Nathan, While I agree I shouldn't be admonished for "being the fourth in a row" (then again, I'm biased, so take that with an entire salt shaker), I don't think Val meant to be condescending, just like I didn't mean to derail the conversation.
From, Emily On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:57 PM, Nathan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Leigh Honeywell <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Nathan <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Hi Val, >> > >> > The discussion at that point was about Internet commenters. As you may >> know, that's not quite how Wikimedia projects work, and certainly the >> discussion wasn't referring to commenters on a Wikimedia project. Emily >> can't be blamed for the discussion going off the gendergap topic. >> > >> > When you ask someone not to comment, or not to make comments that in no >> way violate any behavioral norms, you make the list a less welcoming place >> for that person and others to express themselves. Discussion on this list >> (and any Wikimedia list) should be open, and civil participants should be >> engaged and not shushed. If you want to make the argument that anonymous >> comments disproportionately affect and hurt women, and contribute to gender >> gaps in many areas of the Internet, please feel free. You'd be right to do >> so, in my opinion, and you can do that without discouraging Emily from >> posting her thoughts. >> > >> > Nathan >> >> Donning my mod hat here for a moment. >> >> Asking people to prioritize the topic of the list (addressing the >> gender gap) is not "shushing", and it is rude of you to dismiss the >> substance of Val's criticism as that. I will be placing you on >> moderation if I see anything like that again. >> >> There is always a balance to be struck between tangents and focused >> discussion. I am happy that we've had this thread to remind us all of >> what our purpose is here - to discuss solutions to the gender gap. >> >> -Leigh >> >> > > You're entitled to your opinion, Leigh, but I stand by my assessment that > by being the 4th person in a row to post about Internet commenters on a > non-Wikimedia site, Emily was not responsible for moving the topic away > from the gendergap and Val was incorrect to admonish her for doing so. > > But perhaps it's the intention that participation on this list be severely > constrained, where posters should worry after each post that they'll be > "corrected" condescendingly and / or threatened with moderation for > disagreeing with another participant. If that's the case, I for one am > happy to predict that the gendergap list will never achieve a sliver of its > goal (not that it has up til now, of course). > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
