body shape article, particularly in the section "Alteration of body shape" and the rest of those links are found throughout the article. So the best solution is to redirect buxom to female body shape to gain access to all of the topics rather than just one. More to the point, the sources describe "buxom" as an "inverted triangle" female body type, so again, the redirect is appropriate. "Curvy" refers to the hourglass female body type, so the redirect is entirely appropriate. I don't think we are going to agree on this, so I would appreciate it if we wait for further input. Viriditas (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, more input would be most welcome. Let's acknowledge WP:NOTABUREAUCRACY, though. None of us have committed any procedural sins. We're disagreemeeing about how to redirect in these cases.
The encyclopedia and its readers are far better served by links to Wiktionary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I agreed with TRPoD and Peter that these adjectives should redirect to Wiktionary, not to articles on Wikipedia. "Curvy" does not necessarily mean "hourglass shape"; it could also mean "pear-shaped" or "bottom-heavy" or "voluptuous" or "too heavy". Similarly, "buxom" may also mean "top-heavy" or "large-breasted' whereas the "inverted triangle" refers to the size of the shoulders compared to the hips. Because there is some ambiguity, it makes more sense to redirect to a definition page that can include all the possibilities instead of redirecting to just one possibility. Ca2james (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
If anyone cares what I think, I think directing "curvy" to Wiktionary is appropriate, though I think using curvy to describe women in encyclopedic articles should probably be limited. Lightbreather (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
@Lightbreather: I'm willing to be edumacated on the subject. Could you briefly explain why the Wiktionary soft redirect is more appropriate than the redirect to female body type, when "curvy" predominantly refers to the hourglass female body type in the literature, which is the relevant subtopic in that article? Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm not going to say I speak for all women. Also, I'm not going to comment on the "non-discussion" up top (from five years ago).
Let's say you had an article that said, "John Doe's build was angular." Should there be an "Angular" article? Are all men essentially "angular"? Should there be a "Male body shape" article? And if there is, should an article that says, "Harry Doe's build was soft" also redirect to the "Male body shape" article?
I've know some women with very hard-muscular-angular "shapes," and some men with very soft-smooth-curvy "shapes." It's just ridiculous, IMO, that's all. That we should put so much effort into describing how women look, but not into how men look. It says a lot about what we think is important - or unimportant - when it comes to being a woman as opposed to what we think is important when it comes to being a man. Can't remember where I heard it, a long time ago, but we look on women as ornaments and men as instruments. For women, it's how she looks, for men it's what he can do. Lightbreather (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Lightbreather. The Drover's Wife has informed me that men are not welcome here, so this will be my last edit. I'm not really following your comments up above (and no, it's not because I'm a man). The "female body shape" article includes reliable sources, including studies, of the female body shape. "Curvy" refers to the "hourglass" shape discussed in this article, which is why the redirect is appropriate. Others up above have mentioned that this is ambiguous, but I really don't see it. I only came here because I discovered that "curvy" and "buxom" no longer redirected the correct topic and had been changed without discussion to links to Wiktionary. That's about as far as my interest goes on this topic. I think the arguments for keeping Wiktionary soft redirects miss the entire point about helping our readers find the correct article, which in this case is female body shape. This has little to nothing to do with men. Viriditas (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
First, I don't think that's what The Drover's Wife said. Here's my spiel that I've started sharing in all these discussions when people start getting defensive:
I think a lot of the resentment on WP is a result of defensiveness. Most of the guys on WP are probably fine men, and among those fine men such sexism as might happen is unintentional. However, because of the defensiveness, it's hard to address. One thing I've heard a lot as an editor is "grow a thick skin," but when it comes to discussing sexism, even unintentional, systemic stuff, suddenly a lot of otherwise rational men become hypersensitive - as if they are being personally attacked.
Just as women have been asked not to be so thin-skinned when language offends them on-wiki, maybe men need to follow their own advice and not be so defensive about language that offends them on-wiki: not take every remark about sexism as a personal attack.
As for the non-discussion - it was from 2010, and the editor waited 10 days before acting on his proposal. I think many editors have made similar edits. Start a discussion, but if there is no response, go ahead and make the change if it improves the encyclopedia. I think that editor made the right move redirecting to Wiktionary, and some of the editors in the discussion above agree. I don't know what else to say about this besides that. Lightbreather (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Article needed on Affirmative Consent Law (SB 967)
California's "affirmative consent" law, also referred to "yes means yes", is mentioned in the task force created Women's rights in 2014 article, and it's also recently been added to the Cathy Young bio, but it doesn't seem to have a wiki page. 1) Could someone help me make sure such an article doesn't already exist under a different name? and 2)if not, are there any task force members who would be interested in helping me create this article? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I looked for that recently and found nothing. Yes Means Yes is about the book; while it mentions the law, there's no link. I can't promise lots of time, but I can definitely help a little. Sarah (SV)(talk) 21:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Image bias
From waist-hip ratioFrom Report of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2000.
