Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 9, Issue 5

[Gillian White]

It has been concerning me for a while reading this discussion that the
accusations rest heavily on an expectation that everyone can and should
master English (and even American English) as well as write the language in
an acceptable tone. This is a huge ask. Getting the tone right demands a
very high level of skill along with a deep knowledge of a culture.
Regardless of what you think of Beria's points, it is very unfair to demand
anyone from a non-English-speaking background to "learn English" and it is
certainly counterproductive in a global project. I admire her for continuing
to contribute but I watch with some trepidation as non-English speakers are
encouraged to "unsubscribe". Arnaud's voice was different too and it has now
apparently gone.

You might be amused by an example of how difficult getting the tone right
can be - at Wikimania, someone on stage cheerily encouraged the audience to
go out and "kick ass". Hearing this, I thought of the poor donkeys, which,
of course, is what asses are - *Equus africanus asinus - *as Wikipedia
helpfully explains. I was taken aback. Why are we being encouraged to
brutalise these poor animals? It's not only cruel, it's senseless and
inappropriate. However, being a VERY experienced English speaker, and
cross-referencing the body language against the phrase, I twigged. Aha! It's
slang for something. :) But heaven help the non-English speakers in the
audience.

My point is that here you don't have the body-language to help and we do
need other voices. "Girls" is one of the least of our problems.
Similarly, women who don't want to be "feminists" are okay too. In the first
wave, some women campaigned against getting the vote and in the second wave,
we had to cope with "Women who want to be Women". (It was a political
party). We are a contrary bunch and the issues remain difficult.

Gillian

On 2 October 2011 16:26, Sarah  wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 21:27, Nathan  wrote:
> > ... (On the other hand, people on
> > this list have a habit of using "males" to refer to men and "women" to
> > refer to women. Flip side of the same coin, perhaps?).
> >
> Interesting point, Nathan, that I hadn't noticed. But I have noticed
> the opposite on Wikipedia -- that women are often referred to as
> "females," rather than women. It reads to my eyes as though a man is
> regarded as the default human position, and a "female" is another
> version.
>
> Sarah
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 9, Issue 5

[Sarah]

On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 21:27, Nathan  wrote:
> ... (On the other hand, people on
> this list have a habit of using "males" to refer to men and "women" to
> refer to women. Flip side of the same coin, perhaps?).
>
Interesting point, Nathan, that I hadn't noticed. But I have noticed
the opposite on Wikipedia -- that women are often referred to as
"females," rather than women. It reads to my eyes as though a man is
regarded as the default human position, and a "female" is another
version.

Sarah

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Logo on WIkipedia?? Re: Wikipedia: Changing the Ratio

[Sarah]

That's a brilliant logo and great post, Amy.

Sarah

On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 21:14, Amy Senger  wrote:
> Hi Carole - I just added the Wikipedia:Change The Ratio logo to Wikicommons:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_Change_The_Ratio_Logo.jpg
> Amy
> --
> co-founder, 1X57
> www.1x57.com
> M: 202.423.6609
> T: @sengseng
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 10:09 AM,  wrote:
>>
>> Just sent out to 40 facebook friends most likely to respond at least with
>> a like.  Is the Logo on WIkicommons so I can put on my user page??  Thanks.
>>
>> On 9/30/2011 10:48 AM, Amy Senger wrote:
>>
>> Hi Folks - I just posted my thoughts on a "Change the Ratio" campaign for
>> Wikipedia, that includes a logo my company created with the design help of
>> JESS3 (who did that State of Wikipedia
>> video: http://jess3.com/the-state-of-wikipedia/).
>> In it I mention a Facebook event that I'll be promoting this weekend for
>> people to change their profile pic to the Change the Ratio logo on Ada
>> Lovelace day (one week from today, Friday Oct
>> 7): https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=154261054664442
>> I'd love to hear your thoughts/comments. There have been so many great
>> ideas generated on how to address the gendergap issue. I'd love to see more
>> people executing ideas at the grassroots level and seeing what works:)
>>
>> Best,
>> Amy
>> --
>> co-founder, 1X57
>> www.1x57.com
>> M: 202.423.6609
>> T: @sengseng
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects

[Maggie]

Marc--the women's group is not about that, that is what Gender Gap is
about. The woman's group is a place for women to discuss things
without the presence of men. It's not a group to sit around and
complain about men or Wikipedia, it's a group for women to talk freely
about these issues. I've also pointed out that this is not in
competition with Gender Gap. In fact, it links to this mailinglist in
the description. The goal of that group is to give the 9% of women a
place of their own.
--Maggie
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Women on Wikimedia group

[Lika Tika]

Hi,

This is my first time contributing to this list. First, I'd like to say that
I don't think it's inappropriate to create an optional women only space. As
Maggie mentioned, she is not interested in replacing this discussion.
Protected spaces for minorities may be useful, especially considering the
atmosphere sometimes present in this project.

I do think it's interesting that men have repeatedly told the women in this
discussion to essentially pipe down, or that they're doing things all wrong.
Not that it might not be true, but they have certainly gone about it in a
way that comes dangerously close to 'mansplaining.'

Thanks for the invite, Maggie, I'll be joining you.

Lika

On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Marc Riddell wrote:

>  on 10/1/11 7:37 PM, Maggie at rockerre...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I've created this group as a women's-only group to discuss things without
> being inhibited by a male presence,
>
> Maggie,
>
> "...inhibited by a male presence" [?] Isn't this a personal issue that, I
> hope, each person would want to address within themselves; instead of
> joining a group that merely enables & facilitates it?
>
> If the goal is to more solidly bridge the gap between the genders in the
> project - this is definitely not the way to go about it.
>
> Marc Riddell
>
>
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Women on Wikimedia group

[Risker]

On 1 October 2011 19:37, Maggie  wrote:

> I've created this group as a women's-only group to discuss things without
> being inhibited by a male presence, if anyone is interested in joining. This
> group was not created with the goal of competing with Gender Gap, more as a
> companion or a friendly place for women to discuss their views. I would
> suggest this group in addition to Gender Gap rather than an
> alternative--because there are valid opinions to be heard all over.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/womenonwikimedia
>
>

I wish you well on this Maggie.  However, I hope you won't mind if I wax
historical for a few minutes here.

Some years back, a small group of Wikipedians decided that user harassment,
particularly harassment of female users, had reached dangerous levels.
There was definitely some justification for feeling that way - several
female Wikipedians had been contacted at their places of employment, their
family members and employers had been contacted, and some of the messages
indicated the possibility of real-world, in-person stalking. Some male
Wikipedians had also had similar experiences, and found them every bit as
unsettling; however, the percentage of female administrators/users who were
affected was much, much higher, and had resulted in a significant number of
them leaving the project or having to take protective steps in their real
lives.

In any case, this small group decided to create a private mailing list/group
to brainstorm methods of dealing with these issues.  They included in their
circulation a bunch of people who'd not requested to join, and who really
paid little attention to what was going on with this group.  Ultimately, it
came to light that actions were being taken onwiki that had been discussed
on this mailing list or that of one of its subgroups, which included
administrative actions up to and including blocking accounts.  This went
very badly, as one of the accounts that got blocked turned out to be the new
pseudonymous account of a (male) editor who had been harassed in real life.
The fallout from this had some very serious effects on the reputations of
the people who had started the group, with the good faith hope of trying to
solve a problem.

I tell you this story, not to say that such groups are inherently bad, but
that the community considers them to be very much a net negative, and the
community's past experience with such lists is that they start off with good
intentions and wind up going off in tangents and trying to affect the
project in non-transparent ways.

I know, speaking as the only person who is a list administrator for every
non-public list associated directly with English Wikipedia, that there is
constant and very negative assumption that whatever is happening on private
lists is inherently anti-wiki, gossip-ridden, and potentially harmful to the
project. (When the arbcom-L list sprang a leak earlier this year, it created
a huge number of problems that still haven't been completely settled.)

So...bear this in mind. I am not saying "don't do it", just giving you some
history as to why it might create some perceptual difficulties, particularly
given the existence of a public list.

Best,

Risker
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Women on Wikimedia group

[Nathan]

A resurrection of the previous most controversial discussion topic on
this list. Personally I don't have a problem with it if women want a
women-only place to discuss gender gap issues (although there are some
immediate challenges: (1) this is the Internet, and (2) some might
argue that male/female is an incomplete gender spectrum). On the other
hand... In order to effect change and be more than an echo chamber,
you might need the other 91% of us.

~Nathan

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 9, Issue 5

[Nathan]

On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Maggie  wrote:

>snip
>
> Second, she referred to women as girls. Which, as far as I know with any
> woman, is incredibly insulting and a way of one-upping someone. I'll assume
> you are a man because your name is Rupert. I'm sure you know if another man
> called you a boy it would be emasculating. It is the same for women. It's
> also something women have battled with for years--people still call grown
> women girls, no matter how much we fight it.
>
>snip
>
> Many of the people who spend the most
> time there are those who have little to do with their time. Those who are
> busy putting flat-out porn on the site are not of the reasonable sort.
>snip
> --Maggie
>

I've always heard that one of the things that drives many people, not
just women, away from Wikipedia is the sometimes aggressive and angry
tone of discussion. I've heard a lot of people complain, even on this
list, that people make assumptions about them based on their gender,
or based on short comments misunderstood, etc. When the level of
discourse really starts to degenerate (like to accusations of lying,
or remarks like "get a fucking life"), it's an opportunity to take a
step back and get some good perspective on what the problem is and
where it comes from.  Whatever causes it on-wiki, we obviously haven't
escaped it here.

Nathan

P.S.: I often hear both men and women describe others as "boys" or
"girls" without meaning anything diminutive or emasculating, etc.
Maybe it's a regional thing; inferring an insult from it, especially
from someone from another continent raised with a different language,
is probably reading too much into it. (On the other hand, people on
this list have a habit of using "males" to refer to men and "women" to
refer to women. Flip side of the same coin, perhaps?).

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Logo on WIkipedia?? Re: Wikipedia: Changing the Ratio

[Amy Senger]

Hi Carole - I just added the Wikipedia:Change The Ratio logo to Wikicommons:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_Change_The_Ratio_Logo.jpg

Amy
-- 
*
co-founder, 1X57
www.1x57.com 
M: 202.423.6609
T: @sengseng 
*
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 10:09 AM,  wrote:

>  Just sent out to 40 facebook friends most likely to respond at least with
> a like.  Is the Logo on WIkicommons so I can put on my user page??  Thanks.
>
> On 9/30/2011 10:48 AM, Amy Senger wrote:
>
> Hi Folks - I just posted my thoughts on a "Change the Ratio" campaign for
> Wikipedia,
> that includes a logo my company created with the design help of JESS3 (who
> did that State of Wikipedia video:
> http://jess3.com/the-state-of-wikipedia/).
>
>  In it I mention a Facebook event that I'll be promoting this weekend for
> people to change their profile pic to the Change the Ratio logo on Ada
> Lovelace day (one week from today, Friday Oct 7):
> https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=154261054664442
>
>  I'd love to hear your thoughts/comments. There have been so many great
> ideas generated on how to address the gendergap issue. I'd love to see more
> people executing ideas at the grassroots level and seeing what works:)
>
>  Best,
> Amy
> --
> *
> co-founder, 1X57
> www.1x57.com 
> M: 202.423.6609
> T: @sengseng 
>
>  *
>
>
*

*
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] Fwd: [wmau:members] Grant to improve the lift of women in the ACT

[Laura Hale]

Forwarding this along in relation to the original post I made in terms of
ideas and if anyone is interested in working on this or has other ideas. :)

-- Forwarded message --
From: Laura Hale 
Date: Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: [wmau:members] Grant to improve the lift of women in the ACT
To: "Ms. Anne Frazer"  memb...@wikimedia.org.au
Cc: Leigh Blackall 




On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Ms. Anne Frazer wrote:

> **
> This is good news. And of course this is an excellent opportunity to avail
> ourselves of funding that is on offer to promote female participation - as
> an unshackled open approach to sharing knowledge. We shouldn't need to
> incarcerate women's thinking into any one particular pathway or content.
> That the grants emanate from ACT is indeed a good opportunity to advantage
> our northern sisters and brothers. Your idea needs a commitment from a group
> of women and men reading this (or who know someone who might like to help)
> and to begin by coordinating it through one volunteer who would like to get
> this up and running.
> Anne
>
>
I was trying to think of things that could be done to generally meet this
grant and work with existing goals.  My initial thought was some scanning
related project related to women's rights in Australia and possibly working
with the National Library and contacts there to do that.  I just don't know
if that could be argued as a way to help improve the lives of local women.

