Re: [Gendergap] Why women and wikis do mix...
--- On Tue, 8/3/11, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net Subject: [Gendergap] Why women and wikis do mix... To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Tuesday, 8 March, 2011, 19:09 On Signpost: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-03-07/In_the_news http://lola-pr.blogspot.com/2011/03/why-women-wikis-do-mix.html Fred Thanks Fred, interesting. Here are some sample articles from Wikifashion: http://wikifashion.com/wiki/Christian_Dior/Resort_2011 http://wikifashion.com/wiki/Yasmin_Sewell I don't think there is anyone in en:WP who would write these articles. Yet the article on the Resort 2011 collection is precisely the level of detail that we would have on something like wrestling or Pokemon, and it's notable, with coverage in decent sources. Yasmin Sewell doesn't even have an article on en:WP (look her up in Google News to see how notable she is ...). We discussed the design issue that the Wikifashion lady highlights a few weeks ago. I like the Wikifashion interface design ... having a toggle option to change to a design like that would be useful in WP. A real eye-opener. Please let's add a design like that as an option. Following on from what Carol said, and from observing how and why my wife writes, I think women do get a kick out of writing an article about someone whose work they think is important, be it a biography or an article about that work. There clearly are women out there who enjoy writing a wiki article on a widely covered fashion collection; they're just not doing it in Wikipedia. I like that Wikifashion has lots of images: again, this follows entirely the model of reliable sources writing about fashion. Yet I can't recall ever seeing such richly illustrated fashion pages in Wikipedia. Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] What to do about sexism when we see it on WP?
I've added sexual innuendo to the en:WP civility policy, under other uncivil behaviours: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACivilityaction=historysubmitdiff=419506099oldid=416379114 Andreas --- On Fri, 18/3/11, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote: From: Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Gendergap] What to do about sexism when we see it on WP? To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Friday, 18 March, 2011, 13:53 On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 15:34, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: The behavior you describe is all too common on Wikipedia (and even worse on Commons). I could quote some much more blatant examples than the one you cite, but I'll spare everyone the groans. I think the problem is that most guys do not understand that creating an unwanted sexualized environment is a form of sexism and an abuse of male privilege (and that it has a real effect on women's participation in the project). Indeed, I imagine some do not even comprehend the concept of unwanted sexualized environment. Perhaps it would be helpful to point them to: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Sexualized_environment This reminds me of my unsuccessful attempt to get WP:HOTTIE deleted :( For the long term, we should think about trying to get wording added to either the Civility policy or the Harassment policy about offensive verbal comments and sexual innuendo. Ryan, thanks for the link to the sexualized environment page. http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Sexualized_environment Perhaps the best thing to do when we see these comments is just add a link to that page. I'd like to try to add something to the civility policy about sexual innuendo. I think so long as it's low key we could manage that fairly easily (famous last words). 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] Visible female faces for Wikim/pedia
--- On Sun, 20/3/11, carolmoor...@verizon.net carolmoor...@verizon.net wrote: Come up with male and female wikipe-tans and put those up. Thinking out loud here: Having images that contain both a female and a male figure might actually be useful for young men, on a subliminal level. Having the two figures drawn in similar ways makes it more difficult to objectify the image, because there would be a natural tendency for men to identify with the male image. It's harder psychologically to objectify and identify with an image at the same time. To the extent that the viewer identifies with the image, they then also identify with the female figure in the image somewhat; the message becomes one of sameness and shared characteristics. I am obviously not talking about romantic depictions here. And it would help if the female figure weren't dressed like a maid. ;) If it's well done, it might convey an implication of comradeship, and a reminder that this is a joint effort involving both sexes. Wikipe-tan is pure objectification. For the male viewer, she is other. The ones showing knickers and so on are in grossly poor taste. Males viewing those images are not encouraged to picture women working side by side with them, doing the same job they are doing. The whole vibe is of a boys-only environment, where the (falsely assumed) lack of actual female presence is compensated with a stereotypical fantasy girl. (That may also carry through into article illustration preferences sometimes.) It's good for men to be aware that they are in mixed-gender company. As the study on collective intelligence posted by Joseph the other day suggested, social behaviour and group intelligence generally tend to improve somewhat. Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Visible female faces for Wikim/pedia