I was checking out waist-hip ratio because of the thread above, and came across the image to the right. The slim example is of a SuicideGirls model. The other is some random user-generated image with the description "Front-On View of an Obese Man".
This is a very obvious example of gender stereotypes expressed through images. I've seen this before in articles that relate to body shape, clothing and similar topics. Look at this edit that I made to bikini. The initial choice for a bikini illustration was professional model Michele Merkin posing for a glamor pic. Extremely stereotypical.
This type of visual objectification has a tendency to creep into articles that have absolutely nothing to do with the female body. Someone seriously thought that this was a suitable illustration of laptop usage (my alternative). And here's a somewhat similar example that I switched out[29] in chair. Not as obvious as the laptop pic, but still a very odd choice for a neutral illustration of how a chair is used.
Has this issue been discussed before? Any thoughts about strategies for identifying and improving illustrations that reflect gender stereotypes or outright sexism?
It's an interesting question, Peter, how to deal with this systematically because it's everywhere – inappropriate use of sex, women's bodies, certain types of bodies, images from pornography instead of ordinary photographs or medical images. Sarah (SV)(talk) 16:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
If it's related... there's been a user trying to add Suicide Girls images to articles. Not sure if this might have been the result of the same thing. Regardless, this image should be changed. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 17:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Er ... changed to what? I am not specifically bound to either of these pics, but there is a lot to be said for one image of a male and one image of a female, as well as one image with the ratio noticeably greater than 1, and one with the ratio noticeably less than 1. --GRuban (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
It's a male gaze image from a pornography website. If we want to show a typical woman's waist size, we should first find out what that is, then look for a photograph of that size. And there's no need for skimpy underwear to illustrate a waist. Sarah (SV)(talk) 19:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Sarah is absolutely right; 100% male gaze. The idea of juxtaposing a smaller figure with a larger one isn't all bad, but the execution just isn't right.
Black and white line-drawn illustrations could be a solution. The first thing that I thought of was the Pioneer plaque.Dialectric (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The second image above would be better than what's there at the moment. Sarah (SV)(talk) 22:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
No offence, but the second image above does not actually show a waist-hip ratio. --GRuban (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Well one could argue too that the male's body shape is nothing special really, then again I don't think on it too much. The main difference is the curves which woman have to help childbirth. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87: That's what I mean about male being the default. The female body is the norm for me (as you say, for me it's "nothing special"). The male body is the norm for you. But male shouldn't be the norm (the default, the Self), for Wikipedia, because that means Wikipedia is saying female is the Other. The othering of women is the essence of sexism. Sarah (SV)(talk) 00:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Well I have no objection if someone wants to make an article on it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that Female body shape article, with no corresponding Male body shape article this morning after reading the Curvy and buxom discussion started above. And you're right, SV: male is the default once again. Lightbreather (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
So rather than pointing it out make the article, nothing is stopping anyone from doing this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
What's kinda aggravating though is why anyone should have to stop editing what they'd prefer to be editing to go create something to parallel an article that should probably never have been created in the first place. (It should have just been a part of the existing Body shape article.) Lightbreather (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
That's one way to look at it, an article should be redirected because one is about a female and there is no male counterpart that exists. Rather than having all or nothing though wouldn't it be better to have both? Having both gives the reader more of an in depth look at the subject. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, there you go. Maybe you should go and create a Male body shape article. Lightbreather (talk) 01:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Im a guy, and would want to but don't know about it enough from the medical point of view. If it is brought up though the nI feel someone should make the other article and rather than just saying "Hmm" maybe you can look for someone at the medical wiki-project to help out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
(ec) KK, the sofixit response is problematic. Sexist titles (or anything that implies male is the default) shouldn't be created in the first place. When women point these things out, we're told to fix them. But there are only 10 percent of us, and only a small percentage of that 10 percent work on GG issues. If we have to fix everything, there won't be any time left for us to be normal Wikipedians, which is why we're here. So the sexism hits us from every direction. We see it while editing, we have to explain why it's sexist, we may have to explain what sexism is, we're expected to fix it, and that means we don't get to be regular editors like everyone else. Sarah (SV)(talk) 02:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
You are the one who brought it up though, it shouldn't matter if you are female, male, bisexual, pansexual, ect. One way to look at it if you want to go by sexes is that you are creating an article from a female's point of view. You would be writing about the guys rather than the guys writing about the girls. In the end the focus should be about improving Wikipedia and I am sure the two articles can be balanced. if you don't want to write it than no problem, just ask a wiki-project. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
KK, can you see the essential point, though? Imagine a situation in which, instead of sexist content and titles, we had anti-black racist content and titles, and a very small percentage of black editors pointing it out, asking for change and help. Imagine that the response from white editors was to ridicule them and argue that it's not really racist (the complainants should stop being so "thin-skinned"), or to say: okay, sofixit.