My next thought was we could try to work with an international student
department at either the University of Canberra, Australian National
University, CIT or ADFA to develop a textbook aimed at female international
and aboriginal students who move to the territory to attend university.  The
purpose of the textbook would be to provide a female specific guide for
issues upon arrival, things like visas, getting care specific to being
female, how to be safe in the city, how to socialise, customs that may be
different than other countries,  The book could possibly be developed in
multiple languages, by trying to find bilingual female students who could
write a version for their native language.

This could be done on something like wikibooks.
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Auxiliares_de_Conversación,_Language_and_Culture_Assistants_in_Spain_Survival_Guideappears
to be some what similar in terms of scope.  Ask for something like
$3,000 to $5,000 with $1,000 for printing costs, $2,000 for staff training
and incentives to contribute to the development of the book, $2,000 for
recruiting local female international students to contribute and incentivise
them to contribute.

If something like that could be done successfully, then it could be done a
as a model for other universities around Australia.  It would also help with
some of goals as they pertain to LangCom with developing materials in other
languages.

It just isn't something I would be peachy keen to do on my own.



-- 
twitter: purplepopple
blog: ozziesport.com




-- 
mobile: 0412183663
twitter: purplepopple
blog: ozziesport.com
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Women on Wikimedia group

[Marc Riddell]

on 10/1/11 7:37 PM, Maggie at rockerre...@gmail.com wrote:

I've created this group as a women's-only group to discuss things without
being inhibited by a male presence,

Maggie,

"...inhibited by a male presence" [?] Isn't this a personal issue that, I
hope, each person would want to address within themselves; instead of
joining a group that merely enables & facilitates it?

If the goal is to more solidly bridge the gap between the genders in the
project - this is definitely not the way to go about it.

Marc Riddell


___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] Women on Wikimedia group

[Maggie]

I've created this group as a women's-only group to discuss things without
being inhibited by a male presence, if anyone is interested in joining. This
group was not created with the goal of competing with Gender Gap, more as a
companion or a friendly place for women to discuss their views. I would
suggest this group in addition to Gender Gap rather than an
alternative--because there are valid opinions to be heard all over.

http://groups.google.com/group/womenonwikimedia

--Maggie
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] Occupy Wall Street

[Sarah Stierch]

A conversation taking place on this articles talk page about a photo of a
topless woman:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street#Bare-breast_photo

This is interesting to me because it's something happening *right
now*(seriously, four blocks from my apartment people are camping out!)
and there
are some unsigned contributions by readers involved and a discussion about
shock value.

-Sarah Stierch


-- 
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia 
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Art
and
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
--
http://www.sarahstierch.com/
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Grants related to women

[Béria Lima]

>
> *Béria, do you think exploring grants like the one linked to is something
> people involved with this list should be doing?  *
>

Yes. I - personally - don't see a problem with that. Their idea is "improve
the status of ACT women." I do think is a bit limited for us - since they
mention the geography region for the actions, but I think we definitely
should try it :)

*Béria, do you have ideas as to what could be proposed to try to get some of
> these grants?*


I'm a complete dumb when comes to Australia culture, so I might not be the
best person to ask to it :) But maybe some GLAM activities for Woman, or
some conference (or mini conference) about Wikipedia, maybe an outreach
action... Again, I'm not the best one to say you what to do, but if you
decide what you want to do and need help you can count with me :)
_
*Béria Lima*
Wikimedia Portugal 
(351) 963 953 042

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre
acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a
fazer.*


On 1 October 2011 23:47, Laura Hale  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Béria Lima wrote:
>
>> Laura  - and I'm sorry if you did that already - but is not a good idea
>> send that to WMAU mailing list?
>>
>>
>>
> I have already done that, with a version that asked less "How can we engage
> women and should WMF be looking to try to do this sort of work? Should we be
> looking for grants?" with more specific questions.  Hence, I didn't include
> them on the string.
>
>
> Béria, do you think exploring grants like the one linked to is something
> people involved with this list should be doing?  Béria, do you have ideas
> as to what could be proposed to try to get some of these grants?
>
>
> --
> twitter: purplepopple
> blog: ozziesport.com
>
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Grants related to women

[Laura Hale]

On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Béria Lima  wrote:

> Laura  - and I'm sorry if you did that already - but is not a good idea
> send that to WMAU mailing list?
>
>
>
I have already done that, with a version that asked less "How can we engage
women and should WMF be looking to try to do this sort of work? Should we be
looking for grants?" with more specific questions.  Hence, I didn't include
them on the string.


Béria, do you think exploring grants like the one linked to is something
people involved with this list should be doing?  Béria, do you have ideas as
to what could be proposed to try to get some of these grants?


-- 
twitter: purplepopple
blog: ozziesport.com
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Grants related to women

[Béria Lima]

Laura  - and I'm sorry if you did that already - but is not a good idea send
that to WMAU mailing list?
_
*Béria Lima*
Wikimedia Portugal 
(351) 963 953 042

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre
acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a
fazer.*


On 1 October 2011 23:27, Laura Hale  wrote:

> The state I live in in Australia is offering $100,000 worth of grant money
> to improve the quality of life for local women.  Details are available at
> http://www.dhcs.act.gov.au/women/grants_and_scholarships .  The money is
> for one off programs, with a maximum of $25,000 available.
>
> Should members of this list, local chapters and the WMF be looking to apply
> for these types of grants? Is there any opportunity to apply for grants like
> this which would help with goals WMF related goals, help in the development
> of relationships like WMF has with GLAMs, with the idea of increasing female
> participation or improving female related content on Wikipedia?  What sort
> of activities could be done if this was an area that people thought was
> valuable and an idea worth exploring?
>
> --
> twitter: purplepopple
> blog: ozziesport.com
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] Grants related to women

[Laura Hale]

The state I live in in Australia is offering $100,000 worth of grant money
to improve the quality of life for local women.  Details are available at
http://www.dhcs.act.gov.au/women/grants_and_scholarships .  The money is for
one off programs, with a maximum of $25,000 available.

Should members of this list, local chapters and the WMF be looking to apply
for these types of grants? Is there any opportunity to apply for grants like
this which would help with goals WMF related goals, help in the development
of relationships like WMF has with GLAMs, with the idea of increasing female
participation or improving female related content on Wikipedia?  What sort
of activities could be done if this was an area that people thought was
valuable and an idea worth exploring?

-- 
twitter: purplepopple
blog: ozziesport.com
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 9, Issue 12

[Maggie]

@Beria

Oh my god, feminism is all about being equal--it's called egalitarianism.

I've been "attacking" or "ganging up" on you because you were rude, sexist,
and said things that made me extremely angry. I don't really care about the
OP's post to be honest--and I didn't agree with all of it. But this is about
what you said. It made me angry. It made me angry that a woman said
this--effectively saying that because women are not readily visible in these
issues, their opinions are invalid. That was how I understood it. And how
you personally feel on the issue is irrelevant. JUST because a  woman is not
commenting on an issue doesn't mean she isn't offended by it. There are only
9% of women on WP after all. Perhaps women don't mind, but there is not an
appropriate representation of the real-world population of women, and you
are saying because the 9% of women in the minority are not "screaming to
tear apart images" then obviously women are not against it. What an ignorant
assumption. That is ignoring any opinion of any woman who uses WP.

Then the irony of it all--several men tell me to calm down in a matter of
ways.

I could also say more things about anti-feminist women, and how they always
behave the same way--but I won't stuff your mailboxes with anymore of this.
Just remember, men: when a woman is offended by something she's allowed to
voice those complaints, and it doesn't have to be productive by your
standards.

--Maggie

Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 21:50:47 +0100
> From: B?ria Lima 
> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 9, Issue 3
> To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
>
> Message-ID:
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Please see Theo's post in answer to one of yours. And read my mails. I'm
> not
> sexist. Not towards mans, not towards womans as well. I'm NOT a feminist,
> true, but I'm not paternalist as well, I believe we all should be equals
> and
> be threaded that way.
>
> You really should read my mail again, I have the feeling that you didn't
> understand a bit of what I said since you continue to "give me" ideas I do
> not subscribe at all.
>
> PS.: Would be good if you keep the name of the treads you're answering.
> Answer to "Digest" mails break the treads and makes everything a mess.
> _
> *B?ria Lima*
> Wikimedia Portugal 
> (351) 963 953 042
>
> *Imagine um mundo onde ? dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> livre
> acesso ao somat?rio de todo o conhecimento humano. ? isso o que estamos a
> fazer.*
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Sue's new blog

[Béria Lima]

No, I shared a post with my opinion in the subject. Kaldari didn't asked me
to explain why Sue is a liar, he asked me  - And I quoting - "Would you like
to elaborate?"

That can be read in many ways. I read as a ask for read my opinion, but you
-  apparently - read as a "prove" that Sue was lying.

And as for google, If you google "auto-felatio" "suck my own cock" "suck my
dick" or whatever variation you can think of, you still knows exactly what
you getting, so that does not annul my point, only proves it.
_
*Béria Lima*
Wikimedia Portugal 
(351) 963 953 042

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre
acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a
fazer.*


On 1 October 2011 16:24, Sarah Stierch  wrote:

> Beria - I presume you're asking me?
>
> You shared a post "replying" to Kaldari asking you to explain you think Sue
> Gardner is a liar.
>
> And The only thing I got out of it is that we have a collection of
> photographs of men sucking their own penises on Commons.  I was also testing
> Google - they say that a large amount of visitors read that page a month,
> and surely most of them probably don't search for "auto-fellatio" when
> looking for that content of men pleasuring themselves. So, I googled
> "sucking my own cock" since I presume a lot of men Google that content when
> trying to figure out how to do so, what it looks like, etc.
>
> When I was in high school boys used to joke about being able to do it. This
> was before Google existed. So I was just using past experiences to see how
> someone would stumble across the "auto-fellatio" page without typing
> "auto-fellatio".
>
> Other than that, I never figured out why you think Sue Gardner is a liar.
>
> I'm laughing that I just re-explained that, heh, but I hope it helps,
>
> -Sarah
>
> _
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Sue's new blog

[Béria Lima]

No, I shared a post with my opinion in the subject. Kaldari didn't asked me
to explain why Sue is a liar, he asked me  - And I quoting - "Would you like
to elaborate?"

That can be read in many ways. I read as a ask for read my opinion, but you
-  apparently - read as a "prove" that Sue was lying.

And as for google, If you google "auto-felatio" "suck my own cock" "suck my
dick" or whatever variation you can think of, you still knows exactly what
you getting, so that does not annul my point, only proves it.
_
*Béria Lima*
Wikimedia Portugal 
(351) 963 953 042

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre
acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a
fazer.*


On 1 October 2011 16:24, Sarah Stierch  wrote:

> Beria - I presume you're asking me?
>
> You shared a post "replying" to Kaldari asking you to explain you think Sue
> Gardner is a liar.
>
> And The only thing I got out of it is that we have a collection of
> photographs of men sucking their own penises on Commons.  I was also testing
> Google - they say that a large amount of visitors read that page a month,
> and surely most of them probably don't search for "auto-fellatio" when
> looking for that content of men pleasuring themselves. So, I googled
> "sucking my own cock" since I presume a lot of men Google that content when
> trying to figure out how to do so, what it looks like, etc.
>
> When I was in high school boys used to joke about being able to do it. This
> was before Google existed. So I was just using past experiences to see how
> someone would stumble across the "auto-fellatio" page without typing
> "auto-fellatio".
>
> Other than that, I never figured out why you think Sue Gardner is a liar.
>
> I'm laughing that I just re-explained that, heh, but I hope it helps,
>
> -Sarah
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 4:46 AM, Béria Lima wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry but whatever you took before write that mail I didn't,
>> therefore, I didn't understand a word. Can you explain yourself?
>> _
>> *Béria Lima*
>> Wikimedia Portugal 
>> (351) 963 953 042
>>
>> *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
>> livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que
>> estamos a fazer.*
>>
>>
>> On 30 September 2011 14:27, Sarah Stierch wrote:
>>
>>> Well, at least this confirms that there are a 14 photos of dudes getting
>>> their *own* rocks off on Commons! Thank god!  (Oh...speaking of
>>> permissions...)
>>>
>>> You also have to scroll down a bit in Google search before you come
>>> across the article after searching "sucking your own cock". The fact that
>>> the search finds that page based on one of my favorite films, Clerks, is
>>> rather funny.
>>>
>>> Wait, where is Sue a liar?
>>>
>>> -Sarah
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:49 AM, Béria Lima wrote:
>>>

 http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-September/069078.html
 _
 *Béria Lima*
 Wikimedia Portugal 
 (351) 963 953 042

 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
 livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que
 estamos a fazer.*


 On 30 September 2011 00:37, Ryan Kaldari wrote:

> **
> Would you like to elaborate?
>
> Ryan Kaldari
>
>
> On 9/29/11 4:35 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
>
> I think it works both ways: There you might get stomped on by people
> who disagree with the lies Sue told in the post, and here I will be stomp 
> up
> for even mentioned that she did lied in that blog post.
>
> Safe environment do not exist in this case. Is safeR for supports to
> come here, and safeR for opposers to go there. That does not make any list
> safe, only shows that the POV here is different than the POV there.
> _
> *Béria Lima*
> Wikimedia Portugal 
> (351) 963 953 042
>
> *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que
> estamos a fazer.*
>
>
> On 30 September 2011 00:25, Sarah Stierch wrote:
>
>> I'm sure there are some people on this mailing list who also disagree
>> as well! We try to provide a safe haven for discussion about sensitive
>> topics.
>>
>> But, if any of us spoke up on Foundation-L we'd be risking getting
>> torn up by often heavily opinionated Foundation-L subscribers, and it 
>> gets
>> really tiring :( It is also nice to have a change in opinion - for those 
>> who
>> dislike the post, there are also many of that support it. Thanks for
>> bringing up that a different type of conversation is taking place on
>> Foundation-L! I've been following it.
>>
>> -Sarah
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 a

Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 9, Issue 3

[Béria Lima]

Please see Theo's post in answer to one of yours. And read my mails. I'm not
sexist. Not towards mans, not towards womans as well. I'm NOT a feminist,
true, but I'm not paternalist as well, I believe we all should be equals and
be threaded that way.

