Rob, Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
I think it is a good recap of the situation and I support your overall thinking. Warm regards, Sydney Sydney Poore User:FloNight Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane Collaboration On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Rob <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thank you, Pete, for the reminder about this message. There's a lot going > on this week. > > The response to the op-ed has given us a lot to think about. We expected a > strong response and some objections, but we did not anticipate anything > like this. We do want a response, and sometimes we deliberately try to > provoke a negative response if we think the issue is important, as we did > in this case. We do want to take into account the responses and consider > the reasonable ones respectfully, even if we disagree with them, while > reserving the right to respond appropriately to the responses that are > ridiculous or offensive. Many of the responses rest on premises with which > I fundamentally disagree (which I'll get to in a bit), so I doubt I will be > able to find common ground with those particular editors, unfortunately. > > The biggest impression that was made on me by these responses was > realizing how others see The Signpost. One commenter called Emily's column > “an alternative weekly-style piece”. While I take our mission and > specifically the news coverage quite seriously, I often see The Signpost as > a cheeky alternative weekly whose mission is to be edgy and provocative. > Until now, I did not realize how many people saw The Signpost not as an > edgy outsider but as a Wikimedia institution and our newspaper of record, > and feel that it has a responsibility to act more in the manner of The New > York Times than The Village Voice. I don't want The Signpost to become > stodgy or staid, but I wonder if I shouldn't take into account the views of > those editors more often. It is heartening to see how important The > Signpost is to so many editors, and I'd like to continue to be > intellectually provocative while not needlessly offending those editors. > > My main issue with the objections is that want The Signpost to be or > perceive it as only one thing. I want The Signpost to reflect the vast > diversity of people and viewpoints in Wikimedia. I want it to be able to be > more than one thing. Risker complained that we “would rather be > sensationalistic than informative”. I want it to be both. I want it to be > serious and funny, professional and irreverent, a cheerleader for Wikimedia > and a gadfly that points out its flaws. We publish anywhere from four to > twelve sections each week, from a variety of authors and viewpoints. News > is different from Traffic which is different from the Arbitration Report > which is different from whatever person is presenting their opinion in the > Op-Ed section that week. Different authors present different viewpoints and > different tones, in different ways in different pieces in different weeks. > I want to experiment with new viewpoints and new formats to supplement what > we're already doing. Perhaps this column was a failed experiment, but I > don't regret trying it because if we don't risk failure we won't be able to > improve The Signpost. > > This diversity of views and tones also applies to the issue of systemic > bias and the author herself. This was one expression, it was never intended > to be the final word on the issue of systemic bias, and there should be > room in The Signpost and in the minds of its readers for multiple ways of > dealing with that topic. This particular expression should not be expected > to reflect the entire issue or all of its advocates, and the idea that an > irreverent online column would prevent someone from attending an in person > event related to this issue or reflects on all the people participating in > the event is, frankly, baffling. > > Likewise, the author of that piece should not be limited in expressing > herself in one particular way about Wikimedia issues. There are many ways > we should be able to express how we feel about this thing that we love and > that is so important to our lives. She can be professional with her > professional dealings and also express herself in a bawdy, irreverent way > in a different context. The idea that she cannot or should not be a > multifaceted person and be able to express that is a limitation of the > imaginations of some readers, but those limitations should not be imposed > on the author herself. > > One objection we did not anticipate is the idea that this particular > expression would be seen as offensive towards the scientists discussed in > the piece. We thought it was fairly clear that this was a celebration of > the lives and work of female scientists by a feminist author. While perhaps > in some contexts “badass” might be intended as a pejorative, in the column > it is obviously used in the more widely used positive sense of that word > and no offense was intended. This is a fairly common and accepted usage. > For example, a forthcoming book from the major publisher Simon and Schuster > is called “The Bad-Ass Librarians of Timbuktu”, about saving ancient > manuscripts from Al Qaeda. As a librarian, I