Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia and the war on women’s dignity

[Risker]

I'd disagree with you there, Andreas.  A lot of journalism is badly
researched for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia or
Wikimedia.  It has to do with limited resources, the need to make a splashy
headline, and nowhere near enough sexy stuff.  Not even the most fascinated
journalists could make the majority of "issues" on Wikipedia look
interesting: the biggest issues internally are so far inside baseball that
even most Wikimedians don't get them.

Example:  Despite a vast amount of effort, the overwhelming majority of
"news" articles relating to the monkey selfie really missed the point of
the copyright issue that was at the heart of the discussion.  And even
those that seemed to get the point still treated the subject as "Wikipedia
being copyright wonks to the point of 'stealing' money out of the pocket of
a real photographer".

No, I don't have a great deal of faith in journalists to get things right.

Risker/Anne

On 11 September 2014 22:31, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Anne,
>
> That's precisely the point. A lot of journalism is badly researched,
> because Wikipedia is remarkably opaque to many outside observers. So you
> simply end up with people repeating PR fluff, or going for the easy
> headline.
>
> Here are a couple of articles that are different. I would contend they had
> a palpable positive impact on Wikipedia:
>
>
> http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/
>
>
> http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-network-history-wiki-pr/
>
> This one didn't make a big impact, but it was a story I cared about:
>
>
> http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/wikipedia-plastic-surgery-otto-placik-labiaplasty/
>
> There are stories like this about the gender gap that simply haven't been
> heard. They have only bounced off the walls within the Wikipedia echo
> chamber, muffled by nay-sayers.
>
> Those stories *should* be heard.
>
> Andreas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:59 AM, Risker  wrote:
>
>> Frankly, I see little value in creating a site whose goal includes
>> attracting journalists - particularly given the poor quality,
>> sensationalistic journalism that we've all seen "reporting" on anything
>> Wikimedia.
>>
>> Risker/Anne
>>
>> On 11 September 2014 18:51, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>>
>>> In my opinion, women should look to organising off-wiki. Women-only site
>>> Women.com was mentioned the other day on the Gender Gap Task Force page.
>>> Activism there could certainly fulfil a useful function.
>>>
>>> Ultimately, I think there should be a separate site for the gender gap
>>> effort – combining a blog and a forum, much like Wikipediocracy – where
>>> women and men interested in narrowing the gender gap and documenting the
>>> existing problems can exchange views in an atmosphere undisturbed by men
>>> pretending to be women, men opposed to narrowing the gender gap, men
>>> arguing that it's not really proven that the gender gap is a problem, and
>>> so forth.
>>>
>>> It could do wonders for the effort's signal-to-noise ratio, and could
>>> probably achieve exponentially more in terms of raising public awareness.
>>> As it is, discussions on-wiki get bogged down in arguments leading nowhere,
>>> and contributors' energies are dissipated.[1]
>>>
>>> A well-publicised off-wiki site forming links to journalists and
>>> academics working in this field would be an ideal complement to this
>>> mailing list – which is useful for networking with researchers and
>>> Wikipedians, but creates little or no direct publicity. No journalist will
>>> comb through the voluminous discussions here. You need a place where you
>>> can summarise issues in a more easily digestible format.
>>>
>>> Unrelated to this, some of you may be interested in an ongoing
>>> discussion of the Wikipedia gender gap happening on Hacker News / Y
>>> Combinator:
>>>
>>> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8304173
>>>
>>> [1] Note the current arbitration request on the English Wikipedia:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gender_Gap_Task_Force_Issues
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Katherine Casey <
>>> fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 I don't think it's appropriate to use this list to link to pages that
 out other users. I understand your frustration with nothing onwiki getting
 done, Carol, I truly do, but part of the social contract of being a
 Wikipedian is that we're expected to not attack the "real lives" of other
 Wikipedians - even when we think they're terrible or totally wrong.

 On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Carol Moore dc <
 carolmoor...@verizon.net> wrote:

>  Wikipedia and the war on women’s dignity
>
> http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/09/07/wikipedia-and-the-war-on-womens-dignity/
>
> This article mentions an individual who's caused problems at the
> Gender Gap task force.
>
> Off wiki sites 

Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia and the war on women’s dignity

[Andreas Kolbe]

Anne,

That's precisely the point. A lot of journalism is badly researched,
because Wikipedia is remarkably opaque to many outside observers. So you
simply end up with people repeating PR fluff, or going for the easy
headline.

Here are a couple of articles that are different. I would contend they had
a palpable positive impact on Wikipedia:

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/

http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-network-history-wiki-pr/

This one didn't make a big impact, but it was a story I cared about:

http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/wikipedia-plastic-surgery-otto-placik-labiaplasty/

There are stories like this about the gender gap that simply haven't been
heard. They have only bounced off the walls within the Wikipedia echo
chamber, muffled by nay-sayers.