The black editors would have to spend their whole time on WP either trying not to notice or mind the racism, or doing nothing but correct it themselves, sometimes to great opposition. That would be a horrible situation, wouldn't it? That would be a project that would have no support. Sarah (SV)(talk) 02:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It drives me nuts to see male be the default - and it also drives me nuts to be told to just fix it. Being told to fix it is unhelpful. A problem has been identified and by saying "sofixit", you're basically dismissing the concern as unworthy of your time. And honestly, that's frustrating. Knowledgekid87, I understand that you may not agree that it matters to not have male as the default, and that's fine, but it would be more helpful and supportive here if you didn't dismiss the valid concerns of other editors. Ca2james (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm coming to this section via this note at WP:Anatomy. I don't think that the Male body shape link redirecting to the Body shape article has anything to do with males being the default; I think it has to do with the fact that much more has been written about female body shape than about male body shape. Really, this is shown in the literature on body shape. Ideally, we should only create WP:Spinouts when needed. Not every sex/gender topic needs to have corresponding male and female/man and woman articles. I've got nothing more to state on this matter at this talk page or the WP:Anatomy talk page since I'm not interested in debating the political aspects of it. Flyer22 (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Much more has been written about it because of objectification and male gaze. But if we're not gonna make a male body shape, at least rename the page to "female body in art" or something so that the it's not quite as othering. Can also add sections about objectification and male gaze. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 23:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
@Ca2james: Why do you assume that it is unworthy of people's time? Without a second thought you just connected that anyone who asks another editor to help out means the one who is asking is lazy which is a problem. I am saying if you want an article make it, I know little on the subject but do know that sitting around here talking about it isn't going to accomplish anything. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say that it was unworthy of all people's time; I said that when someone says "sofixit", it cones across to me like they're dismissing it as unworthy of their time. Or at least that's what I meant to say, and I apologize if I wasn't clear. Ca2james (talk) 03:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
That's not true though for all people as you said, I know if you want something done sometimes you have to do it yourself its how life is in my opinion. You want change? then take the step in the right direction, it wont be easy at times but small things like these will eventually add up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Article expansion/merger
Found some titles relating to male bodies from a social and cultural perspective:
Susan BordoThe Male Body: A New Look at Men in Public and in Private
Jonathan Watson, Male Bodies: Health, Culture and Identity[30] (full text PDF!)
Emmanuel Cooper, Male Bodies : A Photographic History of the Nude
Santiago Fouz-Hernández (editor), Mysterious Skin: Male Bodies in Contemporary Cinema
As far as I can tell, there's plenty of good content in female body shape that ought to be present in body shape. Anyone have suggestions on how to go about merging content?
I commented in the #Female body shape section above; if merging goes on, then I hope it is justified and is not simply a means of making the female body shape and male body shape topics equal. They don't have the same WP:Weight. Flyer22 (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
This shouldn't even be an issue they are about two different sexes. We should be writing to inform not compare and contrast. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
No, but we should definitely write more based on comparative research. There tons of feminist scholarship that is specifically about differences in perception of female and male bodies.
We could create a draft article at Draft:Human body shape and start working on one merged article by moving content over from both. Sarah (SV)(talk) 03:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
That sounds like a good neutral approach, great idea =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
And that type of merging is exactly what I meant by my "03:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)" comment above. Female body shape is a WP:Notable topic in its own right and should have its own Wikipedia article. Male body shape? No so much, which is exactly why it is yet to have a Wikipedia article. If the topics were merged with appropriate WP:Due weight, then the article would be predominantly about female body shape in the same way that the Sexism article is predominantly about women. But to merge the articles and give them the same WP:Weight? That is not appropriate. I'm done with this discussion. I'm taking the Female body shape article off my WP:Watchlist, and I will not be looking at it again; this is all so that I don't have to witness this unjustified merging. Flyer22 (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Just don't kick this can down the road, if you see other articles bring them up here okay? Maybe there are people here who can help out more who know more on the subject. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up SlimVirgin. It is indeed quite sexist that the study of anatomy considers the male body to the the protootypical model and the female to be the male with some variations. That said I think creating a male body shape article is my preferred option, as I think both articles have enough content to justify a spinout - ie differences in anatomy, shape, structure, social perceptions, depiction in the arts, influence of identity, and history of beliefs about the body shapes over time. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Where does this end? Doesn't this open us up to pretty daft ideas such as merging Female genital mutilation with Circumcision? This stuff is not being thought through and alleged sexism is being placed ahead of many of our policies. The correlation between sexism and a gender gap hasn't even been proven, yet we are making these syntheses about things that quite possibly have only a very limited relationship.This group seems to be losing whatever path it once had. - Sitush (talk) 08:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Si has a point. I don't think merging is the way to go. Making Male body shape into a separate article would be better. There are issues that are specific to male shape, ("the ideal V shape", for example), issues specific to female shape, and issues common to both. In general it is not a good idea to try to cure the gender gap, or any other systemic bias issues, by removing information - either text or articles - from the encyclopedia. Almost always the answer is to add more in the less represented areas. --GRuban (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
We're kinda talking in absolute black/white terms here. There's plenty of content from female body shape that can be moved to or summarized in body shape, which is clearly under-developed and completely devoid of cultural history. It doesn't require a full merger, but simply ignoring the "main" article in a case like this is a bad idea. It's the typical over-specialization solution where everyone wants to work on the niches rather than tackling the more general topic.