You really should read my mail again, I have the feeling that you didn't
understand a bit of what I said since you continue to "give me" ideas I do
not subscribe at all.

PS.: Would be good if you keep the name of the treads you're answering.
Answer to "Digest" mails break the treads and makes everything a mess.
_
*Béria Lima*
Wikimedia Portugal 
(351) 963 953 042

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre
acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a
fazer.*


On 1 October 2011 18:47, Maggie  wrote:

> @Beria
> Yes I know that the 9% is women on WP. I referred to that in my post. It
> doesn't matter if you are also a woman. Women can be sexist against their
> own gender. It happens a lot.
>
> ---Maggie
>
>
>
>> Message: 4
>> Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 15:26:17 +0100
>> From: B?ria Lima 
>> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 8, Issue 76
>> To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
>>
>>
>> Do you actually know that the 9% I reffer is the study who shows that only
>> 9% of wp users are female, right? Because for your answer I don't quite
>> think you did.
>>
>> And I'm here because I'm a woman and a wikipedian. I'm sorry if I don't
>> felt
>> under group pression and thinks exactly like you do.
>>
>> _
>> *B?ria Lima*
>> Wikimedia Portugal 
>> (351) 963 953 042
>>
>> *Imagine um mundo onde ? dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
>> livre
>> acesso ao somat?rio de todo o conhecimento humano. ? isso o que estamos a
>> fazer.*
>>
>>
>>
>>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 9, Issue 5

[Sarah]

On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 14:43, Theo10011  wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 2:05 AM, Sarah  wrote:
>
>>
>> Theo, the purpose of this list is how to increase female participation in
>>> Wikimedia projects. It is a tiny corner of the project that we have tried to
>>> keep focused, and if we lose that focus, we will lose subscribers.
>>>
>>
> I understand Sarah, and I meant nothing personal by what I said. I wish
> everyone the best in trying to find solutions to this real problem.
>
> What I did have a problem with was people ganging up and being uncivil to
> someone I, and a lot of people consider a friend. Someone who might be harsh
> and opinionated at times, and didn't particularly pick up all the subtle
> references and jibes directed towards her.
>
> With that said, I respect you and Pete a lot and will try my best to
> refrain from commenting on this issue and resorting to any polemics.
>
> I hope you understood my position on this, again, I meant nothing personal.
> I wish everyone nothing but the best in tackling this issue.
>
> Regards
> Theo
>

Thanks, Theo. I do understand your position, and your response is
appreciated.

Sarah
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 9, Issue 5

[Theo10011]

On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 2:05 AM, Sarah  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 14:25, Theo10011  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>>
>>> --- On *Sat, 1/10/11, Theo10011 * wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sarah, I am not sure what you've been trying to say lately[2].
>>>
>>> Rest assured that it made perfect sense to others. ;)
>>>
>>>
>> Wonderful, now I can finally sleep in peace knowing that it made sense to
>> you.
>>
>> One of these days, I do wish to possess the keen intellect and cultural
>> outlook to see how googling "sucking my own cock" or the search relevance
>> for auto-fellatio pertained to the discussion[1][2] but that just might be
>> me. Since that is all I saw in response to a link to a post on Foundation-l.
>>
>> Regards
>> Theo
>>
>> Theo, the purpose of this list is how to increase female participation in
>> Wikimedia projects. It is a tiny corner of the project that we have tried to
>> keep focused, and if we lose that focus, we will lose subscribers.
>>
>
I understand Sarah, and I meant nothing personal by what I said. I wish
everyone the best in trying to find solutions to this real problem.

What I did have a problem with was people ganging up and being uncivil to
someone I, and a lot of people consider a friend. Someone who might be harsh
and opinionated at times, and didn't particularly pick up all the subtle
references and jibes directed towards her.

With that said, I respect you and Pete a lot and will try my best to refrain
from commenting on this issue and resorting to any polemics.

I hope you understood my position on this, again, I meant nothing personal.
I wish everyone nothing but the best in tackling this issue.

Regards
Theo
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 9, Issue 5

[Pete Forsyth]

On Oct 1, 2011, at 1:25 PM, Theo10011 wrote:

> Wonderful, now I can finally sleep in peace knowing that it made sense to you.

Theo..please calm down. Plenty of us read and understand Sarah's posts, plenty 
of us read and understand your posts. This is not "us vs. them." If you're 
feeling worked up about this, it might not be the best time to post to the 
list. Heavy sarcasm on a public list is rarely helpful.

-Pete


___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 9, Issue 5

[Sarah]

On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 14:25, Theo10011  wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> --- On *Sat, 1/10/11, Theo10011 * wrote:
>>
>>
>> Sarah, I am not sure what you've been trying to say lately[2].
>>
>> Rest assured that it made perfect sense to others. ;)
>>
>>
> Wonderful, now I can finally sleep in peace knowing that it made sense to
> you.
>
> One of these days, I do wish to possess the keen intellect and cultural
> outlook to see how googling "sucking my own cock" or the search relevance
> for auto-fellatio pertained to the discussion[1][2] but that just might be
> me. Since that is all I saw in response to a link to a post on Foundation-l.
>
> Regards
> Theo
>
> Theo, the purpose of this list is how to increase female participation in
> Wikimedia projects. It is a tiny corner of the project that we have tried to
> keep focused, and if we lose that focus, we will lose subscribers.
>

Sarah
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 9, Issue 5

[Theo10011]

On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> --- On *Sat, 1/10/11, Theo10011 * wrote:
>
>
> Sarah, I am not sure what you've been trying to say lately[2].
>
> Rest assured that it made perfect sense to others. ;)
>
>
Wonderful, now I can finally sleep in peace knowing that it made sense to
you.

One of these days, I do wish to possess the keen intellect and cultural
outlook to see how googling "sucking my own cock" or the search relevance
for auto-fellatio pertained to the discussion[1][2] but that just might be
me. Since that is all I saw in response to a link to a post on Foundation-l.

Regards
Theo

[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-October/001675.html
[2]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-September/001650.html
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 9, Issue 5

[Andreas Kolbe]

--- On Sat, 1/10/11, Theo10011  wrote:

Sarah, I am not sure what you've been trying to say lately[2]. 
Rest assured that it made perfect sense to others. ;)
A.___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Gender neutrality template

[Daniel and Elizabeth Case]

  I love the idea of having articles of gender concern in a one stop shopping 
space. Going through the NPOV collection is long, painful and is filled with 
lots of advertising articles for tech companies. Blarg

  -Sarah

 I agree with a gender-specific tag as well. NPOV is (by design) vague and, 
to me, not quite the fit we need as it is best applied to allegedly non-neutral 
use of language (in obvious cases of POV language, I just fix it ... there's no 
need to discuss). We ourselves already have {{globalize}}

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Globalize

  for the situation of articles reflecting only the experience of one 
particular region of the world or country. I don't see why gender bias couldn't 
be addressed the same way.

  Daniel Case___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 8, Issue 76

[Ralph Teckentrup]

Dear Béria,

you seem to answer to me? I did not use caps and big letters. And I honestly
don't want to offend anyone. I only wanted to bring to your attention that
your posts are perceived by some as quite aggressive in tone. It is not
helpful to call someone a liar but refuse to explain where the lies are. It
is not helpful to call other people ass lickers and it is not at all helpful
to claim that offending others is not bothering you. I appreciate your
Wikipedia work but I very much loath your behavior on this list. As Theo
wrote you are known as a sociable and competent Wikipedian but it may be
that some topics make you a bit impatient. I definitely have the same
problem with other topics.

To be fair I have to say that today I read posts from other persons too,
which were on the offensive side...

I think this will be my third and last post in this matter because I usually
don't like posting when I have nothing constructive to say.

Regards

Ralph







Von: gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] Im Auftrag von Béria Lima
Gesendet: Samstag, 1. Oktober 2011 21:04
An: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
Betreff: Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 8, Issue 76

Caps and big letters in internet language means you're screaming. I'm not
deaf, and even if I was, I'm - Thanks God - not listening you. So again, as
they say in portuguese: "A porta da rua é a serventia da casa" <- use g
translate.

Your offenses, like Maggie, means nothing to me. IF you had a bit of
education - not to much to ask - we could talk. Since you dont...
_
Béria Lima
Wikimedia Portugal
(351) 963 953 042

Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre
acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a
fazer.

On 1 October 2011 19:39, Ralph Teckentrup  wrote:
Béria,
 
every single post from you to this list or the foundation list was rude,
impolite, disrespectful and sometimes openly aggressive. You never explained
what the alleged “lies” are, you called other people ass kissers and so on.
Could you please behave in a manner that makes it possible to read this list
without distaste?
 
Regards
 
Ralph – who usually doesn’t contribute to this list
 
Von: gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] Im Auftrag von Béria Lima
Gesendet: Samstag, 1. Oktober 2011 18:39
An: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
Betreff: Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 8, Issue 76
 
Ok. I said to myself that I would not answer that personal attack, but seens
that you people want to. So lets go answer your "questions" Ms. Maggie
(sorry if is offensive not threat you for your last name, but you never said
it, so). I do should advice that my politeness will not be present in this
mail, so if someone get offended, I'm sorry.
I'm not clear what point you are trying to prove, other than the 9% of
"girls'" voices don't matter. I also find it questionable that you refer to
women as girls and don't hesitate ponder why you don't call men boys.

First, you need to read my mail again. I never said female voices does not
matter. Read again and them come back to talk. And I do reffer man as boys
as well, If you knew me a bit more you would know that.
Many women, like myself, get driven off of WP due to frustration with the
hierarchy, which does exist. Women are treated with less respect, women are
questioned for their motives, women are called prudish if they object to
sexualizing images--or they are told their voices are not important because
they only comprise 9% of the population.

I'm a woman (or girl) and a Wikipedian for 5 years. I know exactly how we
are treated there. And the funny part of it, is that you are complaining
that they question your motives, but you have no problems questioning mine.
Funny how is easy to do when is not with you right?
Why do you think they only comprise 9% then?

Your hero Sue wrote a post about that in November. Read it.
My goal on WP is to make it more diverse, and TBH I'm not too into this
picture discussion that has gone on for months. But it doesn't mean that it
doesn't matter or it isn't an important one, and it doesn't mean that the
women who care about it aren't important.


So if you are about make it more diverse you should not be trying to push
people away. Remember that girls are only 9% of us, and even the ones who
don't agree with you are important.
Offense is not the reason here, IMO. Offense barely scratches the surface. I
can imagine that many of the people on this list are angry--they are angry
that women are being objectified and because women are in the minority on
the community and it's an uninviting, sometimes terribly creepy atmosphere,
their voices do not matter. As for badly written? My god that is the worst
you can say? In writing terms that is just snide and a low blow. Basically,
only someone who can think of no other insult would

Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 8, Issue 76

[Béria Lima]

>
> *Beria, to be part of this list no one has to be an "ass-kisser," but we
> do have to be civil and respectful of each other's (reasonable) positions.
> *


So respect mine :D Not to much to ask for.
_
*Béria Lima*
Wikimedia Portugal 
(351) 963 953 042

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre
acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a
fazer.*


On 1 October 2011 19:46, Sarah  wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 10:39, Béria Lima  wrote:
> > Why? Because I don't kiss Sue's ass? To "be part of the group" I need to
> > soulless ass-kisser? [snip]
> >
> >> ---so why are you subscribing???
> >
> > Because I want to. Is a open list, and I want to be here, If you have a
> > problem with my presence, unsubscribe.
> >
> > _
> > Béria Lima
> > Wikimedia Portugal
> > (351) 963 953 042
> >
> Beria, to be part of this list no one has to be an "ass-kisser," but
> we do have to be civil and respectful of each other's (reasonable)
> positions.
>
> Given that the list exists to discuss why women might feel
> uncomfortable editing Wikipedia, or posting to its other mailing
> lists, it would be unfortunate if the same atmosphere were to be
> transported to this list too.
>
> The onus is on every subscriber to try to make sure this is a place
> women feel comfortable. Maybe that's an unrealistic goal on a public
> mailing list, but we can definitely try.
>
> Sarah
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 9, Issue 6

[Theo10011]

On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 11:25 PM, Maggie  wrote:

>
> Also, Peter, when a person is offended by something someone else has said
> and you don't understand it---it's probably best not to comment on it.
>
>
I am offended by something you said, somewhere, please don't comment on it.
(WP:BEANS)

Theo
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 8, Issue 76

[Béria Lima]

Caps and big letters in internet language means you're screaming. I'm not
deaf, and even if I was, I'm - Thanks God - not listening you. So again, as
they say in portuguese: "A porta da rua é a serventia da casa" <- use g
translate.