Those stories *should* be heard.

Andreas









On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:59 AM, Risker  wrote:

> Frankly, I see little value in creating a site whose goal includes
> attracting journalists - particularly given the poor quality,
> sensationalistic journalism that we've all seen "reporting" on anything
> Wikimedia.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 11 September 2014 18:51, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> In my opinion, women should look to organising off-wiki. Women-only site
>> Women.com was mentioned the other day on the Gender Gap Task Force page.
>> Activism there could certainly fulfil a useful function.
>>
>> Ultimately, I think there should be a separate site for the gender gap
>> effort – combining a blog and a forum, much like Wikipediocracy – where
>> women and men interested in narrowing the gender gap and documenting the
>> existing problems can exchange views in an atmosphere undisturbed by men
>> pretending to be women, men opposed to narrowing the gender gap, men
>> arguing that it's not really proven that the gender gap is a problem, and
>> so forth.
>>
>> It could do wonders for the effort's signal-to-noise ratio, and could
>> probably achieve exponentially more in terms of raising public awareness.
>> As it is, discussions on-wiki get bogged down in arguments leading nowhere,
>> and contributors' energies are dissipated.[1]
>>
>> A well-publicised off-wiki site forming links to journalists and
>> academics working in this field would be an ideal complement to this
>> mailing list – which is useful for networking with researchers and
>> Wikipedians, but creates little or no direct publicity. No journalist will
>> comb through the voluminous discussions here. You need a place where you
>> can summarise issues in a more easily digestible format.
>>
>> Unrelated to this, some of you may be interested in an ongoing discussion
>> of the Wikipedia gender gap happening on Hacker News / Y Combinator:
>>
>> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8304173
>>
>> [1] Note the current arbitration request on the English Wikipedia:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gender_Gap_Task_Force_Issues
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Katherine Casey <
>> fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think it's appropriate to use this list to link to pages that
>>> out other users. I understand your frustration with nothing onwiki getting
>>> done, Carol, I truly do, but part of the social contract of being a
>>> Wikipedian is that we're expected to not attack the "real lives" of other
>>> Wikipedians - even when we think they're terrible or totally wrong.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Carol Moore dc >> > wrote:
>>>
  Wikipedia and the war on women’s dignity

 http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/09/07/wikipedia-and-the-war-on-womens-dignity/

 This article mentions an individual who's caused problems at the Gender
 Gap task force.

 Off wiki sites engaging in outing is, like hashtags, a two edged
 sword.  It can be used against truly problematic individuals who troll
 behind anonymity.  But it also can be used against solid editors whose job
 or other situation necessitates anonymity but who have angered the wrong
 troll by trying to comply with policy.

 And the absurdities continue

 CM



 ___
 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 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] Wikipedia and the war on women’s dignity

[Carol Moore dc]

The Resources page links to forty-eight mainstream and tech articles 
with another 30 or 40 reprints or summaries of those in smaller 
mainstream publications.  The fourteen blog and other entries are just a 
smattering of the higher quality blog and activist commentary on 
Wikipedia.  So there is a lot of good work being done, in between the 
crappy commentary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carolmooredc/My_Sandbox_1

On 9/11/2014 8:14 PM, LB wrote:
I hear you, but I would very much like to see some good newsrooms 
(real journalists) do regular reporting on Wikipedia. I think it would 
be hard on the community at first, but ultimately would help. WP is a 
hostile work environment and I for one am tired of it.


Lightbreather

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Risker > wrote:


Frankly, I see little value in creating a site whose goal includes
attracting journalists - particularly given the poor quality,
sensationalistic journalism that we've all seen "reporting" on
anything Wikimedia.
Risker/Anne




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

Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia and the war on women’s dignity

[LB]

I hear you, but I would very much like to see some good newsrooms (real
journalists) do regular reporting on Wikipedia. I think it would be hard on
the community at first, but ultimately would help. WP is a hostile work
environment and I for one am tired of it.

Lightbreather

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Risker  wrote:

> Frankly, I see little value in creating a site whose goal includes
> attracting journalists - particularly given the poor quality,
> sensationalistic journalism that we've all seen "reporting" on anything
> Wikimedia.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia and the war on women’s dignity

[Risker]

Frankly, I see little value in creating a site whose goal includes
attracting journalists - particularly given the poor quality,
sensationalistic journalism that we've all seen "reporting" on anything
Wikimedia.