am not offended by this > description and I recognize it as celebratory. However, I do realize now > that some people many not wish to be described in a certain manner, and we > will discuss this internally when considering future columns describing > living individuals. > > > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Pete Forsyth <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Risker, can we just put that to the test, since at least one Signpost >> editor is a subscriber to this list, and has spoken up on this topic >> on-Wiki? >> >> Rob, could you give us an indication of whether the commentary about the >> language in Emily's post (from Risker and others) has impacted your >> thinking on the topic, and whether you think you've learned anything from >> it? (Details welcome of course, but all I'm seeking is a quick/general >> comment.) >> >> -Pete >> [[User:Peteforsyth]] >> >> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Risker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I think I've made myself clear, Pete. I don't think that anything I say >>> will make a difference, any more than anything I have ever said has changed >>> the sub-optimal behaviour of any editor who thinks it's acceptable >>> professional behaviour to cuss all over the place. I'm just really >>> disappointed that people who used to be in the "let's make this a more >>> pleasant and positive place to do our work" have gone over to the other >>> side. >>> >>> Risker >>> >>> On 21 February 2016 at 19:38, Pete Forsyth <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Risker, I want to be clear: >>>> >>>> It's not that I don't see a problem. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to >>>> your view; but I think your point has been made very strongly already, and >>>> the important audience is the Signpost editorial staff. I am confident they >>>> have heard the message, and I don't see how further discussion moves us in >>>> a better direction. The past can't be changed. I suppose the Signpost could >>>> retract the op-ed, but I rather doubt you're seeking something so >>>> extreme...or am I wrong? >>>> >>>> -Pete >>>> [[User:Peteforsyth]] >>>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Risker <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I feel very sad that you fellows don't see the problem in using this >>>>> kind of language to describe women. "Badass" isn't a compliment. After the >>>>> first two descriptions, I was fully expecting to see "brilliant >>>>> motherf***er" to describe the third one. I'm surprised it wasn't used, in >>>>> fact. >>>>> >>>>> The subjects of our articles deserve to be treated much better than >>>>> this. >>>>> >>>>> Further, I'm incredibly disappointed that this got published in The >>>>> Signpost. On Emily's own page...well, okay. But instead of drawing >>>>> attention to the women who are the subjects of the articles, almost all of >>>>> the discussion is about the language used to describe them....and pointing >>>>> out that several of them already had articles about them that were >>>>> improved, rather than that they'd not been written about at all. >>>>> >>>>> All in all, it impressed me as an island of lovely flowers in a garden >>>>> with a winter's worth of St. Bernard droppings. >>>>> >>>>> Risker >>>>> >>>>> On 21 February 2016 at 17:13, Pete Forsyth <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> +1 Ryan. >>>>>> >>>>>> This was one article, and no Wikipedians, readers, or article >>>>>> subjects were injured as a result of its publication. I don't really >>>>>> have a >>>>>> strong opinion one way or the other about whether using language in this >>>>>> way is OK. But the main lesson to me is how much the English Wikipedia >>>>>> community has come to value the Signpost as an institution. It's hard to >>>>>> imagine such any Signpost column inspiring so much passion, say, five >>>>>> years >>>>>> ago. Above all, I think this constitutes a strong endorsement of the >>>>>> general value of the Signpost. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Pete >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ryan Kaldari <[email protected] >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> The depressing thing to me is that the English Wikipedia community >>>>>>> takes all of 10 minutes to work itself into a frenzy about the use of >>>>>>> profanity in a positive, non-personal way, but if an editor on Wikipedia >>>>>>> calls a female editor a cunt, no one dares to bat an eye. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Risker <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is it a double standard? If that page hadn't been written by >>>>>>>> Keilana, would it have been published as is? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Perhaps you're right, it *is* a double standard. Just not quite >>>>>>>> the one some think it would be. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Risker/Anne >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 21 February 2016 at 08:31, Neotarf <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Op-ed about systemic bias and articles created. Interesting >>>>>>>>> double standard about profanity in the comment section. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