And like I pointed out above, no one has even bothered to look for comparative research about the difference in perception of female and male bodies. Which obviously also includes ideas about body shape.
So add a Male body shape, and edit Female body shape and Body shape? I would help you with that, PI - well, a little bit, anyway. Lightbreather (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I could use some suggestions for good sources, especially the comparative feminist stuff. Female body shape is pretty well-developed, though. Is there anything in particular that needs fixing?
Peter, I only glanced at it yesterday, but one thing that jumped out was the promotion of Barbie: "The perceptions of ideal feminine measurements change over time, and currently, the American garment industry standards of beauty are size 4 hips, size 2 waist, and size 10 bust.[19] In this age of social media, women are encouraged to obtain these measurement by any means necessary."
This is sourced to some log-in page. I didn't have time to deal with it yesterday, and still don't at the moment. I would suggest removing those two sentences, as it's not clear why we would care what the American garment industry thinks, assuming an RS could be found, or how we would know that (as though everyone making clothes in the US would agree). Sarah (SV)(talk) 22:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that was not right. Removed all of it. Even if a source is behind a paywall or something like it, you have to specify it. And the claim was way too broad to begin with.
If we get into any more specific article content, we should take it up at talk:female body shape. It's on my watchlist, so if anyone raises any concerns, I'll see it and try to fix problems.
I would probably prefer adding a Male body shape article over merging Female body shape into something else (though I think the Female body shape article probably needs some attention). Years ago I had a boyfriend who was sorta into Bodybuilding, but I see that article doesn't even cover the "three body types" as they're called (for men and women) - ectomorph, mesomorph or endomorph - though it does touch on Body dysmorphic disorder, which my oldest son struggled with a little when he was a gangly teen. Lightbreather (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Tom, it's nice to see your name on this page. I was thinking of merging them into one with male and female sections, but if you and others prefer to have separate articles, that's fine. Sarah (SV)(talk) 22:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
There are enough sources to support 3 related but independent articles. They don't have to be equivalent in size. Peter has provided some sources above which should get Male Body Shape going and establish it as a notable and separate topic.Dialectric (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
There's gotta be a ton in anthropology and historic literature about male body and art. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 23:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
“I Love to You” edit-a-thon
"Feminists aim to fix the Wikipedia gender gap", The Daily W, 16 February 2015, posted by Carolmooredc to the GG mailing list, about an edit-a-thon organized by Amanda. Interesting point by Monika, co-organizer, which feeds into some of the discussion on this page: "I find that it’s really ethically hard for me to actually ask someone to volunteer their time to learn a set of rules that they may not have had any role in developing in the first place." Sarah (SV)(talk) 16:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand that comment. ANY newcomer to ANY site/project/etc is going to be asked to learn rules they didn't have any input in developing. Karanacs (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that remark was a little obscure. Perhaps it's a tactful and diplomatic way to allude to "getting caught up in learning a body of rules that is so large and complicated you never notice that very crucial and interesting redlink, until it is too late: Wikipedia:Sexual harassment policy." --Djembayz (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The whole quote and context is: "Sengul-Jones said a normal Wikipedia edit-a-thon would have more editing and less discussion. But she says that simply enlisting women to edit isn’t the solution. For real change to occur, there must be discussion.
'I find that it’s really ethically hard for me to actually ask someone to volunteer their time to learn a set of rules that they may not have had any role in developing in the first place,' Sengul-Jones said. “I think that attitude puts the burden of responsibility on them.'"