Your offenses, like Maggie, means nothing to me. IF you had a bit of
education - not to much to ask - we could talk. Since you dont...
_
*Béria Lima*
Wikimedia Portugal 
(351) 963 953 042

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre
acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a
fazer.*


On 1 October 2011 19:39, Ralph Teckentrup  wrote:

> Béria,
>
> ** **
>
> every single post from you to this list or the foundation list was rude,
> impolite, disrespectful and sometimes openly aggressive. You never explained
> what the alleged “lies” are, you called other people ass kissers and so on.
> Could you please behave in a manner that makes it possible to read this list
> without distaste?
>
> ** **
>
> Regards
>
> ** **
>
> Ralph – who usually doesn’t contribute to this list
>
> ** **
>
> *Von:* gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
> gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] *Im Auftrag von *Béria Lima
> *Gesendet:* Samstag, 1. Oktober 2011 18:39
> *An:* Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
> *Betreff:* Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 8, Issue 76
>
> ** **
>
> Ok. I said to myself that I would not answer that personal attack, but
> seens that you people want to. So lets go answer your "questions" Ms. Maggie
> (sorry if is offensive not threat you for your last name, but you never said
> it, so). I do should advice that my politeness will not be present in this
> mail, so if someone get offended, I'm sorry.
>
> *I'm not clear what point you are trying to prove, other than the 9% of
> "girls'" voices don't matter. I also find it questionable that you refer to
> women as girls and don't hesitate ponder why you don't call men boys.*
>
>
> First, you need to read my mail again. I never said female voices does not
> matter. Read again and them come back to talk. And I do reffer man as boys
> as well, If you knew me a bit more you would know that.
>
> *Many women, like myself, get driven off of WP due to frustration with the
> hierarchy, which does exist. Women are treated with less respect, women are
> questioned for their motives, women are called prudish if they object to
> sexualizing images--or they are told their voices are not important because
> they only comprise 9% of the population*.
>
>
> I'm a woman (or girl) and a Wikipedian for 5 years. I know exactly how we
> are treated there. And the funny part of it, is that you are complaining
> that they question your motives, but you have no problems questioning mine.
> Funny how is easy to do when is not with you right?
>
> *Why do you think they only comprise 9% then?*
>
>
> Your hero Sue wrote a post about that in November. Read it.
>
> *My goal on WP is to make it more diverse, and TBH I'm not too into this
> picture discussion that has gone on for months. But it doesn't mean that it
> doesn't matter or it isn't an important one, and it doesn't mean that the
> women who care about it aren't important.
> *
>
>
> So if you are about make it more diverse you should not be trying to push
> people away. Remember that girls are only 9% of us, and even the ones who
> don't agree with you are important.
>
> *Offense is not the reason here, IMO. Offense barely scratches the
> surface. I can imagine that many of the people on this list are angry--they
> are angry that women are being objectified and because women are in the
> minority on the community and it's an uninviting, sometimes terribly creepy
> atmosphere, their voices do not matter. As for badly written? My god that is
> the worst you can say? In writing terms that is just snide and a low blow.
> Basically, only someone who can think of no other insult would say this.
> "Well it's badly written and has spelling mistakes!" *
>
>
> I'm sorry but that is your hero's Sue arguments, not mine. And I DON'T
> subscribe them.
>
> *Come on, get a fucking life.*
>
>
> Works both ways. And get a manners teacher who will teach you to not offend
> other people.
>
> *Wikipedia is set up so that only people who look for these
> articles/pictures will know about voting procedures. So of course if there
> is a vote, the majority would probably be overall positive unless serious
> canvassing went on to let people who care about the other side know about it
> so it evens out. Canvassing is set up to prevent this--I believe it's
> actually a way of biasing the community to serve only the community, and not
> the readers. Because the readers are--the world. Telling people about the
> topic is just like how any election goes. I guess unless you are in some
> sort of fake election where people are led to believe that the

Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 9, Issue 5

[Theo10011]

Hi

I am mostly active on other ML and signed on to Gender gap list solely to
respond to Maggie and Sarah. Let me be clear, Rupert thruner and Pete are
both right, you were not nice at all in your previous response and
border-line uncivil, Maggie. And you are not blunt, maybe slightly
misinformed.

Your opinion about Canvassing is flat-out false, Pete pointed you to the
correct link, you might want to read what it actually means first. What you
might be referring to is the disparity between the involvement of readers
and editors, which is based on the presumption that demographic among
readers, is more balanced than editors. There are actually statistics to
look up for this, and it is not. There is no barrier for entry for a reader
to vote, or becoming an editor. The Canvassing rules are there to make sure
no editor influences another non-involved voter. It is intended to keep the
voting strictly limited to the issue, and not bring any off-issue influence
in the matter.

I enjoyed reading "Many of the people who spend the most time there are
those who have little to do with their time.", thank you for denigrating our
work, we didn't do it for money, yes, and because we don't have anything
better to do but to keep putting and maintaining the content, for random
readers and people like you.

About Beria, I would first like to point that English is not her first
language along with others, and might even be our second or third. There are
cultural differences, and a whole host of linguistic/ethnographic reasons
why she chooses to say 'girl' instead of a woman. If either of you have
talked with her on IRC, you would know this. I'm sure you looked at her
contributions, but allow me to rehash for a moment- she has over 60,000
global edits and has been a Wikipedian for 5 years, started a Wikimedia
chapter, worked on several Wikimedia conferences and Wikimanias and even ran
for steward - which if anyone here knows, is something that requires a great
deal of knowledge and standing within the community. She happens to have a
few hundred friends on Wiki and IRC who she converses with regularly, I am
one of them. She also has a fair deal of experience with being harassed
on-wiki for sexist stuff over the years, some as recently as last month[1].
I have never seen her once stop or break-down, she never even took the
harassment personally and behaved like an up-standing community member each
time. Excuse me, if I am offended when you discount opinion from someone
like her, just because she doesn't agree with you or comes off too harsh.

Sarah, I am not sure what you've been trying to say lately[2]. With all due
respect, it seems you are recounting your own experience and past on most
issue and topic, which lately, has been hard to separate from any on-topic
comment. Your posts yesterday to Foundation-l mostly recounted your sexual
education from Playboys and Madonna's SEX [3] or talked about how children
want "juicy, fun, colorful, exciting content" and "Not a bunch of
writing"[4]. I am also highly uncertain how you can claim to be "pansexual"
or like pornography[3] and yet be grossed out by a picture of a vagina on an
article about vagina[5]. I am not sure if those positions are mutually
exclusive since you call yourself a feminist in the same line. You have the
right to discount my opinion since I can know nothing about feminism and it
can be whatever you want it to be, so I will stop there and only ask for
civility.

Regards
Theo

[1]
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_22#User:Wuhazet
[2]http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-October/001675.html
[3]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-September/069108.html
[4]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-September/069119.html
[5]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-September/067980.html

On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 11:08 PM, Maggie  wrote:

> I apologize if you are offended and find this discouraging, but I am not
> apologizing for what I've said. And putting a happy face at the end of your
> comment does not mean you haven't invalidated my opinions. I voiced opinions
> that I know several people on this list, let alone many women on Wikipedia,
> are thinking. I may be very blunt in my style, and this might put people off
> of me, but I found what Beria said to be more insulting and "discouraging."
>
> First of all, she claimed that the OP lied--when the op simply wrote an
> opinion piece about how she feels Wikipedia should work to create a more
> diverse atmosphere and friendly environment for women. While opinion can be
> wrong, while you can tell lies in your opinion, several of us found no lies
> in her comments, and Beria had no evidence in her comment linked to support
> her claim, just comments disagreeing with the OP's blog post.
>
> Second, she referred to women as girls. Which, as far as I know with any
> woman, is incredibly insulting and a wa

Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 9, Issue 5

[Sarah Stierch]

That is a good point - I do believe linguistics has something to do with it.
A dear friend who is Catalonian tends to address me as "girl" in emails, and
I have never viewed it as offensive. But, it depends on the use I suppose.
In English, it's a rather degrading term, outside of perhaps romantic/sexual
meanings (i.e. "girlfriend").

-Sarah

On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Ralph Teckentrup  wrote:

> One word on the girl thing:
>
> Maggie, you should keep in mind that Béria is not a native speaker of
> English but of Portuguese. In German of course it would be quite offensive
> to call a grown up woman or a group of women "Mädchen".
>
> Regards
>
> Ralph
>
>
>
> Von: gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] Im Auftrag von Maggie
> Gesendet: Samstag, 1. Oktober 2011 19:38
> An: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> Betreff: Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 9, Issue 5
>
> I apologize if you are offended and find this discouraging, but I am not
> apologizing for what I've said. And putting a happy face at the end of your
> comment does not mean you haven't invalidated my opinions. I voiced
> opinions
> that I know several people on this list, let alone many women on Wikipedia,
> are thinking. I may be very blunt in my style, and this might put people
> off
> of me, but I found what Beria said to be more insulting and "discouraging."
> (...)
>
>
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>



-- 
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia 
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Art
and
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
--
http://www.sarahstierch.com/
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 8, Issue 76

[Sarah]

On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 10:39, Béria Lima  wrote:
> Why? Because I don't kiss Sue's ass? To "be part of the group" I need to
> soulless ass-kisser? [snip]
>
>> ---so why are you subscribing???
>
> Because I want to. Is a open list, and I want to be here, If you have a
> problem with my presence, unsubscribe.
>
> _
> Béria Lima
> Wikimedia Portugal
> (351) 963 953 042
>
Beria, to be part of this list no one has to be an "ass-kisser," but
we do have to be civil and respectful of each other's (reasonable)
positions.

Given that the list exists to discuss why women might feel
uncomfortable editing Wikipedia, or posting to its other mailing
lists, it would be unfortunate if the same atmosphere were to be
transported to this list too.

The onus is on every subscriber to try to make sure this is a place
women feel comfortable. Maybe that's an unrealistic goal on a public
mailing list, but we can definitely try.

Sarah

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 9, Issue 5

[Ralph Teckentrup]

One word on the girl thing:

Maggie, you should keep in mind that Béria is not a native speaker of
English but of Portuguese. In German of course it would be quite offensive
to call a grown up woman or a group of women "Mädchen".

Regards

Ralph



Von: gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] Im Auftrag von Maggie
Gesendet: Samstag, 1. Oktober 2011 19:38
An: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
Betreff: Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 9, Issue 5

I apologize if you are offended and find this discouraging, but I am not
apologizing for what I've said. And putting a happy face at the end of your
comment does not mean you haven't invalidated my opinions. I voiced opinions
that I know several people on this list, let alone many women on Wikipedia,
are thinking. I may be very blunt in my style, and this might put people off
of me, but I found what Beria said to be more insulting and "discouraging." 
(...)



___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 8, Issue 76

[Ralph Teckentrup]

Béria,

 

every single post from you to this list or the foundation list was rude,
impolite, disrespectful and sometimes openly aggressive. You never explained
what the alleged “lies” are, you called other people ass kissers and so on.
Could you please behave in a manner that makes it possible to read this list
without distaste?

 

Regards

 

Ralph – who usually doesn’t contribute to this list

 

Von: gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] Im Auftrag von Béria Lima
Gesendet: Samstag, 1. Oktober 2011 18:39
An: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
Betreff: Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 8, Issue 76

 

Ok. I said to myself that I would not answer that personal attack, but seens
that you people want to. So lets go answer your "questions" Ms. Maggie
(sorry if is offensive not threat you for your last name, but you never said
it, so). I do should advice that my politeness will not be present in this
mail, so if someone get offended, I'm sorry.

I'm not clear what point you are trying to prove, other than the 9% of
"girls'" voices don't matter. I also find it questionable that you refer to
women as girls and don't hesitate ponder why you don't call men boys.