--- On Mon, 21/3/11, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: Why couldn't the personification of Wikipedia a pair of happy, healthy, young people, a male and a female? Always seen together, side by side? This is a lovely idea. Yes. I like the always seen together aspect. I wouldn't emphasise youth in the depiction. There is as much of an age gap as there is a gender gap. A. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Visible female faces for Wikim/pedia
As someone pointed out in the discussion at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Jumping_Wikipe-tan.svg#File:Jumping_Wikipe-tan.svg (which is heading for a keep) Stephen's - in my view - quite sensible deletion of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipe-tan_in_swimwear.jpg has been undone. Democratic decision-making has its potential drawbacks when the demographics of those participating in the democratic process are skewed. I have no evidence to suggest that a balanced demographic would have resulted in different outcomes here, but I do wonder sometimes whether we need quotas or some kind of affirmative action to correct community biases. Again, while that sort of thing is widespread in Western democracies, I doubt our community would be mature enough to embrace it. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Advice for BLP situation (possibly off-topic)
Hi Deanna, There is some basic advice for people wishing to edit (or complain about) their ownbiographies here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notable_person_survival_kit Otherwise, drop me or some of the established women editors on this list a private note identifying the article, along with some sources that could be used to balance the article. Andreas --- On Wed, 11/5/11, Deanna Zandt dea...@deannazandt.com wrote: From: Deanna Zandt dea...@deannazandt.com Subject: [Gendergap] Advice for BLP situation (possibly off-topic) To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, 11 May, 2011, 17:58 Hey all, Apologies if this isn't the appropriate list/discussion to post to; I learned a lot by following the last BLP discussion, so I'm hoping to get some advice here. It's a question that as a technology consultant I'm asked a lot, and I don't have the greatest answer... I have a friend colleague, a popular young NYC feminist, who's got a Wikipedia page. She's often been the subject of multiple troll/flame/stalking/etc wars, online and off, for many years now-- she was a favorite target of Anon and 4chan/b/ at one time, to give you an idea. Her page is rather sparse, but often people swing by and add inflammatory and other negative material to it. Since she's not *that* well known, her page isn't watched/edited by enough people to keep that in check, and she's often left frustrated that this material figures so prominently in her profile. I told her the best thing for her to do is find people in her community who can add more biographical information and really flesh out her page, so that anything negative has at least more balance to it. Since her community is mostly women, we butt up against the gendergap issue... there just aren't that many women (esp feminists) who are into this work. She's asked on multiple occasions if I or other consultants can be paid edit the page for her, but I advised that this not kosher in the community. So, she's feeling extremely stuck. She's not supposed to edit her own page, she doesn't have a strong enough community to maintain her page, and she can't pay anyone to do it. What to do? I understand, and she understands, that negativity is just part of the Wikipedia world; but having it be so prominent, and most of it being inflammatory, is just... ugh. So much of her work has been extremely positive and productive, I just hate to see her being recorded in history this way. Any advice is greatly appreciated. dz -=-=-=-=-Deanna Zandtdeanna@deannazandt.comSite: http://www.deannazandt.com/Twitter: http://twitter.com/randomdeannaFacebook: Public: http://facebook.com/deannazandtFacebook: Personal: http://facebook.com/deannaz Author: Share This! How You Will Change the World with Social Networking, Berrett-Koehler, June 2010http://www.sharethischange.com/ Be yourself; everyone else is already taken. -- Oscar Wilde -Inline Attachment Follows- ___ 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] [Commons-l] Fwd: Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons
--- On Mon, 16/5/11, Béria Lima beria.l...@wikimedia.pt wrote: From: Béria Lima beria.l...@wikimedia.pt Subject: Re: [Gendergap] [Commons-l] Fwd: Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Monday, 16 May, 2011, 14:10 That said, changed the picture without any discussion, only because some people don't want to see a half-naked anime girl on Main Page (btw: What is the problem with that picture? I'm a girl, and i'm not AT ALL offended for see that in main page) was a act that NO ONE should do without consensus. Not an adm, not an editor, not a staff. And do that by abusing the tools WMF and the communitty gave you only made everything even worse. That said, i restored the original image of the day and would love if you people decide if the picture should stay or not in main page ON COMMONS I still don't understand what that image that you restored is doing on the main page ofCommons. If I record an original, unpublished post-punk song with my completely non-notable garage band, will you feature that too on the main page, as an educational exampleof post-punk? If not, how is that image different? Does Commons now provide free advertising for up-and-coming artists eager to makea name for themselves? Andreas___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] Commons as an art gallery?