And later: "'I wanted to organize a public event that would invite conversation and critical engagement with Wikipedia and with different forms of media,' Sengul-Jones said. 'Just simply having a conversation is really valuable and important.'" Sarah (SV)(talk) 21:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm pinging Monika (sorry, I meant to do that earlier) in case she'd like to add something. I know she has written elsewhere about the issue of encouraging volunteers (free labour) to create and shape information sources. Sarah (SV)(talk) 23:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Quick note: Monika has asked the The Daily reporter to update the article with a few corrections (e.g., we started at 9:30am, some quotes were misquoted, etc.). It's really difficult to capture several weeks of planning, four presentations, and four hours of conversation and activities in a brief article. Also, please consider that we were speaking to a particular audience in a particular context.--Mssemantics (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I stopped reading at "For example, there isn’t a page for Latina or Chicana, Menking said. Instead, Wikipedia redirects to the masculine versions of these terms, Latino or Chicano." as absurd. I don't know how this would be fixable without breaking WP:NPOV do we place "Latio" or Latina" first in the title? Is there a neutral word for that group of people? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Amanda, did you really tell the journalist that we lack a feminine "page" for Latino?
I can understand the thought behind it, but it is a poor example to use. Here is a diagram on what usage in books has: [32]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
We could use that but since so few sources use the term we would have to add a footnote. Would the change just be for the title or usage in the entire article? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't know. This is the first time I've encountered that term (Latino/a). Maybe looking around on Google Books would help us to work out how common it is. Sarah (SV)(talk) 02:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Speaking from a linguistic perspective, it seems unlikely that it'll be anything near as common as "Latino". WP:COMMONNAME will most likely put a stop to any attempt to change titles like these. Words borrowed from genedered languages into non-gendered languages (grammatically speaking) will usually lead to situations like this.
I can immediately anticipate the next GG mailing list post. "As another evidence of Wikipedia's sexism, while the Chicano Wikipedia article describes both male and female Mexican-Americans, the Chicana Wikipedia article is only about females. Again, the male term is seen as the default!" --GRuban (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, good point. My experience with Spanish usage might not work for everybody. Input from the folks who specialize in the transition from gendered languages to English could be helpful here, as they have no doubt discussed all this at great length already. Anyone know where to find these discussions? --Djembayz (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
When I went back to college, my related studies was Chicana/o studies. If we are talking about culture, music, life - these are all "feminine" nouns in Spanish: la cultura, la musica, la vida, and that is reflected on the Spanish Wikipedia, where they have articles Cultura latina, Cultura de América Latina. (Oddly, "art" is masculine in the singular and feminine in the plural: el arte, las artes.) Lightbreather (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
On a related note, since we're part of the CSB project, I have curtailed my use of the words "America" and "American," as that marginalizes other inhabitants of the Americas. This was brought to my attention years ago by a woman I knew who traveled throughout the continent. Lightbreather (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I want to add, are we striving to be an encyclopedia that gores on what a majority of reliable sources say, or are we trying to be a barrier breaker and go with the minority viewpoints? Sadly there is a line, where do you want to define it? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Gores? Was that a reply to my comment about America and Americans? I'm only saying what I do, not telling others what to do. (It wasn't something I'd ever considered before my friend told me.) Lightbreather (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Im just saying in general is all. I just feel here that some of the things that may seem off-putting to woman on Wikipedia are what the culture has been accustomed to. Other things that may seem off-putting to woman may be perfectly fine for other woman. As I guy I cant stand sports but some guys love it and it has been a kind of stereotype. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
As a male Wikipedian, I'd be more careful about sharing any wisdoms about what women do or don't like here.
In this case, KnowledgeKid87 is simply echoing statements that have been made by multiple women on these pages. Perfectly appropriate. Karanacs (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Lightbreather and Djembayz made general comments about language use. And all of a sudden we're discussing people taking offense and hinting at breeches of WP:UNDUE. A tad alarmist if you ask me.
You are overthinking things here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
There were insanely long discussions (well as I remember it) years ago about the use of the word "American" on Wikipedia. I expect I stopped following, but the consensus over several different discussions is that in these sorts of things Wikipedia broadly uses words in the way they are expected, and does not indulge in novel spelling schemes, calendars, measurements or vocabularies. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 02:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC).
Zero Tolerance for Sexist Incivility?
