At the end of this discussion is the query: > we still do not seem to have the gender split from the 2012 editor survey. > We have had excuses, promises and silences from the Foundation on this, but > no data. > > What was the gender split in the 2012 survey? Donor money paid for this > survey. Why is the information still not available, over two years after > the survey ran? > >
Are there any results at all? Is a copy of the survey available? --Thank you, Kathleen McCook On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:07 PM, George Herbert <[email protected]> wrote: > > On the plus side, discretionary sanctions... > > George William Herbert > Sent from my iPhone > > On Nov 26, 2014, at 7:36 AM, Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Carol Moore dc <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> But thank you for the good comments below mine, but must reply to your >> introductory remarks... >> >> On 11/26/2014 9:43 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: >> >> ... >> That's a slightly simplistic summary, eliding the fact that Eric C. is >> also very often non-toxic, and has a long history of collaborating in a >> very professional and respectful manner with many diverse women editors to >> bring a large number of articles to good or featured status. >> >> **He still disrupted the GGTF with his friends in order to stop it having >> an influencing in increasing civility or harassment enforcement. >> > > > That's why I agree with Newyorkbrad that he should be topic-banned from > the GGTF pages. But really, if you want to have a meaningful discussion of > this, on-wiki is not the right place, as it is with so many of these > issues. The signal-to-noise ratio is appalling, and the end result is a > waste of time. > > > >> A good number of those women spoke up for him on the Proposed Decision >> talk page. And even more women took issue with the way the gender gap is >> often framed here. >> >> *Women editors will have different views, but if the main reason they >> come is to support one or more males who call women cunts, >> > > > He didn't. I won't get into that whole long discussion here; all I had to > say about this is on the proposed decision talk page, and anyone who is > interested can read it up there. > > > >> sorry if they don't have much credibility. >> > > >> By here you mean this email list or GGTF? If you study the GGTF timeline >> and archives you'll see that some of the most rediculous proposals were >> made by males and rejected, but thrown up as "typical" of what GGTF wanted; >> there were three editors there just to harass two women editors; the >> opponents kept knocking the project and everything said by good faith >> participants to the point supporters either stopped commenting or got angry >> and told them to quit it - over and over again. >> > > > I meant both here and at the GGTF. If you have a number of very capable > women contributors – people who actually have contributed significant > amounts of quality content – saying that they can't identify with the way > the issue is being framed by the Foundation and those spearheading the > gender gap effort, then not listening and entering a dialogue with those > people is a missed opportunity. > > > >> Note also that when Eric spoke of alienating male contributors, this >> was in the specific context of affirmative actions (which even those >> proposing them warned carried a risk of provoking a backlash). Two >> arbitrators had the decency to oppose that finding of fact based on the >> omission of that context. >> >> *Yeah, a male came up with a proposal that two males had to OK and revert >> of an (alleged) female editor. That didn't fly, but we kept hearing about >> it and had to thrash the arbitrators with diffs til they realized it was a >> strawman pushed by Corbett and crew. You didn't get the memo? >> >> But the good news is if Corbett does it again, he's in trouble. I have >> predicted from the start I (and later Neotarf) would be the sacrificial >> lambs offered up to keep Corbett's supporters from going crazy if even the >> mildest of sanctions was imposed. (I've heard that ast time Corbett got a >> strong sanction several high profile admins quit, started petitions, all >> sorts of shenanigans to disrupt the project.) I still think that is so and >> told them so.... >> > > > I am a supporter of both Eric and you, inasmuch as you're both spirited > people and I didn't wish to see either of you site-banned. > > The whole thing is quite a spectacular breakdown in communication. The > term "Arbitration Committee" is really an egregious misnomer. They never > actually arbitrate: all they do is punish. > > If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. > > Commiserations. > > Best, > Andreas > > >> >> I'm using the meme "INSTITUTIONALIZED HARASSMENT AT WIKIPEDIA" - feel >> free to quote me... >> >> CM >> _____________ >> >> >> >> I do think the arbitrators should revisit Newyorkbrad's idea of a GGTF >> topic ban for Eric. (Generally, Newyorkbrad's comments in this case were >> spot-on for me throughout.) I did find some of Eric's contributions to the >> GGTF pages were excessively argumentative and confrontational, and not >> helpful. But I am very glad he is not getting banned. >> >> I do regret seeing the ban for Carol pass. >> >> Again, I would encourage people to set up their own Gendergap >> discussion site and blog off-wiki ... and also to listen to those women who >> spoke up in the case who feel that the current framing of the Gendergap >> issue does not represent them. >> >> And since I am posting here, let me remind everyone again that >> >> we still do not seem to have the gender split from the 2012 editor >> survey. We have had excuses, promises and silences from the Foundation on >> this, but no data. >> >> What was the gender split in the 2012 survey? Donor money paid for this >> survey. Why is the information still not available, over two years after >> the survey ran? >> >> It should be a really easy question to answer: x% female, y% male. >> >> Best, >> Andreas >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing >> [email protected]https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