First, you need to read my mail again. I never said female voices does not
matter. Read again and them come back to talk. And I do reffer man as boys
as well, If you knew me a bit more you would know that.

Many women, like myself, get driven off of WP due to frustration with the
hierarchy, which does exist. Women are treated with less respect, women are
questioned for their motives, women are called prudish if they object to
sexualizing images--or they are told their voices are not important because
they only comprise 9% of the population.


I'm a woman (or girl) and a Wikipedian for 5 years. I know exactly how we
are treated there. And the funny part of it, is that you are complaining
that they question your motives, but you have no problems questioning mine.
Funny how is easy to do when is not with you right?

Why do you think they only comprise 9% then?


Your hero Sue wrote a post about that in November. Read it.

My goal on WP is to make it more diverse, and TBH I'm not too into this
picture discussion that has gone on for months. But it doesn't mean that it
doesn't matter or it isn't an important one, and it doesn't mean that the
women who care about it aren't important.



So if you are about make it more diverse you should not be trying to push
people away. Remember that girls are only 9% of us, and even the ones who
don't agree with you are important.

Offense is not the reason here, IMO. Offense barely scratches the surface. I
can imagine that many of the people on this list are angry--they are angry
that women are being objectified and because women are in the minority on
the community and it's an uninviting, sometimes terribly creepy atmosphere,
their voices do not matter. As for badly written? My god that is the worst
you can say? In writing terms that is just snide and a low blow. Basically,
only someone who can think of no other insult would say this. "Well it's
badly written and has spelling mistakes!" 


I'm sorry but that is your hero's Sue arguments, not mine. And I DON'T
subscribe them.

Come on, get a fucking life.


Works both ways. And get a manners teacher who will teach you to not offend
other people.

Wikipedia is set up so that only people who look for these articles/pictures
will know about voting procedures. So of course if there is a vote, the
majority would probably be overall positive unless serious canvassing went
on to let people who care about the other side know about it so it evens
out. Canvassing is set up to prevent this--I believe it's actually a way of
biasing the community to serve only the community, and not the readers.
Because the readers are--the world. Telling people about the topic is just
like how any election goes. I guess unless you are in some sort of fake
election where people are led to believe that their votes actually count.


Canvassing works good when are you people doing to remove images from
Wikipedia (I can pull of at least 4 treads in that ML for that from the top
of my mind). If you think canvassing solves things, I'm not the one with
priorities changed.

Nowhere did you prove that she lied in that article. You only stated how you
disagree with her opinion.


If you read the mail - I think you didn't - you would say that says in the
begin that is a answer to ERIK, not to her. There is no point talk with
someone who don't answer you back, and Ms. Garden send me a mail saying that
she will not answer any of my mails.

Obviously you are not part of this group for the interest of women, 


Why? Because I don't kiss Sue's ass? To "be part of the group" I need to
soulless ass-kisser?  

otherwise you would care about that 9%'s opinion


Again, go read my mail (or learn English, whatever works for you)
 

---so why are you subs

Re: [Gendergap] Canvassing

[Pete Forsyth]

On Oct 1, 2011, at 10:55 AM, Maggie wrote:

> I actually *have* read it very closely due to that situation. But thanks for 
> assuming that I am not capable of doing so.

Maggie -- sorry to give that impression. When I said "if you haven't read it" I 
had in mind the broad audience -- I'm confident there are people on this list 
who have not read it. (I had not looked at it for a long time myself before 
this discussion.) I made no assumption about your having read it or not. I 
could have stated it more clearly though, sorry about that.

-Pete


___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 9, Issue 6

[Maggie]

I was once warned for canvassing, because I told people offsite how to vote
in a discussion about to keep certain page. These people were mostly of a
female audience and interested in women's history, and the group who were
wanting to delete were mostly anglo men.

Also, Peter, when a person is offended by something someone else has said
and you don't understand it---it's probably best not to comment on it.

I actually *have* read it very closely due to that situation. But thanks for
assuming that I am not capable of doing so.

--Maggie


> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 10:02:22 -0700
> From: Pete Forsyth 
> Subject: [Gendergap] Canvassing
> To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
>
> Message-ID: 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> On Oct 1, 2011, at 6:55 AM, Maggie wrote:
>
> > Wikipedia is set up so that only people who look for these
> articles/pictures will know about voting procedures. So of course if there
> is a vote, the majority would probably be overall positive unless serious
> canvassing went on to let people who care about the other side know about it
> so it evens out. Canvassing is set up to prevent this--I believe it's
> actually a way of biasing the community to serve only the community, and not
> the readers. Because the readers are--the world. Telling people about the
> topic is just like how any election goes. I guess unless you are in some
> sort of fake election where people are led to believe that their votes
> actually count.
>
> Maggie, I can relate to the frustration you're expressing. But I'd like to
> draw a distinction between the Canvassing guideline itself (which I consider
> a helpful and insightful document, that illuminates important collaborative
> practices) and the way accusations of Canvassing may be made in certain
> contexts.
>
> The Canvassing guideline is an important part of our world. If you haven't
> read it recently, I highly recommend it:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CANVASS
>
> It is often quoted by people who, I think, *haven't* read it closely, and
> used to criticize behavior that is actually constructive. That is a problem,
> but it's not a problem with the guideline itself.
>
> -Pete
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 9, Issue 3

[Maggie]

@Beria
Yes I know that the 9% is women on WP. I referred to that in my post. It
doesn't matter if you are also a woman. Women can be sexist against their
own gender. It happens a lot.

---Maggie



> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 15:26:17 +0100
> From: B?ria Lima 
> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 8, Issue 76
> To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
>
>
> Do you actually know that the 9% I reffer is the study who shows that only
> 9% of wp users are female, right? Because for your answer I don't quite
> think you did.
>
> And I'm here because I'm a woman and a wikipedian. I'm sorry if I don't
> felt
> under group pression and thinks exactly like you do.
>
> _
> *B?ria Lima*
> Wikimedia Portugal 
> (351) 963 953 042
>
> *Imagine um mundo onde ? dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> livre
> acesso ao somat?rio de todo o conhecimento humano. ? isso o que estamos a
> fazer.*
>
>
>
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 9, Issue 5

[Maggie]

I apologize if you are offended and find this discouraging, but I am not
apologizing for what I've said. And putting a happy face at the end of your
comment does not mean you haven't invalidated my opinions. I voiced opinions
that I know several people on this list, let alone many women on Wikipedia,
are thinking. I may be very blunt in my style, and this might put people off
of me, but I found what Beria said to be more insulting and "discouraging."

First of all, she claimed that the OP lied--when the op simply wrote an
opinion piece about how she feels Wikipedia should work to create a more
diverse atmosphere and friendly environment for women. While opinion can be
wrong, while you can tell lies in your opinion, several of us found no lies
in her comments, and Beria had no evidence in her comment linked to support
her claim, just comments disagreeing with the OP's blog post.

Second, she referred to women as girls. Which, as far as I know with any
woman, is incredibly insulting and a way of one-upping someone. I'll assume
you are a man because your name is Rupert. I'm sure you know if another man
called you a boy it would be emasculating. It is the same for women. It's
also something women have battled with for years--people still call grown
women girls, no matter how much we fight it.

Third, the 9% of women's opinions were completely invalidated by her, as
well as the over all opinion of women who do not have accounts on WP, those
who merely view WP--those who have only edited as IPs, etc. And as I said
overall women's opinions are not allowed on crucial issues due to canvassing
rules. These rules are specifically made to serve the community, who is
mainly male, and not serve the readers, which WP is creating its pages for.
Because these womens' opinions can't be heard, there are no "girls screaming
to tear apart all images." It's because the women who are angry about them
are silenced.

To address Erik's point from the same post, I would also hesitate to say
that WP is the result of reasonable, thoughtful, intelligent people. Oh yes,
there are some that fit that description, but to assume that everyone on
there works this way is just wrong. Many of the people who spend the most
time there are those who have little to do with their time. Those who are
busy putting flat-out porn on the site are not of the reasonable sort. Those
busy making it their hobby to delete pages and categories without regard to
reason are not of the intelligent sort. True we have fine people on
Wikipedia--they are varied like the population on earth. But to say they are
all intelligent, reasonable, and thoughtful is incredibly naive. There are
also users who have no problem letting people know about their possibly
illegal or creepy activities via their edit history, apparently.

You should probably find this encouraging more than anything--and I would
find it interesting if a grass-roots canvassing campaign were put in place
to get more women involved in WP.
--Maggie

On 10/1/2011 10:08 AM, rupert THURNER wrote:

maggie, this email was not very nice and encouraging ... maybe even
the opposite of nice and encouraging :)

On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 15:55, Maggie  wrote:

@Beria
I'm not clear what point you are trying to prove, other than the 9% of
"girls'" voices don't matter. I also find it questionable that you refer to
women as girls and don't hesitate ponder why you don't call men boys.

Many women, like myself, get driven off of WP due to frustration with the
hierarchy, which does exist. Women are treated with less respect, women are
questioned for their motives, women are called prudish if they object to
sexualizing images--or they are told their voices are not important because
they only comprise 9% of the population.

Why do you think they only comprise 9% then?

My goal on WP is to make it more diverse, and TBH I'm not too into this
picture discussion that has gone on for months. But it doesn't mean that it
doesn't matter or it isn't an important one, and it doesn't mean that the
women who care about it aren't important.

Offense is not the reason here, IMO. Offense barely scratches the surface. I
can imagine that many of the people on this list are angry--they are angry
that women are being objectified and because women are in the minority on
the community and it's an uninviting, sometimes terribly creepy atmosphere,
their voices do not matter.

As for badly written? My god that is the worst you can say? In writing terms
that is just snide and a low blow. Basically, only someone who can think of
no other insult would say this. "Well it's badly written and has spelling
mistakes!" Come on, get a fucking life.

Wikipedia is set up so that only people who look for these articles/pictures
will know about voting procedures. So of course if there is a vote, the
majority would probably be overall positive unless serious canvassing went
on to let people who care about the other side know about it so it evens
out. Canvassing is set u

[Gendergap] Civility

[Pete Forsyth]

Maggie, Beria, and all:

I've read through the discussion of Sue's blog post with a mixture of interest 
(in the substance of the various things that have been said) and concern (about 
the tenor). I want to address the second of those, the way we choose to 
communicate with each other.

There are two statements that stand out to me -- things that I feel simply 
should not be said among people convened around collaboration and equality.

Maggie, you said:

"I'm not clear what point you are trying to prove, other than the 9% of 
"girls'" voices don't matter."

I can't begin to imagine which of Beria's words made you think that. She didn't 
say it. But it's the very first sentence of your response to her.

Beria, in a very brief message, you said:

"… the lies Sue told in the post…"

"Lie" is a very strong word. If you're going to make such an accusation (as 
opposed to "I disagree" or "she is mistaken"), I believe civility demands that 
you state VERY clearly and concisely, in the same message, precisely what you 
think the lie is. I did follow your link, and I think I understand your 
position; but for such a strong statement, I don't believe it's appropriate to 
expect your readers to go digging for the meaning.

If both of you feel your words above are appropriate to this list, I disagree. 
Honesty and the validity of women's views are core values that we all share 
here. Accusations to the contrary are not productive.

-Pete___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] Canvassing

[Pete Forsyth]

On Oct 1, 2011, at 6:55 AM, Maggie wrote:

> Wikipedia is set up so that only people who look for these articles/pictures 
> will know about voting procedures. So of course if there is a vote, the 
> majority would probably be overall positive unless serious canvassing went on 
> to let people who care about the other side know about it so it evens out. 
> Canvassing is set up to prevent this--I believe it's actually a way of 
> biasing the community to serve only the community, and not the readers. 
> Because the readers are--the world. Telling people about the topic is just 
> like how any election goes. I guess unless you are in some sort of fake 
> election where people are led to believe that their votes actually count.

Maggie, I can relate to the frustration you're expressing. But I'd like to draw 
a distinction between the Canvassing guideline itself (which I consider a 
helpful and insightful document, that illuminates important collaborative 
practices) and the way accusations of Canvassing may be made in certain 
contexts.

The Canvassing guideline is an important part of our world. If you haven't read 
it recently, I highly recommend it: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CANVASS

It is often quoted by people who, I think, *haven't* read it closely, and used 
to criticize behavior that is actually constructive. That is a problem, but 
it's not a problem with the guideline itself.

-Pete___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 8, Issue 76

[Béria Lima]

Ok. I said to myself that I would not answer that personal attack, but seens
that you people want to. So lets go answer your "questions" Ms. Maggie
(sorry if is offensive not threat you for your last name, but you never said
it, so). I do should advice that my politeness will not be present in this
mail, so if someone get offended, I'm sorry.