I was trying to think of an alternative to the "women's situation room" and while this isn't really an alternative, since it's just a completely different approach I was wondering what people think of this: What if we pushed for "zero tolerance" for sexist incivility? We already have templates to warn users at various levels for incivility and if a user acquires enough of those they can get blocked or banned. What if we created special templates for sexist incivility and made the thresh-hold for a temporary block and a complete ban lower than for normal incivility? "Zero tolerance" is just the buzz word I'm using I doubt the community would go for a "one strike and your blocked" policy, that would probably seem too draconian but we might be able to say for example if normally it takes 4 warnings for incivility to get blocked then for sexist incivility it only takes two (I don't know what the actual numbers are, just trying to brainstorm). My thinking is this is analogous to hate crime laws. We put special stiff sentences on certain kinds of crimes because the crime doesn't just impact the individual but a whole community of individuals. Murdering an african american in a public way wasn't just meant to kill that person but to intimidate the entire local african american population. By the same logic we could argue for stiffer penalties for people who make sexist attacks on other editors and say those stiffer penalties are justified because as is well documented Wikipedia has a problem recruiting/retaining female editors. Besides the actual benefit in practice of cutting down on such incivility it seems to me announcing such a policy would be something the press might pick up and use to promote the idea that we are doing something to fix the problem. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
We could start with a Zero Tolerance for Sexist Incivility on this page, but I mean zero when I say zero tolerance. Sure somebody might get tossed off this page, say for two days, on a misunderstanding, but I think that would be better than the current situation. I suppose that only admins could enforce this. Is there an admin willing to do this? Would other editors on this page support that? Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Smallbones I don't see the point to that. The goal of this project is to improve the number of female editors not to make ourselves a model of good behavior. IMO, that kind of navel gazing is exactly what we should stay away from. What would that really accomplish except perhaps to get us fighting with each other over how serious something has to be to qualify for zero tolerance?
The thing I find interesting is that we already have an unwritten zero tolerance of racism, especially anything overtly so. But editors seem willing to overlook sexism, or don't even notice it. Smallbones, I wouldn't want anyone to be kicked off for a mistake, but I think (in the case of mistakes) they should be put straight if it can be done without making them feel attacked. Where it's deliberate, I think we should just archive the comment. I would like to see zero tolerance of undermining the point of the page. Sarah (SV)(talk) 05:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
If there is a new Wikipedia policy related to sexism it will need to work both ways rather than from the assumption that only men use sexist language. For instance, calling the male editors mad dogs peeing on fences, as was done by a member of this group, really did seem to be an extremely sexist remark to me. Gandydancer (talk) 09:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
There's an interesting discussion going on over at Roger Davies' Talk page regarding dealing with civility. One of the things that really resonated with me is that blocks and other punitive measures should be a last resort, not a first choice. Another thing that has really stuck with me is that Wikipedia is not the first community (online or otherwise) that has had to deal with civility issues, and Wikipedia could learn from other communities' experience.
My main concern with zero tolerance idea is that it could be used to remove participants who disagree with some of the major contributors here. Also, the bulk of disruption on this page doesn't necessarily use sexist language but is a result of low-level sniping between editors. Why not use the discretionary sanctions that are already in place for this page to deal with disruption? Ca2james (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Gandydanccer, while I agree all people should avoid sexist incivility, I also think it’s reasonable to present this as an issue disproportionally affecting women on WP given the gender gap. I think MadScientist's idea of a template which could be applied to more than just this page sounds like something that might help. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Sure, if you are one of those that believe that it actually is an issue disproportionately affecting women. I'm not. I find catty edits such as: Alialiac, I see you reverted the sentence again without hearing from BoboMeowCat (as far as I can tell). Favor, please? Could you at least put edit summaries with your edits? Lightbreather (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC) much more irritating and more likely to make me want to leave. Gandydancer (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I guess interpretation of that might depend on your history with and feelings about Lightbreather but I don't see that as overtly catty (not crazy about that term anyway). Either way, could we please move this issue and conversation beyond Lightbreather? I notice Ca2James and J3Mrs also linked to a convo about LB here, but I think the issue of sexist incivility is much more general than one editor.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
True, but I wasn't referring to who you thought, I linked to a thread but the specific diff I was referring to is here. I was trying to make general points but as you have misinterpreted I have clarified the incivility. J3Mrs (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I linked to the discussion on Roger's page because there were interesting statements about civility and blocking and other websites/groups there, not because the the first part of the discussion was about Lightbreather. I thought that when I pointed out the most interesting facts to me - which had nothing to do with any one editor - that I made this point clear, but it seems that I was incorrect about that. If I could have linked to the later part of the discussion where the focus shifted from specific editors to the general civility discussion, I would have done that. It wasn't my page, however, and so that wasn't possible.
The fact that there were statements made about Lightbreather in the early part of the discussion shouldn't diminish the interest and utility of the later statements on civility, but I have this sense that this is exactly what has happened. I have this sense that these interesting and very relevant points are being dismissed (assuming they're being read at all) because the start of the discussion was about one editor. Information is going to come from all sorts of places and not all of those places are going to be supportive, but that doesn't mean that the information is bad. Ca2james (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Ca2James and J3Mrs, my apologies for misinterpreting. I guess I just don't want the general issue of sexist incivility to get caught up in the current battle regarding Lightbreather's proposals for women's editing space etc and other ongoing battles. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
How does sexist incivility differ from any other sort? Some members of this project see any dissent or reasonable criticism on this page as incivility. Is that sexist incivility? There is an example in this recent thread here. How was it addressed? It was archived, swept under the carpet. In my book incivility is just that, it doesn't need an adjective to describe it. J3Mrs (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I haven't experienced sexist incivility, but I assume that I would be very discouraged and hurt by it. Moreso than just general snarkiness. I don't know the history of disputes here, but if anyone is subjected to demeaning or insulting comments I see no reason not to clamp down on it.