There is a long thread on the Commons and Gendergap lists about today's featured image on Commons: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/ http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-May/ It's an original piece of art by a Wikimedian, in the style of erotic manga: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:On_the_edge_-_free_world_version.jpg The picture was removed from the main page by a WMF staff member, acting as an ordinary editor, and then restored a few hours later by a Commons admin. Aspects of the image that have been discussed include the fact that * it has no noteworthy artistic value * it is used to showcase a Wikimedian's artwork on the project main page * it lacks educational value, being the work of a non-notable Wikimedian * it makes the Foundation look puerile * it might turn off serious educators * it might turn off older people * it might turn off schools * it might turn off women * it might turn off institutions owning valuable content from donating to the Foundation * it is the victim of cultural fascism directed against manga/anime * it is the victim of prudery * it is the victim of censorship * not showing the image on the mian page would undermine the Foundation's mission etc. etc. This is really a Foundation topic though. Are projects' main pages there to showcase Wikimedians' fine art? If yes, then why do we not have songs by unsigned garage bands in the style of ... as featured media of the day? Should the Foundation establish guidelines on what type of content to feature on project main pages? Crossposted to Foundation-l, Commons-l and Gendergap. Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] [Foundation-l] Commons as an art gallery?
Incidentally, that little piece of original art is also the picture of the day on several Wikipedias' main pages; among them the Russian and Bulgarian Wikipedias. The image itself has been nominated for deletion in Commons by User:AndreasPraefcke, as out of scope. A. --- On Mon, 16/5/11, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com Subject: [Foundation-l] Commons as an art gallery? To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org, Wikimedia Commons Discussion List common...@lists.wikimedia.org, Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Monday, 16 May, 2011, 16:40 There is a long thread on the Commons and Gendergap lists about today's featured image on Commons: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-May/ http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-May/ It's an original piece of art by a Wikimedian, in the style of erotic manga: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:On_the_edge_-_free_world_version.jpg The picture was removed from the main page by a WMF staff member, acting as an ordinary editor, and then restored a few hours later by a Commons admin. Aspects of the image that have been discussed include the fact that * it has no noteworthy artistic value * it is used to showcase a Wikimedian's artwork on the project main page * it lacks educational value, being the work of a non-notable Wikimedian * it makes the Foundation look puerile * it might turn off serious educators * it might turn off older people * it might turn off schools * it might turn off women * it might turn off institutions owning valuable content from donating to the Foundation * it is the victim of cultural fascism directed against manga/anime * it is the victim of prudery * it is the victim of censorship * not showing the image on the mian page would undermine the Foundation's mission etc. etc. This is really a Foundation topic though. Are projects' main pages there to showcase Wikimedians' fine art? If yes, then why do we not have songs by unsigned garage bands in the style of ... as featured media of the day? Should the Foundation establish guidelines on what type of content to feature on project main pages? Crossposted to Foundation-l, Commons-l and Gendergap. Andreas ___ foundation-l mailing list foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] [Commons-l] [Foundation-l] Commons as an art gallery?
