Re: [Gendergap] Joseph Reagle on Wikipedia's category taxonomy

[Lady of Shalott]

Thanks for your reply, Joseph - fair enough!  :)  I agree with you - I
think there have been some major lapses of assumption of good faith
from both (all?) sides.

(Ouch looking back at my post, I'm wishing I could hit edit. The edit
summary would be something along the lines of "typo fixing".)


On 4/29/13, Joseph Reagle  wrote:
> On 04/29/2013 10:03 PM, Lady of Shalott wrote:
>> Interesting commentary as far as it went. I wish he'd delved a little
>> further into what he was saying.
>>  ...
>> Just thinking out loud here...
>
> I'm actually on this list :) and was just thinking out loud as well to
> see if I could understand the incident since I was seeing pretty strong
> claims (both "Wikipedia is sexist" and "this is journalism run amok.")
> For instance, people continue to report that Filipacchi is a reporter
> for NYT when these were op-eds.
>

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

Re: [Gendergap] Joseph Reagle on Wikipedia's category taxonomy

[Lady of Shalott]

Interesting commentary as far as it went. I wish he'd delved a little
further into what he was saying.

Perception is important. I think people can act in good faith (for
instance to reduce the size of a massive category) without realizing
the effect of how the result looks. It may not be meant in a sexist
way, but if the effect is "ghettoization", it looks sexist, and that
does matter. There is the real need though to find women novelists,
male nurses, etc. for studies. Apparently German WP has a system
whereby one can query category intersections that are defined by the
end user. ?This souns like a plausible solution, but I haven't used it
myself (and do't speak German).

Just thinking out loud here...
Lady

On 4/29/13, Sarah Stierch  wrote:
> Sparked by the recent...situation..
>
> http://reagle.org/joseph/pelican/social/wikipedia-and-gendered-categories.html
>
> Sar
>
>
> --
> *Sarah Stierch*
> */Museumist and open culture advocate/*
>  >>Visit sarahstierch.com <<
>

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

Re: [Gendergap] Article for deletion Fanny Imlay

[Lady of Shalott]

I have to say that I think a topic such as Imlay, with literally centuries
of scholarship is not really comparable to the recentism that is an article
on a Twitter account, whether Bieber's or Gaga's.

LadyofShalott/ Aleta Turner

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Nathan  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Laura Hale  wrote:
>
>>
>> Been there.  Done that.  It isn't only women's topics. Because Justin
>> Bieber is unpopular and actively disliked by some people,  (Though I guess
>> you could argue this example relates to a topic of interest to many young
>> girls) there was an attempt to merge
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber_on_Twitter in
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber , with
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Justin_Bieber#Merger_proposal making
>> it clear the reason is "I don't like this."  The article had about 100
>> sources around the time the article was nominated for merge.  Lady Gaga,
>> the most followed person on Twitter and woo hoo female to boot! has had
>> other people ask why the article isn't deleted.  See
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lady_Gaga_on_Twitter#Request_for_deletion:_Is_this_page_really_relevant.3F.
>>  I have another topic I wrote on where the regional women's stuff should
>> be generic to all women playing the sport or to the region. If neither
>> article currently exist, [[WP:SOFIXIT]] by creating the new and relevant
>> articles.
>>
>> Information is power and what is on Wikipedia has the potential to shape
>> greater understanding around issues.  Thus, a battle for what should and
>> should not be there.
>>
>
> Wow, YMMV, but I think it's really odd to have whole long articles devoted
> to a Twitter account. What is and isn't broken out from "main topic"
> articles is often controversial, whether criticism sections or detailed
> information on specifically consequential periods, but an article on a
> Twitter account is an outlier in my reading experience.
>
> One of the arguments on the talk page for Fanny Imlay was that the sources
> cited included information about her only incidentally in the course of
> covering other people, as opposed to being primarily about her (presumably
> with the exception of the biography). I don't know enough about the subject
> or the sources to know if this is the case, but it's an argument that might
> apply to "Justin Bieber on Twitter." The articles discussing his Twitter
> usage are really about Justin Bieber and his behavior, not his Twitter
> account. See for example[1], a short mention in Ashton Kutcher's bio about
> his Twitter use. Kutcher is also among the most prominent users of that
> service in its history, but there is no article devoted to it. Rather than
> seeing the merge proposal as an example of "I don't like it," I think the
> fact that it failed demonstrates the power of a gigantic fanbase to distort
> normal practice on a wiki.
>
>
> ~Nathan
>
> [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashton_Kutcher#Twitter_presence
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>


-- 
"Sometimes a tree is actually a deer with twelve horns, standing on a
hillock that houses a bird's nest."

from _The Night Life of Trees_, by Bhajju Shyam, Durga Bai, and Ram Singh
Urveti, Tara Publishing, 2006
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] civility/behavioral standards

[Lady of Shalott]

I have to agree with Risker here. Laura, it sounds as if perhaps you
want a woman-only space, but this is list for discussion by all, of
any gender, who are interested in the issues. That doesn't mean we
need to dump on men, any more than they should dump on women.