I'm really not sure what "sexist incivility" is supposed to cover, and I'm expecially not sure how a variety of admins would (or should) interpret it.
Is it sexual incivility if you imply that someone's attitudes or views are related to their sex (e.g. "male chauvinist", "macho")?
Calling someone a "bastard" is mere incivility but calling them a "male chauvinist bastard" is "sexist incivility"?
Does it mean that men can call each other names that are etymologically based on things associated with the male anatomy (e.g. "dick", "prick", "jerk") but women can't, and conversely women can call each other "bitches" but men can't?
Is "don't be a dick" sexist incivilty?
Does use of "generic he" turn simple incivility into sexist incivility?
Is it sexist incivility to accuse someone of engaging in a "pissing contest"?
As to the idea that sexist incivility is impossible to define, we can never get at a perfect definition I agree. And no two people will probably ever completely agree as to what it is and isn't. But we can certainly define it, e.g. by listing examples of insults; in fact it wouldn't surprise me if we could find some HR manual somewhere that has a pretty good definition. One of the large companies I used to work for was very progressive on helping women and taking a proactive approach to fighting sexual harrasment. They tend to define these things rigorously because they have to, if you are going to censure an employee for some behavior it helps to have that behavior rigorously defined and it also helps in case the employee tries to sue you in response. I'm still feeling a lot of fatigue after my surgery but when I have more energy I might look and see if I can find something. But in any case I don't see the big deal in a basic definition, words like "bitch", etc. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure why sexist incivility should be treated any differently from any other type of incivility. Also, is there any evidence that sexist incivility happens any more than any other type of incivility? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
This is a discussion about possible preventive measures, so I don't see how the frequency of sexist incivility is relevant. If it doesn't happen, all the better, but then I don't see the reason for questioning zero tolerance against it.
To put it in an appropriate context, compare sexist personal comments it with racist personal comments. Both are extremely hurtful and demoralizing forms of personal attacks that are also obviously harmful to collegiality and harmonious user relations.
Peter Isotalo. Exactly. A Quest For Knowledge a more relevant question would be "is there any evidence that sexist language is what causes women editors to leave?" And I haven't found any yet but I just started going over some of the background material. But even suppose we found that sexist comments didn't play a major role in causing women to leave. I think that would be highly counter intuitive and rather surprising but for the sake of argument assume it was true. I think changing the policy toward sexist comments would still be a good idea because there is a general precedent for this kinds of thing (e.g., hate crime laws, sexual harassment prevention programs in large organizations) and sometimes making a good faith effort, the act of showing a community that Wikipedia takes this issue seriously, could easily be as important as the direct actual effect of the policy change. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@MadScientistX11: OK, Is there any evidence that sexist language is what causes women editors to leave? It doesn't make sense to attempt to address problems that don't exist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Do you believe a zero tolerance approach to sexism would do anything to hurt user relations?
Absolutely. It will inevitably lead to further inter-user drama because of differing interpretations of what precisely constitutes "sexism". Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
A Quest For Knowledge, sexist language is damaging, even though we can't produce firm evidence because no survey (that I recall) has asked this kind of question. I saw an example yesterday that left me feeling discouraged about being involved with Wikipedia. For women less committed/addicted, these encounters would have a stronger effect. Ditto for women readers, who might have become editors had they not seen certain exchanges.