--- On Mon, 16/5/11, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [Commons-l] [Foundation-l] Commons as an art gallery? To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org, Wikimedia Commons Discussion List common...@lists.wikimedia.org, Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Monday, 16 May, 2011, 19:03 Incidentally, that little piece of original art is also the picture of the day on several Wikipedias' main pages; among them the Russian and Bulgarian Wikipedias. It's also on the Bengali Wikipedia's main page (serving Bangladesh and parts of India). http://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A6%AA%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%A7%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A8_%E0%A6%AA%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A4%E0%A6%BE Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] [Commons-l] Fwd: Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons
This response here is emblematic of the misogyny and ageism pervading Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk%3AOn_the_edge_-_free_world_version.jpgaction=historysubmitdiff=54489618oldid=54483841 Coming up with stuff old women like would actually be a good idea, but I don't think thecontributor meant it that way. At this deletion request http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Paleis_lange_voorhout.jpg I pointed out that the creator of the manga image placed it on a photograph of the Escher museum, making it appear his image appeared there. This is deceptive, and against Commons image guidelines. The only response to the deletion request so far is a Keep. The request to remove featured status from the Edge of the World manga image, startedindependently of our discussions by a Russian Wikipedia editor, is heading for a Keep: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/removal/File:On_the_edge_-_free_world_version.jpg Here is the original nomination: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:On_the_edge_-_free_world_version.jpg The image failed to achieve featured status in German Wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Kandidaten_f%C3%BCr_exzellente_Bilder/Archiv2011/1#On_the_edge_.E2.80.93_2._Januar_bis_16._Januar_-_Contra 7 for, 8 against, which based on objective criteria of artistic and educational merit is still kindto the image. I am thinking of writing a letter to the Commons Village Pump to ask the community to takea long hard look at its basic competence. Sue, any ideas? Andreas --- On Tue, 17/5/11, Sarah Stierch sa...@sarahstierch.com wrote: From: Sarah Stierch sa...@sarahstierch.com Subject: Re: [Gendergap] [Commons-l] Fwd: Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Tuesday, 17 May, 2011, 16:19 Hi dz, Great to hear you'd like to be involved. I've been really busy the past few weeks with finishing school, a trip to California, and GLAM related activities (oh and Regional Ambassadorness!) - so I haven't had time to sit down and get my stuff together for the HOW-TO. But, I'd love to add you to our HOW-TO gang if you like. =) Sarah On 5/17/2011 8:17 AM, Deanna Zandt wrote: I'd also be interested in contributing-- the BLP experience of last week was incredibly enlightening, and got me thinking about access... having the right key unlocked a wealth of knowledge and aid. How to make that key more widely available, or second nature/common knowledge? I'm hoping to blog about it soon. In any case, I'd like to come at some of the HOW-TO issues in general from that noob perspective. cheers dz On May 16, 2011, at 9:23 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote: On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Sarah Stierch sa...@sarahstierch.com wrote: On 5/16/2011 11:49 AM, Pete Forsyth wrote: Anybody interested in tackling this issue? -Pete I'm working on diving into the HOW-TO this summer for Wiki. I do want to see all of these topics covered - and I'll contribute in anyway I can. Where do we start? ;-) Hi Sarah, I'd be really happy to work on this with you! (And anyone else). My sense is that there's a lot of work to do in identifying the problem -- or rather, evaluating the collection of interrelated issues, and determining where it's best to focus. The things that seem significant to me are:
Re: [Gendergap] [Commons-l] Fwd: Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons
--- On Wed, 18/5/11, Béria Lima beria.l...@wikimedia.pt wrote: From: Béria Lima beria.l...@wikimedia.pt Subject: Re: [Gendergap] [Commons-l] Fwd: Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 12:54 Andreas, Again: Stop canvassing your POV!!! This list (and Commons-l) are not for that. That is my last warning This list was set up to discuss systemic issues in Foundation projects. In the opinion of several contributors here, this specific issue is profoundly symptomatic of the issue this list was set up to discuss. This includes Commons selecting images for featured status on the basis of comments like I like her big tits, rather than artistic merit, and then featuring them on the main page. Or creating categories like People using vacuum cleaners. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:People_using_vacuum_cleaners In my view, it's a basic community competence issue. Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] [Commons-l] Fwd: Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons
--- On Wed, 18/5/11, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net Subject: Re: [Gendergap] [Commons-l] Fwd: Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 14:23 --- On Wed, 18/5/11, Béria Lima beria.l...@wikimedia.pt wrote: From: Béria Lima beria.l...@wikimedia.pt Subject: Re: [Gendergap] [Commons-l] Fwd: Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 12:54 This list was set up to discuss systemic issues in Foundation projects. In the opinion of several contributors here, this specific issue is profoundly symptomatic of the issue this list was set up to discuss. I doubt women generally support censorship or benefit from it. Could we agree that a decision not to feature a medicore and non-notable piece of original art that offers no or little educational value is _not_ censorhip? And could we agree that featuring a medicore and non-notable piece of original art that offers no or little educational value, just because it has tits in it, is questionable? This includes Commons selecting images for featured status on the basis of comments like I like her big tits, rather than artistic merit, and then featuring them on the main page. You've been informed several times that such remarks are discounted when discussions are evaluated. You have been informed several times that the comment was not discounted. Those who supported featured status for the image explained their reasons as follows: 1. Support. Kawaii :) (Japanese for cute or charming) 2. Support I like it. Well it's manga so the colors or landscape do not have to make sense ;-) 3. Support 4. Support Superb work 5. Support i like her big tits :-) 6. Support i know that it was very much of work for the user. i have seen the first lines of it and can see now the result: a wunderful work. 7. Support - very good work. 8. strong Support I have seen this work evolve and it is brilliant. Keep up the good work niabot! The end result was 8 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral = featured. Discussion here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:On_the_edge_-_free_world_version.jpg Personally, I found those who commented or opposed a bit more articulate than those who supported in that discussion. Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] [Commons-l] Fwd: Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons
--- On Wed, 18/5/11, Béria Lima beria.l...@wikimedia.pt wrote:From: Béria Lima beria.l...@wikimedia.pt Subject: Re: [Gendergap] [Commons-l] Fwd: Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 14:19 The community is already discussing this matter Andreas. What you are doing is, since your vote is not going the way you want (the picture, apparentely, will remain as a FP) you are canvassing votes here, so people can go there are vote to delist the image. That, my dear, is pure canvass, and is not allowed in any project. So, again, stop do that. Dear Beria, You would have a leg to stand on if anyone, at all, who had read my posts on this or any other mailing list, had voted in my favour in these communitydiscussions. I am not aware that anyone has. Of the 5 people who have voted to delist,I do not recognise a single name from the mailing lists. And I believe ifanyone here had decided to vote, they would be experienced enough, andhave enough integrity, to disclose along with their vote that they becameaware of the discussion through a mailing list post. Further: If list members had commented, which they have not, and the vote were goingagainst you, which it is not, you would be well within your rights to contest the result, and ask the community to look into any undue effect mailing listdiscussions may have had on the discussion. However, nothing like this hashappened. As it is, you are out of line to threaten me on my Commons user page for participating in discussions on this list. Regards,Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] [Commons-l] Fwd: Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons
--- On Wed, 18/5/11, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net Subject: Re: [Gendergap] [Commons-l] Fwd: Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, 18 May, 2011, 15:23 No, the image had political content, read policy for Commons, as an allegory of Liberty. Bare breasts, although usually somewhat smaller breasts, are standard in images of Liberty, at least French, or European ones, see File:1672 Gérard de Lairesse - Allegory of the Freedom of Trade.jpg I am sure the editor who said I like her big tits had that political message in mind. You keep saying, just because it has tits in it. That is specious. See the author's note on the description of the image, Author: Niabot, because commons should stay free“ I have honestly not seen Niabot claim that he was trying to riff on traditional bare-breasted representations of Liberty. The only person I have seen make that claim is you. Even if true, the question is whether the artistic, historic and educational merit of this particular riff on the Liberty figure warrant featuring this image. In my opinion, they do not, and I honestly suspect any of these concerns were way over the heads of those who voted for it. Niabot has a recent habit of signing his images with a political tag line. The same because commons should stay free tag line is present in this close-up of the cat in the image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:On_the_edge_-_free_world_version_(kitty_crop).jpg Here (*deservedly* a featured picture by him), he says: “Niabot, because wikimedia commons lost his roots”. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anime_Girl.png Personally I disagree with the statement, as the roots of Commons are not manga, or sites like DeviantArt, but in this case the image is deservedly featured. The same commons has lost its roots tag line is also on these images: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dojikko.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Futanari.png I don't think the author's tag line affects image quality one way or the other. Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] [Commons-l] Fwd: Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons
--- On Wed, 18/5/11, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net I am sure the editor who said I like her big tits had that political message in mind. Andreas OK, Einstein, what is the psychological significance of a bare-breasted Liberty, as opposed to a modestly draped Liberty? It IS a revolutionary symbol. I am more interested in the psychological significance of the fact that Bunnyfrosch's user talk in German Wikipedia, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Bunnyfrosch which his Commons talk page redirects to, features multiple contributors (including the editor who wrote the Featured Article on BDSM in German Wikipedia) requesting of him that he should please stop adding links to porn images to German Wikipedia articles. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Bunnyfrosch#Links_auf_Pornobilder And more in that vein. I noticed that when I went to let him know, as a courtesy, that we were discussing his Support i like her big tits comment here. Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Please, a question on deleted article SP Migrantas on women´s empowermente
--- On Fri, 20/5/11, patricia morales mariadelcarmenpatri...@yahoo.com wrote: From: patricia morales mariadelcarmenpatri...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Please, a question on deleted article SP Migrantas on women´s empowermente To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Roberto Fiadone rupert...@yahoo.com.ar Date: Friday, 20 May, 2011, 13:19 Dear, I would like to draw your attention to the history of article migrantas an initiative in Berlin on the empowerment of migrant women, that was deleted by the concept autopromotion and later by the attribution of irrelevance.Men and women worked for improving it but it seems without results.It would be good to have some suggestions on that.best regards, Patricia Hi Patricia, It looks like the article was deleted because it directly copied text from anexisting website, and because it appeared promotional. You could try to recreate the article, but would have to write it from the pointof view of third-party sources writing about Migrantas. The best sources I can find are: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/28/style/28iht-agerm.html http://www.morgenpost.de/printarchiv/berlin/article1608757/Kanzlerin-ueberprueft-Integrationsarbeit-der-Senatoren.html I can't see all of that article, but it appears to mention that a Kollektiv migrantas won a prize: http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chromeie=UTF-8q=migrantas+berlin#sclient=psyhl=ensafe=offbiw=931bih=670tbs=ar:1tbm=nwssource=hpq=%22Der+zweite+Platz+ging+an+das+Workshop-Projekt+%22Kollektiv+migrantas%22aq=aqi=aql=oq=pbx=1bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.fp=27f474a4db1a0c60 The German chancellor seems to have been involved. Winning a prominentaward usually helps to establish notability, justifying an article in Wikipedia. There is also a reference here:http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZyXnMAAJq=%22migrantas%22+berlindq=%22migrantas%22+berlinhl=enei=0HPWTdekEsuo8AOu4IyFCwsa=Xoi=book_resultct=resultresnum=1ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA However, this is not a third-party reference. It would help to have more sources. Two good third-party sources may notbe enough to pass notability. Perhaps others here can help research theorganisation; Spanish sources would be fine too. At any rate, if you do want to recreate the article, it would be best to create adraft in your user space first and then let some editors look at it to advise you as to whether it would survive a deletion request, before putting it inarticle space. Best,Andreas___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Please , a question on deleted article SP Migrantas on women´s empowermente
Just for reference, the relevant guidelines are:
Unambiguous use of a name or URL of a company, group or product as a
username is generally not permitted, and users who adopt such a username may
be blocked if their editing behavior appears to be promotional. However,
users who adopt such usernames but who are not editing problematically
should not be summarily blocked if their edits are otherwise constructive;
instead, they should be gently but firmly encouraged to change their
username.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention/Instructions
Unambiguous use of a name or URL of a company, group or product as a
username is generally not permitted.
Users who adopt such a username and engage in inappropriately promotional
behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, are usually
blocked.
Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in
related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently
encouraged to change their username.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Username#Company.2Fgroup_names
That blocking policy sometimes comes across as a bit harsh. It is always
better to have a word with the editor first, rather than block them
outright.
Andreas
--- On Fri, 20/5/11, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Please , a question on deleted article SP
Migrantas on women´s empowermente
To: fredb...@fairpoint.net, Increasing female participation in Wikimedia
projects gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Friday, 20 May, 2011, 15:13
Dear,
I would like to draw your attention to the history
of article
migrantas
an initiative in Berlin on the empowerment of
migrant women, that was
deleted by the concept autopromotion and later by
the attribution of
irrelevance.Men and women worked for improving it
but it seems without
results.It would be good to have some suggestions
on that.best regards,
Patricia
(del/undel) 15:12, April 7,
2011 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs |
block) deleted Migrantas (G11: Unambiguous
advertising or
promotion: and WP:CSD#G12: copyright infringement of
http://www.balsas.cc/project-migrantasorg-looking-dialogue-pictograms/)
(view/restore)
There was only one edit, the edit by Migrantas-Berlin
creating it.
That's the English Wikipedia.