*I'm not clear what point you are trying to prove, other than the 9% of
> "girls'" voices don't matter. I also find it questionable that you refer to
> women as girls and don't hesitate ponder why you don't call men boys.*
>

First, you need to read my mail again. I never said female voices does not
matter. Read again and them come back to talk. And I do reffer man as boys
as well, If you knew me a bit more you would know that.

*Many women, like myself, get driven off of WP due to frustration with the
> hierarchy, which does exist. Women are treated with less respect, women are
> questioned for their motives, women are called prudish if they object to
> sexualizing images--or they are told their voices are not important because
> they only comprise 9% of the population*.
>

I'm a woman (or girl) and a Wikipedian for 5 years. I know exactly how we
are treated there. And the funny part of it, is that you are complaining
that they question your motives, but you have no problems questioning mine.
Funny how is easy to do when is not with you right?

*Why do you think they only comprise 9% then?*
>

Your hero Sue wrote a post about that in November. Read it.

*My goal on WP is to make it more diverse, and TBH I'm not too into this
> picture discussion that has gone on for months. But it doesn't mean that it
> doesn't matter or it isn't an important one, and it doesn't mean that the
> women who care about it aren't important.
> *


So if you are about make it more diverse you should not be trying to push
people away. Remember that girls are only 9% of us, and even the ones who
don't agree with you are important.

*Offense is not the reason here, IMO. Offense barely scratches the surface.
> I can imagine that many of the people on this list are angry--they are angry
> that women are being objectified and because women are in the minority on
> the community and it's an uninviting, sometimes terribly creepy atmosphere,
> their voices do not matter. As for badly written? My god that is the worst
> you can say? In writing terms that is just snide and a low blow. Basically,
> only someone who can think of no other insult would say this. "Well it's
> badly written and has spelling mistakes!" *


I'm sorry but that is your hero's Sue arguments, not mine. And I DON'T
subscribe them.

*Come on, get a fucking life.*


Works both ways. And get a manners teacher who will teach you to not offend
other people.

*Wikipedia is set up so that only people who look for these
> articles/pictures will know about voting procedures. So of course if there
> is a vote, the majority would probably be overall positive unless serious
> canvassing went on to let people who care about the other side know about it
> so it evens out. Canvassing is set up to prevent this--I believe it's
> actually a way of biasing the community to serve only the community, and not
> the readers. Because the readers are--the world. Telling people about the
> topic is just like how any election goes. I guess unless you are in some
> sort of fake election where people are led to believe that their votes
> actually count.*
>

Canvassing works good when are you people doing to remove images from
Wikipedia (I can pull of at least 4 treads in that ML for that from the top
of my mind). If you think canvassing solves things, I'm not the one with
priorities changed.

*Nowhere did you prove that she lied in that article. You only stated how
> you disagree with her opinion.
> *


If you read the mail - I think you didn't - you would say that says in the
begin that is a answer to ERIK, not to her. There is no point talk with
someone who don't answer you back, and Ms. Garden send me a mail saying that
she will not answer any of my mails.

*Obviously you are not part of this group for the interest of women,
> *


Why? Because I don't kiss Sue's ass? To "be part of the group" I need to
soulless ass-kisser?

*otherwise you would care about that 9%'s opinion*


Again, go read my mail (or learn English, whatever works for you)


> *---so why are you subscribing???*
>

Because I want to. Is a open list, and I want to be here, If you have a
problem with my presence, unsubscribe.

_
*Béria Lima*
Wikimedia Portugal 
(351) 963 953 042

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre
acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a
fazer.*


On 1 October 2011 16:34, Sarah Stierch  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Maggie  wrote:
>
>> @Beria
>> I'm not clear what point you are trying to prove, other than the 9% of
>> "girls'" voices don't matter. I also find 

Re: [Gendergap] vulgar jokes and sexualized environments on Wikipedia

[Fred Bauder]

And to think I was strongly criticized for posting about "High Noon moments"

You'd make a fine administrator, and any process that would not do so is
broken. Many of us know that and talk freely about it, but we've not been
able to get far, or even get up the energy to try.

Fred

> So I've been asked by a few people to run for admin on Wikipedia, all
> people
> we know here. And to be honest - and I haven't been with them - I *want*
> to
> be admin, I want to be admin on Commons also (yeah right :( ) but I know,
> because I am who I am, I feel like I'm going to have an extra hard time.
> I
> know the vocal minority who will speak up. I'm lucky that the guy who
> stalked me who is a Wikimedian is at least banned from Wikipedia...
>
> I hate to say it...but, the idea of getting crucified just so I can clean
> up
> some pages and have authority makes my heart race. And I can handle a
> lot,
> but honestly, some of these people make me so uncomfortable, nervous and
> anxious, that I have no desire to go through the administrator nominator
> process because I fear I can't "make it" with the large group of
> technologically capable people and those who have perfected their
> Wiki-persona by being assholes who like to "put baby in a corner."
>
> I lied to the two people who asked me to run, two people I consider very
> close friends and colleagues - I told them I had no clue what I'd even
> use
> my administrative "buttons" for. I guess I still don't, but, I know I
> could
> make a difference. But honestly, I don't want to go through torture to
> have
> a symbol on my user page when I know so many people who seem to have a
> problem with me, and I'm sure Carol understands that.
>
> Sorry to be all "boohoo" "feel sorry for me" about this, but, I often
> start
> to question the culture I'm surrounding myself with when I, a fairly
> confident, capable and badass person, find myself "afraid" to apply for a
> volunteer position within a culture that I value so much because I think
> people will just be assholes for the purpose of being assholes.
>
> On a positive note, I did get OTRS access and I now look at Commons stuff
> and general "info-en" it's actually been pretty laid back, but, I cleared
> out a queue of about 100 things that had been waiting for responses for
> upwards of 2 months. So I feel rather productive thus far =) (And the
> thank
> you's people send you are really nice!)
>
> -Sarah
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 10:24 AM,  wrote:
>
>> To beef up women's assertiveness so they protest, or to give more power
>> to some authoritarian editors to delete and block reverters, that is
>> the
>> question.  Why not do both?? :-)  Or just get more assertive female
>> admins.
>>
>> A job I myself shrink at the thought of. I already have enough problems
>> just trying to edit the controversial articles I so often end up
>> editing.  But then I am a glutton for punishment - or is it merely
>> negative attention??
>>
>> On 9/30/2011 3:35 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
>> > Twice recently I have been reverted for removing vulgar jokes from
>> > article talk pages on the English Wikipedia - most recently for
>> removing
>> > a joke who's punchline was "A woman's anus after she was sodomized!".
>> > Although I appreciate the use of humor on Wikipedia, and support the
>> > inclusion of potentially offensive material within appropriate
>> contexts,
>> > I think these type of jokes are not appropriate on talk pages and
>> create
>> > a sexualized environment that is often unwelcoming for women (as well
>> as
>> > people from other cultures/religions/backgrounds). I think this issue
>> is
>> > pertinent to the gender gap (unlike my other recent posts), and would
>> > like to hear other people's opinions. I've also started a discussion
>> at
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility#Vulgar_jokes for
>> > broader input.
>> >
>> > Ryan Kaldari
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ___
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>
>
>
>
> --
> GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia 
> Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
> Art
> and
> Sarah Stierch Consulting
> *Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
> --
> http://www.sarahstierch.com/
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>



___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] vulgar jokes and sexualized environments on Wikipedia

[Sarah Stierch]

So I've been asked by a few people to run for admin on Wikipedia, all people
we know here. And to be honest - and I haven't been with them - I *want* to
be admin, I want to be admin on Commons also (yeah right :( ) but I know,
because I am who I am, I feel like I'm going to have an extra hard time. I
know the vocal minority who will speak up. I'm lucky that the guy who
stalked me who is a Wikimedian is at least banned from Wikipedia...

I hate to say it...but, the idea of getting crucified just so I can clean up
some pages and have authority makes my heart race. And I can handle a lot,
but honestly, some of these people make me so uncomfortable, nervous and
anxious, that I have no desire to go through the administrator nominator
process because I fear I can't "make it" with the large group of
technologically capable people and those who have perfected their
Wiki-persona by being assholes who like to "put baby in a corner."

I lied to the two people who asked me to run, two people I consider very
close friends and colleagues - I told them I had no clue what I'd even use
my administrative "buttons" for. I guess I still don't, but, I know I could
make a difference. But honestly, I don't want to go through torture to have
a symbol on my user page when I know so many people who seem to have a
problem with me, and I'm sure Carol understands that.

Sorry to be all "boohoo" "feel sorry for me" about this, but, I often start
to question the culture I'm surrounding myself with when I, a fairly
confident, capable and badass person, find myself "afraid" to apply for a
volunteer position within a culture that I value so much because I think
people will just be assholes for the purpose of being assholes.

On a positive note, I did get OTRS access and I now look at Commons stuff
and general "info-en" it's actually been pretty laid back, but, I cleared
out a queue of about 100 things that had been waiting for responses for
upwards of 2 months. So I feel rather productive thus far =) (And the thank
you's people send you are really nice!)

-Sarah


On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 10:24 AM,  wrote:

> To beef up women's assertiveness so they protest, or to give more power
> to some authoritarian editors to delete and block reverters, that is the
> question.  Why not do both?? :-)  Or just get more assertive female admins.
>
> A job I myself shrink at the thought of. I already have enough problems
> just trying to edit the controversial articles I so often end up
> editing.  But then I am a glutton for punishment - or is it merely
> negative attention??
>
> On 9/30/2011 3:35 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
> > Twice recently I have been reverted for removing vulgar jokes from
> > article talk pages on the English Wikipedia - most recently for removing
> > a joke who's punchline was "A woman's anus after she was sodomized!".
> > Although I appreciate the use of humor on Wikipedia, and support the
> > inclusion of potentially offensive material within appropriate contexts,
> > I think these type of jokes are not appropriate on talk pages and create
> > a sexualized environment that is often unwelcoming for women (as well as
> > people from other cultures/religions/backgrounds). I think this issue is
> > pertinent to the gender gap (unlike my other recent posts), and would
> > like to hear other people's opinions. I've also started a discussion at
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility#Vulgar_jokes for
> > broader input.
> >
> > Ryan Kaldari
> >
> >
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>



-- 
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia 
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Art
and
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
--
http://www.sarahstierch.com/
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 8, Issue 76

[Sarah Stierch]

On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Maggie  wrote:

> @Beria
> I'm not clear what point you are trying to prove, other than the 9% of
> "girls'" voices don't matter. I also find it questionable that you refer to
> women as girls and don't hesitate ponder why you don't call men boys.
>
>
>
I notice a few people do that. I often find myself re-reading statements to
figure out if writers are indeed talking about girls (under the age 18) or
grown women.



> Offense is not the reason here, IMO. Offense barely scratches the surface.
> I can imagine that many of the people on this list are angry--they are angry
> that women are being objectified and because women are in the minority on
> the community and it's an uninviting, sometimes terribly creepy atmosphere,
> their voices do not matter.
>
>
+1 I'm pissed, to be frank.  I also notice there are is still a nice and
small amount of women who are really rude also also, especially to other
women. Like this is some territorial thing. (I'm also getting that complaint
from the survey!)



> Come on, get a fucking life.
>
>
Maggie - how come you and I haven't met yet? <3



> Nowhere did you prove that she lied in that article. You only stated how
> you disagree with her opinion. Obviously you are not part of this group for
> the interest of women, otherwise you would care about that 9%'s opinion---so
> why are you subscribing???
>
>
This is a problem we occasionally have in the gender gap room. Why hang out
and tell us that you think feminism sucks and that this is one big scheme
for special treatment and "affirmative action" and then hang out and wonder
why we freak the hell out on you in the IRC room. /facepalm

-Sarah




-- 
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia 
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Art
and
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
--
http://www.sarahstierch.com/
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Sue's new blog

[Sarah Stierch]

Beria - I presume you're asking me?

You shared a post "replying" to Kaldari asking you to explain you think Sue
Gardner is a liar.

And The only thing I got out of it is that we have a collection of
photographs of men sucking their own penises on Commons.  I was also testing
Google - they say that a large amount of visitors read that page a month,
and surely most of them probably don't search for "auto-fellatio" when
looking for that content of men pleasuring themselves. So, I googled
"sucking my own cock" since I presume a lot of men Google that content when
trying to figure out how to do so, what it looks like, etc.

When I was in high school boys used to joke about being able to do it. This
was before Google existed. So I was just using past experiences to see how
someone would stumble across the "auto-fellatio" page without typing
"auto-fellatio".

Other than that, I never figured out why you think Sue Gardner is a liar.