What I find interesting, as I said earlier, is that no one would question the importance of avoiding racist language and educating ourselves about racism to make sure we avoid it. But people take a different view of sexism. Lots of editors don't feel they should educate themselves about it or take pains to avoid it. No one would expect black editors to ignore racism, but women are expected to ignore sexism (we're expected to "grow a pair," or be less "thin-skinned") and just carry on editing. Why there is such a difference in perception about the impact of racism versus sexism? Sarah (SV)(talk) 00:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Although not directly on point, I think that part of the problem here is that the variance in what is considered a sexist insult across English-speaking cultures is much wider than the variance in racist insults. What I mean is, certain words are considered racist insults and pretty much everyone from an English-speaking background would agree; but certain words are considered sexist insults in some English-speaking cultures but not others (the classic is perhaps 'dick', which in the USA apparently can be equivalent to 'jerk', while in many other countries it refers exclusively to male genitalia; the female equivalent works the other way and is also perfectly well-known around here). I suspect that part of the reason for this is that racial-activists have been active for much longer, changing social perceptions of certain words. So perhaps the solution is a zero-tolerance approach with a subjective definition of sexist incivility (ie the one insulted gets to decide). I can't imagine it's going to be popular, though, and I'm not seriously advocating it. I'm trying to point out the depth of the difficulty. GoldenRing (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Nikkimaria I don't see how this has to lead to drama because sexist attacks are so hard to quantify. We already have templates for harassment and personal attacks. Can anyone completely define what does or doesn't constitute a "personal attack" ahead of time? Of course not, we have -- just as for many things on Wikipedia -- general guidelines that define what they are and most of the time those work but if someone objects that is part of the process, to define was what X said on talk page Y a personal attack or not? If anything I would think that sexist attacks would be easier to quantify than personal attacks which we already have a template for. BTW, I know next to nothing about these kinds of warnings but I did a bit of searching this am and I think this is what I'm essentially talking about: Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Behavior_towards_editors The more I think about it the more I think adding a template specifically for sexist attacks to this list seems like a very rational thing to do as part of the response if we are serious about actually fighting sexism on Wikipedia. I agree with SlimVirgin, it isn't a fair requirement to prove ahead of time that sexist language is a major reason that women editors leave since we don't have that kind of data at this point and it is better to do something than wait another year or two until we have better data on the causes for women editors to leave. In any case, it seems like a rather rational hypothesis and, I think Sarah said this as well, its one of those things that its hard to see a down side in. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the point of a specific template for sexist attacks. If you believe that the comment is uncivil, does it really matter if it is sexist or not? Put a general incivility warning on the user's talk page, or take them to ANI. I think this has the potential to backfire, and in a truly spectacular way. For example, at a recent ARCA, one of the arbs pointed out as a "sexist comment" that someone else had mentioned a user being "wound up" and calling an action "cute". I don't consider those comments sexist in the least. Egregious examples should be addressed, and there's no need to make a separate template for it. There is a large range below that where there is legitimate disagreement on whether its uncivil or sexist. Karanacs (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Misuse of templates is an inherent problem with all templates, but that isn't a good argument to scratch 'em. Also, anyone who feels there is no need for a sexist incivility template is free not to use it. Clearly only those who think it is useful will use it anyway, so that doesn't seem a good argument against it either. Do we need formal permission to make such a template or can someone just go ahead and make it? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
You need to get community consensus for a new template or it will be brought to MFD. Karanacs (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
MadScientistX11, just to be clear, I said that sexist language is damaging, not that I'd support a new template. Templates tend to get people riled. Sarah (SV)(talk) 20:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Avoiding just riling people seems legitimate concern. If such a template is ever made, it should definitely not be worded with accusatory text such as: "STOP! being a sexist jerk!" or anything like that, rather such a template should probably leave open the possibility of misunderstanding and simply request that the person consider that their statements might be taken as sexist incivility and to please review general civility policy.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
A sample policy: "Staff, volunteers and service users will avoid and challenge the use of language which, in any way, belittles;
i) disabled groups and/or individuals with special needs
MadScientistX11: we do indeed have templates for personal attacks, and we already have drama around that issue. Imposing a "zero tolerance" rule will only exacerbate that, as the consequences would be more significant than simply getting a template - but even getting a template will provoke disagreement. I doubt very much that it will be easier to agree on what is "sexist" than what is a "personal attack", based on the comments that some elsewhere have defined as being so - comments that I, as a woman, would never have so identified (as per Karanacs). It is very easy to see downsides in this proposal, whatever its merits may be. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree. As an example, I was once asked (where the editor knew I was a woman) when I used the term "we" just who I thought I was anyway, the Queen of England? Would this be considered sexist or not? Gandydancer (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I can see why you might think so but as a Brit, I think it refers to the royal we, maybe snarky but not sexist. That's the problem, context and understanding. J3Mrs (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm not convinced but its clear that the consensus is going against me and frankly I hate doing stuff like this anyway so I'll just drop it. This is one of the things I find so discouraging about groups like this. So many people seem more focused on poking holes in ideas rather than in actually coming up with... and more importantly actually implementing them. So there ends up being lots and lots of talk with relatively nothing substantive actually getting done. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been off-line the last few days taking care of a sick dog. However, a glance at the resulting posts above seems to indicate that there is no evidence that sexist incivility happens any more than any other type of incivility, nor is there any evidence that sexist incivility drives female editors of the site than any other type of incivility. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The encyclopedia and its readers are far better served by links to Wiktionary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
![[5]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7PkGLMCQAA3FOA.jpg){kind=link}
