Wow, thank you, Gillian! I just took a quick spin through both of them and they really do seem improved, especially child-free. I remember looking at it about six months ago and wincing -- as you say, it had some huge gaps. And I just looked at the history of childless and you're right, the older versions really do seem to come from a male POV --- particularly the list of famous men (and their wives) who didn't have kids.
Thank you for making them so much better :-) Sue -- Sue Gardner Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation 415 839 6885 office 415 816 9967 cell Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate On 16 October 2011 04:47, Gillian White <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear All, > > I read these articles [[Childless]] and [[Childfree]] at the beginning of > the weekend to follow up on the removal of the aforementioned pointless > lists of childless men that used to be in them. And yes, while it is a good > thing to have deleted the pointless lists, the articles were still awful. So > appalling that I have spent my weekend working on them and just wanted to > have a rant here about it (apologies in advance). Begin rant ... It says > something about our editorship that one of the most important issues for > women throughout history and across the globe - something that has caused > unspeakable suffering, is related to serious illnesses, has brought down > kingdoms, caused wars and crime, destroyed relationships, damaged national > potential etc etc - was reduced to two muddled, myopic, arrogant, ahistoric > articles largely concentrating on an option available only to a few rich, > privileged women in a few wealthy areas of the world for the last thirty > years. That is, there were two articles, with two names, both mostly about > voluntary childlessness. Thus, did the encyclopedia ignore almost every > woman on the planet over about three thousand years and all their shared and > individual experiences with controlling conception when there were/are very > few options. Reading the pair of articles was equivalent to reading an > article on "Food" dominated by content about pistachio ice cream. So, yes, > we do need more women editors! I am one of the women fortunate enough to > have had "options" but I do know, unlike apparently the original articles, > that "childfree" is not an option for most of the world and until very > recently has not been a reliable option for anyone. I also know that > childlessness matters to many people for lots of different reasons. I have > separated the content of the two articles and included some of the very > serious issues to which childlessness is related as well as tried to give > the childfree one a more global perspective. End rant. Thanks for reading. > Yes, I know the articles are not finished. I am going back to my bricklaying > now (no, really!) and trying to earn a living (but not from bricklaying). I > will return though [?] PS If you want a real heroine, read about > [[Catherine Hamlin]] who has quietly and efficiently been restoring women's > health and giving them back their lives for over fifty years. > > Gillian > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >
<<330.gif>>
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