Fred
For example do a google search for Each drawing is shown
and commented
upon within the group which is a sentence in the deleted
article. It
gets three hits, for example:
http://www.grassrootsfeminism.net/cms/node/310
I think what needs to be done is to do the article over
again without
doing the extensive word for word copying. It seems
notable. As to
Unambiguous advertising or promotion there was only one
editor, who
also was blocked. creation of that article seems to be
their only edit:
(del/undel) 15:22, April 7, 2011 JamesBWatson
(talk | contribs |
block) blocked Migrantas-Berlin (talk | contribs) (account
creation
blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite
({{spamusernameblock}}) (unblock | change block)
This block is within the rules as the user name is the name
of the
project they were promoting in their only edit. They can
create an
account with a different name.
Fred
___
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] As I was passing through...
Hi Charlotte, I managed to find the dispute and had a look at it. The editor concerned definitely was being a bit of a prat in my view, and should have discussed the matter with you before going on a reverting spree. I would not have inserted the sic in that one quote, but otherwise you were quite correct, and they were wrong, and moreover dealt with it poorly. Hope that helps. I think what we see here once more is the off-putting effect of templating good-faith contributors. Andreas --- On Thu, 23/6/11, Charlotte J ravin...@gmail.com wrote: From: Charlotte J ravin...@gmail.com Subject: [Gendergap] As I was passing through... To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, 23 June, 2011, 1:50 Hello, everyone, I joined this list a couple days ago after reading through its archives, which I embarked on after having come across the June 13th article in The Signpost discussing the tiny percentage of self-identified female Wikipedia editors. I'd missed the January New York Times article and all that flowed from it (including this list) until I started systematically looking through the community section of Wikipedia for the first time about 10 days ago, to see what my options might be to address my own recent negative encounters with other Wikipedia editors, although I hadn't yet stumbled upon the Wikipedia policies on canvassing, etc., that apparently preclude any disclosure on this list of such experiences in a potentially identifiable manner. Having learned of that policy from reading this list's archives, I'm accordingly using an email account not associated with my Wikipedia user account, and I'm not disclosing my Wikipedia user name, so as not to arouse any concerns that I might be canvassing for support concerning that situation, which I'm not. In fact, I've even concluded that it's not worth the aggravation of pursuing Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, which from reading through *those* archives has impressed me as likely to be little more than an exercise in futility (if not also masochism!). I'm certainly neither fragile nor easily intimidated, but I prefer not to waste my valuable free time on such exercises, so I've now stopped editing Wikipedia and -- with one foot out the door, the other soon to follow -- am posting to this list now only because I hadn't seen anything its archives that expressed anything close to some of my own thoughts about a few of the topics discussed, which might perhaps be of some value to at least some of you who plan to continue in this effort. By way of background, I'm one of those older staying-at-home professional mothers Sarah Stierch had suggested in February might constitute a potentially fruitful demographic for female recruitment. I'm certainly no geek, although I've picked up just enough basic HTML code along the way so as not to find Wikipedia's coding basics unduly daunting -- as long as I had the MoS Cheat Sheet handy. Well, aside from formatting references... I made my first few edits not quite 18 months ago, I believe, to an article about a park system I'd just been reading about, to which I made a few gnome-like corrections without blowing the place up accidentally or attracting notice. With that success in hand, I started drafting an article about a superb all-female dance company that a niece had recently introduced me to. After seeing them perform and coming to share her enthusiasm, I tried to learn a little more about their history, discovered there was no comprehensive article about them I could find anywhere online (although they would clearly and objectively satisfy WP's notability criteria), and decided that drafting one myself could be a useful exercise in teaching myself Wikipedia's coding and style conventions, while eventually benefiting others with the fruits of my research. I got about half-way finished with it in my userspace (utilizing the Article Wizard), then had to abandon the draft (and Wikipedia) a few days later due to some serious health problems one of my children developed unexpectedly. I didn't return again until two months ago, when a discussion elsewhere pointed me to another Wikipedia article (about whose subject I knew quite a bit) that was seriously deficient, so I signed in again for the first time in 16 months or so, added a number of references to that article, expanded it a bit and began wikifying it without generating any controversy or blowing the place up accidentally. I then encountered an egregious usage error a few weeks later in another Wikipedia article that had badly muddled a sentence's meaning, and corrected it, again without generating any controversy. I then checked for similar misuses of that and another commonly misused word on Wikipedia, discovered hundreds of examples, and so began correcting them in gnome-like fashion over the next month or so while watching films with my daughter after school and/or evenings and tracking
Re: [Gendergap] As I was passing through...