Risker/Anne

On 11 September 2014 18:51, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> In my opinion, women should look to organising off-wiki. Women-only site
> Women.com was mentioned the other day on the Gender Gap Task Force page.
> Activism there could certainly fulfil a useful function.
>
> Ultimately, I think there should be a separate site for the gender gap
> effort – combining a blog and a forum, much like Wikipediocracy – where
> women and men interested in narrowing the gender gap and documenting the
> existing problems can exchange views in an atmosphere undisturbed by men
> pretending to be women, men opposed to narrowing the gender gap, men
> arguing that it's not really proven that the gender gap is a problem, and
> so forth.
>
> It could do wonders for the effort's signal-to-noise ratio, and could
> probably achieve exponentially more in terms of raising public awareness.
> As it is, discussions on-wiki get bogged down in arguments leading nowhere,
> and contributors' energies are dissipated.[1]
>
> A well-publicised off-wiki site forming links to journalists and academics
> working in this field would be an ideal complement to this mailing list –
> which is useful for networking with researchers and Wikipedians, but
> creates little or no direct publicity. No journalist will comb through the
> voluminous discussions here. You need a place where you can summarise
> issues in a more easily digestible format.
>
> Unrelated to this, some of you may be interested in an ongoing discussion
> of the Wikipedia gender gap happening on Hacker News / Y Combinator:
>
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8304173
>
> [1] Note the current arbitration request on the English Wikipedia:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gender_Gap_Task_Force_Issues
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Katherine Casey <
> fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't think it's appropriate to use this list to link to pages that out
>> other users. I understand your frustration with nothing onwiki getting
>> done, Carol, I truly do, but part of the social contract of being a
>> Wikipedian is that we're expected to not attack the "real lives" of other
>> Wikipedians - even when we think they're terrible or totally wrong.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Carol Moore dc 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  Wikipedia and the war on women’s dignity
>>>
>>> http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/09/07/wikipedia-and-the-war-on-womens-dignity/
>>>
>>> This article mentions an individual who's caused problems at the Gender
>>> Gap task force.
>>>
>>> Off wiki sites engaging in outing is, like hashtags, a two edged sword.
>>> It can be used against truly problematic individuals who troll behind
>>> anonymity.  But it also can be used against solid editors whose job or
>>> other situation necessitates anonymity but who have angered the wrong troll
>>> by trying to comply with policy.
>>>
>>> And the absurdities continue
>>>
>>> CM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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 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] Wikipedia and the war on women’s dignity

[Andreas Kolbe]

In my opinion, women should look to organising off-wiki. Women-only site
Women.com was mentioned the other day on the Gender Gap Task Force page.
Activism there could certainly fulfil a useful function.

Ultimately, I think there should be a separate site for the gender gap
effort – combining a blog and a forum, much like Wikipediocracy – where
women and men interested in narrowing the gender gap and documenting the
existing problems can exchange views in an atmosphere undisturbed by men
pretending to be women, men opposed to narrowing the gender gap, men
arguing that it's not really proven that the gender gap is a problem, and
so forth.

It could do wonders for the effort's signal-to-noise ratio, and could
probably achieve exponentially more in terms of raising public awareness.
As it is, discussions on-wiki get bogged down in arguments leading nowhere,
and contributors' energies are dissipated.[1]

A well-publicised off-wiki site forming links to journalists and academics
working in this field would be an ideal complement to this mailing list –
which is useful for networking with researchers and Wikipedians, but
creates little or no direct publicity. No journalist will comb through the
voluminous discussions here. You need a place where you can summarise
issues in a more easily digestible format.

Unrelated to this, some of you may be interested in an ongoing discussion
of the Wikipedia gender gap happening on Hacker News / Y Combinator:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8304173

[1] Note the current arbitration request on the English Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gender_Gap_Task_Force_Issues





On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Katherine Casey <
fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't think it's appropriate to use this list to link to pages that out
> other users. I understand your frustration with nothing onwiki getting
> done, Carol, I truly do, but part of the social contract of being a
> Wikipedian is that we're expected to not attack the "real lives" of other
> Wikipedians - even when we think they're terrible or totally wrong.
>
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Carol Moore dc 
> wrote:
>
>>  Wikipedia and the war on women’s dignity
>>
>> http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/09/07/wikipedia-and-the-war-on-womens-dignity/
>>
>> This article mentions an individual who's caused problems at the Gender
>> Gap task force.
>>
>> Off wiki sites engaging in outing is, like hashtags, a two edged sword.
>> It can be used against truly problematic individuals who troll behind
>> anonymity.  But it also can be used against solid editors whose job or
>> other situation necessitates anonymity but who have angered the wrong troll
>> by trying to comply with policy.
>>
>> And the absurdities continue
>>
>> CM
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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 mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap