???? Regardless...I'm beginning to feel like I'm the only person on earth who feels having a category for "Women foo" is a good idea for the sake of women's studies and feminist studies. I find immense value in categories based around gender and ethnicity - it makes my writing and work a lot easier (as a researcher who writes about women and minorities) when working in Wikipedia and wanting to expand content about those subjects. As long as they get listed in other appropriate non-gender/non-ethnicity/non-foo categories, I think it's okay. We're not a library, we're an online collaborative encyclopedia.
Even on Wiki, I feel like one of the few people voicing my opinion about it only to get told I'm in the wrong. It's really depressing. I almost feel like a jerk for feeling that way. Go figure. -Sarah On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Akhil Mulgaonker <[email protected]>wrote: > Women are inferior to men and exterminated like ants. > > > On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 7:17 AM, Andrew Gray <[email protected]>wrote: > >> The recent discussion on this (which never really came to a clear >> consensus): >> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_101#Actresses_categorization >> >> - Andrew >> >> On 27 April 2013 01:49, Ryan Kaldari <[email protected]> wrote: >> > If people are concerned about sexism in Wikipedia categories they >> should be >> > drawing attention to edits like this: >> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Gillies&curid=19682193&diff=536982107&oldid=536980531 >> > >> > While the rest of the world is moving away from gender-specific job >> names >> > (like policeman and actress), Wikipedia is moving in the opposite >> direction. >> > That seems like a much worse problem than categorizing women as women. >> > >> > Ryan Kaldari >> > >> > >> > On 4/25/13 11:34 PM, Shlomi Fish wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:56:39 -0400 >> >> Sumana Harihareswara <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Wikimedia community member Liz Henry blogs here: >> >>> >> http://bookmaniac.org/journalists-dont-understand-wikipedia-sometimes/ >> >>> and does a little bit of digging into edit histories. >> >>> >> >>> "Just from these three samples, it does not seem that there is any >> >>> particular movement among a group of Wikipedia editors to remove women >> >>> from the “novelists” category and put them in a special women category >> >>> instead. I would say that the general leaning, rather, is to stop >> people >> >>> who would like to label women writers as women writers *in addition* >> to >> >>> labeling them as writers, claiming there is no need for Category: >> >>> American women writers at all and that it is evidence of bias to >> >>> identify them by gender. ... The sexist thing we >> >>> should be up in arms about isn’t labelling women as women! It’s the >> >>> efforts to delete entire categories (like Haitian women writers, for >> >>> example) because someone has decided that that meta-information is >> >>> unnecessary “ghettoization”..." >> >> >> >> Seems like good write-up and I tend to agree. It's too bad there was so >> >> much >> >> misunderstanding in the media about it. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Shlomi Fish >> >> >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Gendergap mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> >> >> >> -- >> - Andrew Gray >> [email protected] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> > > > > -- > *AKHIL MULGAONKER * > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > -- -- *Sarah Stierch* *Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian* *www.sarahstierch.com*
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