I'm laughing that I just re-explained that, heh, but I hope it helps,

-Sarah




On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 4:46 AM, Béria Lima  wrote:

> I'm sorry but whatever you took before write that mail I didn't, therefore,
> I didn't understand a word. Can you explain yourself?
> _
> *Béria Lima*
> Wikimedia Portugal 
> (351) 963 953 042
>
> *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que
> estamos a fazer.*
>
>
> On 30 September 2011 14:27, Sarah Stierch  wrote:
>
>> Well, at least this confirms that there are a 14 photos of dudes getting
>> their *own* rocks off on Commons! Thank god!  (Oh...speaking of
>> permissions...)
>>
>> You also have to scroll down a bit in Google search before you come across
>> the article after searching "sucking your own cock". The fact that the
>> search finds that page based on one of my favorite films, Clerks, is rather
>> funny.
>>
>> Wait, where is Sue a liar?
>>
>> -Sarah
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:49 AM, Béria Lima wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-September/069078.html
>>> _
>>> *Béria Lima*
>>> Wikimedia Portugal 
>>> (351) 963 953 042
>>>
>>> *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
>>> livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que
>>> estamos a fazer.*
>>>
>>>
>>> On 30 September 2011 00:37, Ryan Kaldari  wrote:
>>>
 **
 Would you like to elaborate?

 Ryan Kaldari


 On 9/29/11 4:35 PM, Béria Lima wrote:

 I think it works both ways: There you might get stomped on by people who
 disagree with the lies Sue told in the post, and here I will be stomp up 
 for
 even mentioned that she did lied in that blog post.

 Safe environment do not exist in this case. Is safeR for supports to
 come here, and safeR for opposers to go there. That does not make any list
 safe, only shows that the POV here is different than the POV there.
 _
 *Béria Lima*
 Wikimedia Portugal 
 (351) 963 953 042

 *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
 livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que
 estamos a fazer.*


 On 30 September 2011 00:25, Sarah Stierch wrote:

> I'm sure there are some people on this mailing list who also disagree
> as well! We try to provide a safe haven for discussion about sensitive
> topics.
>
> But, if any of us spoke up on Foundation-L we'd be risking getting torn
> up by often heavily opinionated Foundation-L subscribers, and it gets 
> really
> tiring :( It is also nice to have a change in opinion - for those who
> dislike the post, there are also many of that support it. Thanks for
> bringing up that a different type of conversation is taking place on
> Foundation-L! I've been following it.
>
> -Sarah
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Béria Lima 
> wrote:
>
>> ehhh, sorry for be the different, but you people are reading the
>> thread about that same blog post in Foundation-l ? The opinions there 
>> seems
>> to be quite different than yours.
>> _
>> *Béria Lima*
>> Wikimedia Portugal 
>> (351) 963 953 042
>>
>> *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de
>> ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que
>> estamos a fazer.*
>>
>>
>>
>> On 30 September 2011 00:09, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
>>
>>>  Can I nominate Sue for the Executive Director's Barnstar? :)
>>>
>>> Kaldari
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/29/11 4:06 PM, Amory wrote:
>>>
>>> I normally hate +1s, but I would like to echo this.  Really
>>> exceptionally well crafted, and even for people following it's a very 
>>> good

Re: [Gendergap] Gender neutrality template

[Sarah Stierch]

We also have a "controversial" template...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Controversial


I love the idea of having articles of gender concern in a one stop shopping
space. Going through the NPOV collection is long, painful and is filled with
lots of advertising articles for tech companies. Blarg

-Sarah


On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 10:21 AM,  wrote:

>  There are other more powerful groups that would use the precedent to
> create a template that would censor a number of articles that already are
> heavily patrolled and censored by organized groups of editors (many of them
> surely paid, not that they'd ever admit it).
>
> Instead use the POV template and make editors think by explaining the POV
> template on the talk page. And mention the problem on Wikiproject Feminism.
>
> On 9/30/2011 11:30 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
>   What do you think about creating a {{gendergap}} or {{GNPOV}}
> (gender-neutral point of view) template in en:WP? This could have a format
> similar to
>
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:NPOV
>
>  and could use an image like
>
>  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Igualtat_de_sexes.svg
>
>  The text could say something like:
>
>  "The gender neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the
> discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the
> dispute is resolved."
>
>  Note that templates of this sort come with associated categories such as
>
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:NPOV_disputes_from_September_2011
>
>  These categories can help identify articles with active disputes.
>
>  Thoughts?
>
>  Do we already have a template like that that I am unaware of?
>
>  Best,
> Andreas
>
>
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>


-- 
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia 
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Art
and
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
--
http://www.sarahstierch.com/
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Monitoring impact on female participation

[Sarah Stierch]

Chris, (prepare for a babble fest on data)

This is data I'm actually currently gathering as a volunteer. I have a
survey (that isn't perfect, and I wish I could have asked more..but..) I've
developed and I use a tool to monitor project contributors (
http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/useractivity.py?page=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Public_art/Members&days=365&view=table_).
I also have been in personal contact with over 200 female editors over
the past week. My email box is a little overflowing...of painful stories and
lack of interest in continuing to contribute - flipped with people who are
interested in contributing again because of the email I sent them or like to
share their own ideas on women and retention with me.

The problem is that most women don't identify their gender on their account,
but I'm finding a surprisingly large amount actually identify it on their
userpage (i.e. with a userbox or their name).

Regarding outreach, I have kept tabs on our local outreach and I do follow
up on talk pages, use that tool above I showed you (that Dispenser made) to
check out project productivity (i.e. you'll see with WP:Public Art, which I
co-founded - many of the users were assigned the project for school and most
have never edited again after their school assignment, and the majority are
female (this is based on userpage data etc).  I've also seen with another
female-themed outreach event that out of about 10 only ONE female editor
still contributes since the day of the event, which was months ago.

I'm babbling here, but, I'm obsessed with this data, and someplace in my
mind I think it'll all help myself/WMF/whoever better explore how to close
the gender gap.

On another note - I'm hoping to present the data from my Women and Wikimedia
survey at the end of October with a presentation (hopefully at WMF, but they
don't know that yet...).

-Sarah


On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Chris Keating wrote:

> So how can we measure what impact we're having on getting women to
> participate?
>
> Over the next few months Wikimedia UK's very going to be adopting a rather
> more formal set of reporting procedures. I just wondered if people on this
> list had any thoughts about how we could build in some gender impact
> assessment into this reporting.
>
> It should be fairly easy for the Board to ask for statistics on how many of
> the people attending events are men and how many are women. Ideally we would
> also have statistics on how many people attending events *who then go on to
> edit/join/otherwise take part* available by gender. It should be even easier
> to monitor the diversity of our staff (currently we have 2, both are male)
> and Wikimedians in Residence (also currently 2, both male) and indeed the
> board (err 7 men) - hopefully these statistics will be a bit better in a
> year's time.
>
> Does anyone have any more thoughts on how we should approach this?
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
>
> PS. Also, you might be interested to know that we've identified a £10k
> budget for "broadening impact" - i.e. additional funding for projects which
> are aimed at women, Scotland, Wales, ethnic or linguistic minorities - I
> think this is a good thing but we do need to make sure the remaining £500k
> isn't spent only on white Englishmen ;-)
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>


-- 
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia 
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Art
and
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
--
http://www.sarahstierch.com/
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] vulgar jokes and sexualized environments on Wikipedia

[Fred Bauder]

> To beef up women's assertiveness so they protest, or to give more power
> to some authoritarian editors to delete and block reverters, that is the
> question.  Why not do both?? :-)  Or just get more assertive female
> admins.
>
> A job I myself shrink at the thought of. I already have enough problems
> just trying to edit the controversial articles I so often end up
> editing.  But then I am a glutton for punishment - or is it merely
> negative attention??

Personal questions you will have to answer for yourself. You don't seem a
likely administrator, but, with some discipline, could probably do it
well. Running the gauntlet at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship is
probably the main barrier to wielding a mop.

We don't need authoritarian editors or administrators, male or female,
but we do need people who will apply policy. Degrading material is not
acceptable and, in extreme cases, which this was, fall within deletion
policy. I have not deleted the object of the current controversy only
because it is a negative example which was extensively discussed.

Fred


___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 8, Issue 76

[Béria Lima]

Do you actually know that the 9% I reffer is the study who shows that only
9% of wp users are female, right? Because for your answer I don't quite
think you did.

And I'm here because I'm a woman and a wikipedian. I'm sorry if I don't felt
under group pression and thinks exactly like you do.

_
*Béria Lima*
Wikimedia Portugal 
(351) 963 953 042

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre
acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a
fazer.*


On 1 October 2011 14:55, Maggie  wrote:

> @Beria
> I'm not clear what point you are trying to prove, other than the 9% of
> "girls'" voices don't matter. I also find it questionable that you refer to
> women as girls and don't hesitate ponder why you don't call men boys.
>
> Many women, like myself, get driven off of WP due to frustration with the
> hierarchy, which does exist. Women are treated with less respect, women are
> questioned for their motives, women are called prudish if they object to
> sexualizing images--or they are told their voices are not important because
> they only comprise 9% of the population.
>
> Why do you think they only comprise 9% then?
>
> My goal on WP is to make it more diverse, and TBH I'm not too into this
> picture discussion that has gone on for months. But it doesn't mean that it
> doesn't matter or it isn't an important one, and it doesn't mean that the
> women who care about it aren't important.
>
> Offense is not the reason here, IMO. Offense barely scratches the surface.
> I can imagine that many of the people on this list are angry--they are angry
> that women are being objectified and because women are in the minority on
> the community and it's an uninviting, sometimes terribly creepy atmosphere,
> their voices do not matter.
>
> As for badly written? My god that is the worst you can say? In writing
> terms that is just snide and a low blow. Basically, only someone who can
> think of no other insult would say this. "Well it's badly written and has
> spelling mistakes!" Come on, get a fucking life.
>
> Wikipedia is set up so that only people who look for these
> articles/pictures will know about voting procedures. So of course if there
> is a vote, the majority would probably be overall positive unless serious
> canvassing went on to let people who care about the other side know about it
> so it evens out. Canvassing is set up to prevent this--I believe it's
> actually a way of biasing the community to serve only the community, and not
> the readers. Because the readers are--the world. Telling people about the
> topic is just like how any election goes. I guess unless you are in some
> sort of fake election where people are led to believe that their votes
> actually count.
>
> Nowhere did you prove that she lied in that article. You only stated how
> you disagree with her opinion. Obviously you are not part of this group for
> the interest of women, otherwise you would care about that 9%'s opinion---so
> why are you subscribing???
>
> --Maggie
>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:49 AM, B?ria Lima 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-September/069078.html
>> _
>> *B?ria Lima*
>> Wikimedia Portugal 
>>   (351) 963 953 042
>>
>> *Imagine um mundo onde ? dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
>> livre acesso ao somat?rio de todo o conhecimento humano. ? isso o que
>> estamos a fazer.*
>>
>>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] vulgar jokes and sexualized environments on Wikipedia

[carolmooredc]

To beef up women's assertiveness so they protest, or to give more power 
to some authoritarian editors to delete and block reverters, that is the 
question.  Why not do both?? :-)  Or just get more assertive female admins.

A job I myself shrink at the thought of. I already have enough problems 
just trying to edit the controversial articles I so often end up 
editing.  But then I am a glutton for punishment - or is it merely 
negative attention??

On 9/30/2011 3:35 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
> Twice recently I have been reverted for removing vulgar jokes from
> article talk pages on the English Wikipedia - most recently for removing
> a joke who's punchline was "A woman's anus after she was sodomized!".
> Although I appreciate the use of humor on Wikipedia, and support the
> inclusion of potentially offensive material within appropriate contexts,
> I think these type of jokes are not appropriate on talk pages and create
> a sexualized environment that is often unwelcoming for women (as well as
> people from other cultures/religions/backgrounds). I think this issue is
> pertinent to the gender gap (unlike my other recent posts), and would
> like to hear other people's opinions. I've also started a discussion at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility#Vulgar_jokes for
> broader input.
>
> Ryan Kaldari
>
>

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Sue's new blog

[Béria Lima]

I'm sorry Carol, but Sue's post is 3 times bigger than my mail, and all of
us read it.

Time is not the problem here.
_
*Béria Lima*
Wikimedia Portugal 
(351) 963 953 042

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre
acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a
fazer.*


On 1 October 2011 15:18,  wrote:

>  Most of us don't have time to read through long email(s) and a long
> article trying to figure out what sentence or two someone claims is a lie.
> Not very useful to the discussion, not to mention civil.
>
> On 9/30/2011 5:49 AM, Béria Lima wrote:
>
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-September/069078.html
> _
> *Béria Lima*
> Wikimedia Portugal 
> (351) 963 953 042
>
> *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que
> estamos a fazer.*
>
>
> On 30 September 2011 00:37, Ryan Kaldari  wrote:
>
>>  Would you like to elaborate?
>>
>> Ryan Kaldari
>>
>>
>> On 9/29/11 4:35 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
>>
>> I think it works both ways: There you might get stomped on by people who
>> disagree with the lies Sue told in the post, and here I will be stomp up for
>> even mentioned that she did lied in that blog post.
>>
>> Safe environment do not exist in this case. Is safeR for supports to come
>> here, and safeR for opposers to go there. That does not make any list safe,
>> only shows that the POV here is different than the POV there.
>> _
>> *Béria Lima*
>> Wikimedia Portugal 
>> (351) 963 953 042
>>
>> *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
>> livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que
>> estamos a fazer.*
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Gender neutrality template

[carolmooredc]

There are other more powerful groups that would use the precedent to 
create a template that would censor a number of articles that already 
are heavily patrolled and censored by organized groups of editors (many 
of them surely paid, not that they'd ever admit it).


Instead use the POV template and make editors think by explaining the 
POV template on the talk page. And mention the problem on Wikiproject 
Feminism.


On 9/30/2011 11:30 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
What do you think about creating a {{gendergap}} or {{GNPOV}} 
(gender-neutral point of view) template in en:WP? This could have a 
format similar to


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:NPOV

and could use an image like

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Igualtat_de_sexes.svg

The text could say something like:

"The gender neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the 
discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until 
the dispute is resolved."


Note that templates of this sort come with associated categories such as

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:NPOV_disputes_from_September_2011

These categories can help identify articles with active disputes.

Thoughts?

Do we already have a template like that that I am unaware of?

Best,
Andreas



___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Sue's new blog

[carolmooredc]

Most of us don't have time to read through long email(s) and a long 
article trying to figure out what sentence or two someone claims is a 
lie. Not very useful to the discussion, not to mention civil.


On 9/30/2011 5:49 AM, Béria Lima wrote:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-September/069078.html
_
/Béria Lima/
Wikimedia Portugal 
(351) 963 953 042

/Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter 
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que 
estamos a fazer./



On 30 September 2011 00:37, Ryan Kaldari > wrote:


Would you like to elaborate?

Ryan Kaldari


On 9/29/11 4:35 PM, Béria Lima wrote:

I think it works both ways: There you might get stomped on by
people who disagree with the lies Sue told in the post, and here
I will be stomp up for even mentioned that she did lied in that
blog post.

Safe environment do not exist in this case. Is safeR for supports
to come here, and safeR for opposers to go there. That does not
make any list safe, only shows that the POV here is different
than the POV there.
_
/Béria Lima/
Wikimedia Portugal 
(351) 963 953 042

/Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade
de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É
isso o que estamos a fazer./





___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 8, Issue 76

[Maggie]

@Beria
I'm not clear what point you are trying to prove, other than the 9% of
"girls'" voices don't matter. I also find it questionable that you refer to
women as girls and don't hesitate ponder why you don't call men boys.

Many women, like myself, get driven off of WP due to frustration with the
hierarchy, which does exist. Women are treated with less respect, women are
questioned for their motives, women are called prudish if they object to
sexualizing images--or they are told their voices are not important because
they only comprise 9% of the population.

Why do you think they only comprise 9% then?

My goal on WP is to make it more diverse, and TBH I'm not too into this
picture discussion that has gone on for months. But it doesn't mean that it
doesn't matter or it isn't an important one, and it doesn't mean that the
women who care about it aren't important.

Offense is not the reason here, IMO. Offense barely scratches the surface. I
can imagine that many of the people on this list are angry--they are angry
that women are being objectified and because women are in the minority on
the community and it's an uninviting, sometimes terribly creepy atmosphere,
their voices do not matter.

As for badly written? My god that is the worst you can say? In writing terms
that is just snide and a low blow. Basically, only someone who can think of
no other insult would say this. "Well it's badly written and has spelling
mistakes!" Come on, get a fucking life.

Wikipedia is set up so that only people who look for these articles/pictures
will know about voting procedures. So of course if there is a vote, the
majority would probably be overall positive unless serious canvassing went
on to let people who care about the other side know about it so it evens
out. Canvassing is set up to prevent this--I believe it's actually a way of
biasing the community to serve only the community, and not the readers.
Because the readers are--the world. Telling people about the topic is just
like how any election goes. I guess unless you are in some sort of fake
election where people are led to believe that their votes actually count.

Nowhere did you prove that she lied in that article. You only stated how you
disagree with her opinion. Obviously you are not part of this group for the
interest of women, otherwise you would care about that 9%'s opinion---so why
are you subscribing???

--Maggie

>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:49 AM, B?ria Lima 
> wrote:
>
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-September/069078.html
> _
> *B?ria Lima*
> Wikimedia Portugal 
>   (351) 963 953 042
>
> *Imagine um mundo onde ? dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> livre acesso ao somat?rio de todo o conhecimento humano. ? isso o que
> estamos a fazer.*
>
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Monitoring impact on female participation

[Sydney Poore]

On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Chris Keating wrote:

> So how can we measure what impact we're having on getting women to
> participate?
>
> Over the next few months Wikimedia UK's very going to be adopting a rather
> more formal set of reporting procedures. I just wondered if people on this
> list had any thoughts about how we could build in some gender impact
> assessment into this reporting.
>
> It should be fairly easy for the Board to ask for statistics on how many of
> the people attending events are men and how many are women. Ideally we would
> also have statistics on how many people attending events *who then go on to
> edit/join/otherwise take part* available by gender. It should be even easier
> to monitor the diversity of our staff (currently we have 2, both are male)
> and Wikimedians in Residence (also currently 2, both male) and indeed the
> board (err 7 men) - hopefully these statistics will be a bit better in a
> year's time.
>
> Does anyone have any more thoughts on how we should approach this?
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
>
> PS. Also, you might be interested to know that we've identified a £10k
> budget for "broadening impact" - i.e. additional funding for projects which
> are aimed at women, Scotland, Wales, ethnic or linguistic minorities - I
> think this is a good thing but we do need to make sure the remaining £500k
> isn't spent only on white Englishmen ;-)
>
>
Chris,

Excellent that you are building measurable indicators into your plan. It is
very basic to planning to have good measurable indicators. When we were
doing the WMF Strategic Planning process, it was difficult to make good
decisions in some instances because of lack of data. That is being changed
at WMF now with many more surveys and other ways of capturing data. But we
still need to build it into other processes, too. So, I applaud you for
doing it. :-)

You have identified several good measures such as head counts of staff,
chapter members, and people attending events.

Money spent is also a  good measure.

Things such as offering shirts for sale in women's style and sizes could
show if more women are participating more if sales go up.

(Sidenote:I really appreciated the WikiMania planning team in Israel
offering shirts for women. While many younger females don't mind as much,
most older females don't care for T-shirts made for the male figure and
won't wear them out in public.)

Also dollars spent on projects targeted at females if outreach is being
done. Like co-sponsoring events with women's groups.

Also, finding a way to measure editing contributions from male v. female
coming from UK would be good. That is more difficult but perhaps doable if
you work with the WMF staff when they do their surveys.

Also, I've been told that it is hard to do a retrospective assessment of an
specific group of users edits. But if they are identified upfront it is
doable. So, maybe you could work with WMF staff and have users attending
outreach editing events to have their accounts identified for follow up of
their contributions.

Sydney
User:FloNight
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Monitoring impact on female participation

[Laura Hale]

On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Chris Keating wrote:

> So how can we measure what impact we're having on getting women to
> participate?
>
> Does anyone have any more thoughts on how we should approach this?
>
>
One possible way to measure is to track how many people transclude a gender
related template (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gender_user_templates ) on their user
page.  Not necessarily the greatest and most accurate statistic, and it only
captures a very limited audience… but one additional methodology to include
in a tool set.

-- 
twitter: purplepopple
blog: ozziesport.com
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] Monitoring impact on female participation

[Chris Keating]

So how can we measure what impact we're having on getting women to
participate?

Over the next few months Wikimedia UK's very going to be adopting a rather
more formal set of reporting procedures. I just wondered if people on this
list had any thoughts about how we could build in some gender impact
assessment into this reporting.

It should be fairly easy for the Board to ask for statistics on how many of
the people attending events are men and how many are women. Ideally we would
also have statistics on how many people attending events *who then go on to
edit/join/otherwise take part* available by gender. It should be even easier
to monitor the diversity of our staff (currently we have 2, both are male)
and Wikimedians in Residence (also currently 2, both male) and indeed the
board (err 7 men) - hopefully these statistics will be a bit better in a
year's time.

Does anyone have any more thoughts on how we should approach this?

Regards,

Chris

PS. Also, you might be interested to know that we've identified a £10k
budget for "broadening impact" - i.e. additional funding for projects which
are aimed at women, Scotland, Wales, ethnic or linguistic minorities - I
think this is a good thing but we do need to make sure the remaining £500k
isn't spent only on white Englishmen ;-)
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Sue's new blog

[Béria Lima]

I'm sorry but whatever you took before write that mail I didn't, therefore,
I didn't understand a word. Can you explain yourself?
_
*Béria Lima*
Wikimedia Portugal 
(351) 963 953 042

*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre
acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a
fazer.*


On 30 September 2011 14:27, Sarah Stierch  wrote:

> Well, at least this confirms that there are a 14 photos of dudes getting
> their *own* rocks off on Commons! Thank god!  (Oh...speaking of
> permissions...)
>
> You also have to scroll down a bit in Google search before you come across
> the article after searching "sucking your own cock". The fact that the
> search finds that page based on one of my favorite films, Clerks, is rather
> funny.
>
> Wait, where is Sue a liar?
>
> -Sarah
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:49 AM, Béria Lima wrote:
>
>>
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-September/069078.html
>> _
>> *Béria Lima*
>> Wikimedia Portugal 
>> (351) 963 953 042
>>
>> *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
>> livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que
>> estamos a fazer.*
>>
>>
>> On 30 September 2011 00:37, Ryan Kaldari  wrote:
>>
>>> **
>>> Would you like to elaborate?
>>>
>>> Ryan Kaldari
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/29/11 4:35 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
>>>
>>> I think it works both ways: There you might get stomped on by people who
>>> disagree with the lies Sue told in the post, and here I will be stomp up for
>>> even mentioned that she did lied in that blog post.
>>>
>>> Safe environment do not exist in this case. Is safeR for supports to come
>>> here, and safeR for opposers to go there. That does not make any list safe,
>>> only shows that the POV here is different than the POV there.
>>> _
>>> *Béria Lima*
>>> Wikimedia Portugal 
>>> (351) 963 953 042
>>>
>>> *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
>>> livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que
>>> estamos a fazer.*
>>>
>>>
>>> On 30 September 2011 00:25, Sarah Stierch wrote:
>>>
 I'm sure there are some people on this mailing list who also disagree as
 well! We try to provide a safe haven for discussion about sensitive topics.

 But, if any of us spoke up on Foundation-L we'd be risking getting torn
 up by often heavily opinionated Foundation-L subscribers, and it gets 
 really
 tiring :( It is also nice to have a change in opinion - for those who
 dislike the post, there are also many of that support it. Thanks for
 bringing up that a different type of conversation is taking place on
 Foundation-L! I've been following it.

 -Sarah


 On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Béria Lima wrote:

> ehhh, sorry for be the different, but you people are reading the thread
> about that same blog post in Foundation-l ? The opinions there seems to be
> quite different than yours.
> _
> *Béria Lima*
> Wikimedia Portugal 
> (351) 963 953 042
>
> *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que
> estamos a fazer.*
>
>
>
> On 30 September 2011 00:09, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
>
>>  Can I nominate Sue for the Executive Director's Barnstar? :)
>>
>> Kaldari
>>
>>
>> On 9/29/11 4:06 PM, Amory wrote:
>>
>> I normally hate +1s, but I would like to echo this.  Really
>> exceptionally well crafted, and even for people following it's a very 
>> good
>> writeup.  Thank you, Sue.
>>
>> ~A
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 09:36, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>>
>>>   Thanks for the link Sarah. It's an outstanding post by Sue, and a
>>> courageous one, too.
>>>
>>>  Andreas
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On *Thu, 29/9/11, Sarah Stierch *wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Sarah Stierch 
>>> Subject: [Gendergap] Sue's new blog
>>> To: "Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects" <
>>> gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>> Date: Thursday, 29 September, 2011, 7:47
>>>
>>>
>>> http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
>>>
>>>
>>> A lot of things I think about, and I'm sure a lot of other people
>>> here think about.
>>>
>>> I'm sure this blog won't be well received on other WMF-related
>>> mailing lists, but, I have to admit - for me - I feel like she's 
>>> speaking
>>> for me.
>>>
>>> I don't want to be a censor, I just want people to have common sense,
>>> good judgement, customer service and logic. And when people call *me
>>> * a censor, it's just as offensive as the other names I've been
>>> cal