I know you can use the "they" template to see if a user prefer "he," "she," or "they." It seems like that could be queried to find out who identifies as "she" and send out an invitation to join the women-only project... if such a thing were created. In addition, a notice could go up saying that women editors can join the project, and letting them know that to identify as women they must A) set their preference to "she," and B) swear that they are indeed a woman or identify as a woman.
Again, just brainstorming. Also, I like what Marie mentioned yesterday. It seems like we should be capturing gender info when users register, giving them the option to be public about it or not I guess. But for demographics, we ought to be capturing that data. Lightbreather On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ahh. I am not certain how "public" that particular preference is; I'm > fairly certain there's no public list. The preference was installed on all > WMF wikis at the request of projects where there is a different term for > "user" depending on the self-identified gender of the user. (For example, > the user pages of self-identified female editors on our German projects > uses the feminine term for "user".) Not quite sure what the result is on > English Wikipedia - is there a list somewhere? > > Risker/Anne > > On 31 December 2014 at 10:59, LB <lightbreath...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Well, I'm brainstorming, but yes... a project that is only open to women >> or those who identify as women. And yes, that would mean identifying (via >> one's "she edits" preference - as I know of no other ways to identify, >> right?) Hypothetically, is there anything to prevent us from doing it? >> >> (I just went and re-identified as "she edits." I had turned that off for >> a while when I first started getting harassed, but WTF. I'm tired of >> hiding. I'll bet other women are tired of hiding, too.) >> >> >> Lightbreather >> >> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Could you please clarify, Lightbreather? Do you mean a wikiproject that >>> is *only* open to women/those who identify as women? Because all >>> wikiprojects are open to all interested editors, generally speaking. >>> >>> Would that not require editors to have to publicly self-identify? How >>> would that be done? >>> >>> Risker/Anne >>> >>> On 31 December 2014 at 10:31, LB <lightbreath...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> 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 <slimvir...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 7:43 PM, LB <lightbreath...@gmail.com> 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" <eir...@hotmail.com> 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 >>>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>>>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, >>>>> please visit: >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gendergap mailing list >>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, >>>> please visit: >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gendergap mailing list >>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please >>> visit: >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please >> visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please > visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
