Ryanno. I'm sorry, but there are very good reasons why I would not be
supporting any such initiative from you. I think you are well aware of
what they are. Frankly, some of the stuff I see being referred to as a
personal attack should get the person calling it a personal attack blocked.
Ris
What I don't understand is if administrators like Risker and Mike Peel are
so concerned about civility on Wikipedia that they object to Keliana's
swearing, why aren't they the people that are making hard blocks against
vested contributors who are unambiguously violating civility with personal
attac
Regarding "swearing is not in itself uncivil" --
I agree strongly with that sentiment. However, in group communication it
can be valuable to have clear lines that must not be crossed, in order to
keep everybody on the same page. As an analogy, it seems to me that a clear
expectation of avoiding AL
A number of us who are concerned about civility on Wikipedia do not see
swearing in and of itself as uncivil. Many people may include
professionalism and decorum under the umbrella of civility, but others do
not, and they are not hypocritical because they do not. The problem is
not the words the
>In any case, it seems like it has long been settled that the general use of
>profanity on Wikipedia is accepted but not celebrated. Only in >extreme cases
>is it considered actionable when actually directed at an individual. So it's
>hard to understand why many editors of long->tenure have reac
Context is everything. If a male editor who was previously contemptuous of
women and the idea of addressing the gender gap writes a column supposedly
celebrating women scientists with the same tone, that tone would be widely
perceived as mockery and not celebration, and that perception would almos
I think you miss my point, Slowking. It wouldn't have been published at
all if not for the author. If a man had written it, I doubt it would have
made its way out of Gamaliel's inbox. And if a man with a reputation for
negative interactions with women had written it, and somehow or other those
ali
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Risker wrote:
>
>> If exactly the same article had been written by someone who has a long
> and colourful history of behaviour considered to be very uncivil, nobody
> would be thinking it was an okay article. It's only okay because Keilana
> wrote it, it wouldn't
"the reaction would have been infinitely more severe if not for the name of
the author"
oh no, the reaction is because she is a women. commentators at signpost
care not of position, but they could be appalled that a woman is in a
position of responsibility. why waste a chance to sealion when someo
On 24 February 2016 at 13:45, Nathan wrote:
>
> Additionally, not only have I never heard "badass" used in a derogatory
> way, I've never even once heard anyone suggest that it might be used as an
> insult. In my experience it has only ever been a compliment. In the context
> of Keilana's op-ed,
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Risker wrote:
> Give me a break, Neotarf. I am critiquing the article and the decisions by
> its author and its publisher. It doesn't surprise me that having someone
> of Keilana's stature drop more f-bombs in a couple of paragraphs than I
> heard on a bus full
Hello all,
Interesting video:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGzHWmR7Un8&feature=youtu.be
--
Isla Haddow-Flood
skype: islahaddow
twitter: @havingaflood
instgram: islig
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Islahaddow
Linked in: http://za.linkedin.com/pub/isla-haddow-flood
_
Leaving aside the language issue, there's an important issue in this
article re the Gendergap. I had been under the impression that Wikipedia's
ratio of bios by gender was skewed, but overall no more skewed than the
secondary sources. That we have many gaps, male and female but, and this
could be t
On 2/24/2016 12:02 AM, Rob wrote:
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'
14 matches
Mail list logo