Is it simply impossible to start a Wikipedia project that's open to women, or people who identify as women? (I'm sorry if I don't use the correct terms, but I haven't kept up with them in recent years.)
I mean if we did it... what would the consequences be? Lightbreather On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Sarah <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