LadyofShalott/Aleta

On 5/6/12, Risker  wrote:
> Laura, I'm the one who's called you out here.  I don't think it is any more
> tolerable for sexism to be directed toward men as when it is directed
> toward women, and I am reasonably certain that is the case with many
> (present and former) subscribers to this list.  There are two active
> moderators for this list, one male and one female.  When one moderator has
> attacks directed at her, it is up to the other moderator to address them.
> List moderation is list moderation, and it doesn't have a gender.  If
> anything, I would prefer that this list be *more heavily* moderated than
> other WMF lists.
>
> In particular, I do not want to see people denigrated for coming up with
> ideas and brainstorming on this list, which I believe is where this post
> about moderation has come from.  It's not acceptable, regardless of whether
> it comes from a woman or a man.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
>
> On 6 May 2012 18:37, Laura Hale  wrote:
>
>> Thanks. It really makes me as a women expressing concerns about feeling
>> unsafe and unable to talk about issues in terms men on the list feel
>> unimportant and resolved because a man has said they do not care who
>> moderates. Clearly the fact that a man has stepped up to enforce civility
>> on women and other men do not care about the moderator's gender means my
>> concerns are over blown.  Thank you. As a woman interested in the
>> gendergap, as one who feels like her voice is silenced by men, I am
>> ecstatic that you have spoken up on my behalf. I will now go silently sit
>> in my corner, because my voice and the voices of other women are clearly
>> being tended to by men.
>>
>>
>> On Monday, May 7, 2012, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
>>
>>>  I don't care who is moderating, but it would be nice to have more
>>> civility on this list. When I resigned as moderator, I invited several
>>> people to take my place (all women). They all declined citing the
>>> contentious nature of the list, except for SlimVirgin. SlimVirgin,
>>> unfortunately, was not able to moderate for very long due to health
>>> issues.
>>> That leaves us with Sue, SarahS, and Kevin. Sue is far too busy to
>>> actually
>>> moderate the list and SarahS often has a COI in moderating since she is
>>> frequently the target of attacks. So that leaves Kevin. Now that
>>> SlimVirgin
>>> has rejoined the list, perhaps she would be interested in helping to
>>> moderate again?
>>>
>>> Ryan Kaldari

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

Re: [Gendergap] the state of civility on en.wiki

[Lady of Shalott]

While I understand the frustrations in this thread, it does us no good
to resort to incivil behavior here, even regarding a person who is
[most likely] not part of this list. I respectfully ask that we
refrain from comments like "By god, I hate that man".

Thank you,
LadyofShalott

P.S. I realize this is somewhat belated relative to the particular
post I am referencing, but I felt it needed to be said.

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

Re: [Gendergap] Am I crazy?

[Lady of Shalott]

Thanks! Does someone here have access to the full article at
?

LoS

On 10/24/11, Daniel and Elizabeth Case  wrote:
>
>
> Well, it's not rectified yet. The one source I've given thus far is
> not enough apparently. I have to add more.
>
> Already done:
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/25/nyregion/new-policy-is-aimed-at-preventing-date-rape-on-campuses.html
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_dating&diff=457185120&oldid=457178405
>
> Daniel Case
>
>
> ___
> 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] Am I crazy?

[Lady of Shalott]

Well, it's not rectified yet. The one source I've given thus far is
not enough apparently. I have to add more.

The see also was not merely questioned before, it was removed (with
one edit summary being "seriously, wtf?")

LoS

On 10/24/11, Daniel and Elizabeth Case  wrote:
> It seems this has been rectified the way it should be, IMO: a separate
> section about date rape has been added to the article, with a short,
> reliably sourced graf. This is perfectly in keeping with WP:SEEALSO's dictum
> that such links are fine in a less-developed article as long as the
> intention is to eventually incorporate them into the article (in fact, I
> would amend that passage slightly to suggest that it's even better to start
> such a section yourself or at least bring it up on the talk page in
> conjunction with such an addition).
>
> Daniel Case
>
>
> ___
> 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] Am I crazy?

[Lady of Shalott]

I've never particularly felt the "boys club" atmosphere on Wikipedia
that apparently deters some women. However, I am very angry right now.
I tried to add [[date rape]] as a "see also" link to the very
incomplete article [[college dating]]. The relevance seemed obvious to
me. It was removed by two separate people, and when I took it to the
talk page, its relevance was questioned, and I was told to "prove it"
because it was "obvious to whom?" Fine. I've proven it with sourcing,
adding a small section. I think that needed to happen anyway, but I'm
infuriated that I could not just add a see also link to it and tell
the students who are really working on the article that a section
needed adding. (The people who removed the link are seasoned
Wikipedians, not members of the class developing the article.) Am I
crazy?

LadyofShalott

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