On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 7:43 PM, LB <[email protected]> wrote:
> Why abandon it? Let's reclaim it. Just ignore those who try to distract > and derail. There are sanctions so no nastiness, but nastiness is not my > usual style anyway. > I don't know whether it's better to abandon, reclaim or move it. But it has been a lesson in how deep Wikipedia's sexism runs. Any journalists in future wanting examples of it need only read those archives and the dispute-resolution threads that failed to deal with it (which one of us ought to compile at some point). Marie, I saw the suggestion on GGTF that women might prefer to edit "[f]ashion, cookery, domestic affairs, childrearing". Is it worth continuing with it when that's what we have to deal with? Sarah > On Dec 30, 2014 10:25 AM, "Marie Earley" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> We're abandoning the GGTF on Wikipedia? Fair enough. >> >> It was just that I had an editor accused me of radical feminism POV >> pushing on GGTF via my talk page (I dared to say that it was "interesting" >> that the example topics that he thought women would be interested in >> editing, other than feminism, might be "*fashion, cookery, domestic >> affairs and childrearing*" rather than "*science, business, filmmaking >> or politics*"). There was then this follow-on swipe on GGTF. >> >> > "...one of the reasonable first steps toward seeing what women in >> wikipedia thinks needs to be done most would be to actively ask women who >> have self-identified as women what content of particular interest to women >> might be underrepresented or undercovered here. Those women would >> presumably be in a better position to clearly state their concerns than >> would be individuals who can only speculate on them or draw potentially >> flawed assumptions based on limited previous personal experience." >> >> So, my potentially flawed assumptions and limited previous personal >> experience are surplus to requirements at the GGTF. The plan now seems to >> go out and find answers that fit a pre-existing narrative about what is >> causing the Gender Gap. >> >> So... "I believe the Gender Gap is caused by women who want to write >> about knitting thinking that Wikipedia does not welcome articles about >> knitting." I will create a skewed survey to fit this narrative and get the >> "right kind of women" to fill it in and prove my pre-conceived notions >> correct. >> >> I really don't see the point of it. If you ask 1,000 female editors, >> "What kind of articles do you like to edit?", then you'll get 1,000 answers >> with a wide variety of topics. What would that prove? Suppose you find 90% >> of them edit traditionally feminine topics, what conclusion would you draw >> from it? Would it prove that they clearly prefer to edit those topics, or >> those are the topics that they feel less likely to encounter intimidation, >> or a combination of the two? I just think the GGTF board is currently being >> used to promote a truly pointless exercise. >> >> Marie >> >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