P.S. I echo Sue's sentiments. :) Welcome, and thanks for your articulate letter. Andreas --- On Thu, 23/6/11, Charlotte J ravin...@gmail.com wrote: From: Charlotte J ravin...@gmail.com Subject: [Gendergap] As I was passing through... To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, 23 June, 2011, 1:50 Hello, everyone, I joined this list a couple days ago after reading through its archives, which I embarked on after having come across the June 13th article in The Signpost discussing the tiny percentage of self-identified female Wikipedia editors. I'd missed the January New York Times article and all that flowed from it (including this list) until I started systematically looking through the community section of Wikipedia for the first time about 10 days ago, to see what my options might be to address my own recent negative encounters with other Wikipedia editors, although I hadn't yet stumbled upon the Wikipedia policies on canvassing, etc., that apparently preclude any disclosure on this list of such experiences in a potentially identifiable manner. Having learned of that policy from reading this list's archives, I'm accordingly using an email account not associated with my Wikipedia user account, and I'm not disclosing my Wikipedia user name, so as not to arouse any concerns that I might be canvassing for support concerning that situation, which I'm not. In fact, I've even concluded that it's not worth the aggravation of pursuing Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, which from reading through *those* archives has impressed me as likely to be little more than an exercise in futility (if not also masochism!). I'm certainly neither fragile nor easily intimidated, but I prefer not to waste my valuable free time on such exercises, so I've now stopped editing Wikipedia and -- with one foot out the door, the other soon to follow -- am posting to this list now only because I hadn't seen anything its archives that expressed anything close to some of my own thoughts about a few of the topics discussed, which might perhaps be of some value to at least some of you who plan to continue in this effort. By way of background, I'm one of those older staying-at-home professional mothers Sarah Stierch had suggested in February might constitute a potentially fruitful demographic for female recruitment. I'm certainly no geek, although I've picked up just enough basic HTML code along the way so as not to find Wikipedia's coding basics unduly daunting -- as long as I had the MoS Cheat Sheet handy. Well, aside from formatting references... I made my first few edits not quite 18 months ago, I believe, to an article about a park system I'd just been reading about, to which I made a few gnome-like corrections without blowing the place up accidentally or attracting notice. With that success in hand, I started drafting an article about a superb all-female dance company that a niece had recently introduced me to. After seeing them perform and coming to share her enthusiasm, I tried to learn a little more about their history, discovered there was no comprehensive article about them I could find anywhere online (although they would clearly and objectively satisfy WP's notability criteria), and decided that drafting one myself could be a useful exercise in teaching myself Wikipedia's coding and style conventions, while eventually benefiting others with the fruits of my research. I got about half-way finished with it in my userspace (utilizing the Article Wizard), then had to abandon the draft (and Wikipedia) a few days later due to some serious health problems one of my children developed unexpectedly. I didn't return again until two months ago, when a discussion elsewhere pointed me to another Wikipedia article (about whose subject I knew quite a bit) that was seriously deficient, so I signed in again for the first time in 16 months or so, added a number of references to that article, expanded it a bit and began wikifying it without generating any controversy or blowing the place up accidentally. I then encountered an egregious usage error a few weeks later in another Wikipedia article that had badly muddled a sentence's meaning, and corrected it, again without generating any controversy. I then checked for similar misuses of that and another commonly misused word on Wikipedia, discovered hundreds of examples, and so began correcting them in gnome-like fashion over the next month or so while watching films with my daughter after school and/or evenings and tracking down some uncommon but needed public domain images for a few other articles, until I unluckily attracted the attention of a chauvinist (in the original sense of the word) member of the recent pages patrol whose truculence and devotion to Huggle greatly exceeded his grasp of correct [international] English usage. What ensued persuaded me that my free time from now on would be so much better spent on
Re: [Gendergap] New Survey: 9% female editors
Fred, --- On Sat, 2/7/11, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: I have said this before, but we seem to lack African-American editors, and it's my impression we don't cover African-American culture well. I wonder if we could get an article out on theroot.com There are a few really good and prolific African-American editors, but mass participation is not there, but that kind of fits the demographic. I know of one that fits that description (TTT), and there's one (1) admin who indicates African-American (as well as Jewish) on their user page. African-Americans are very active on Twitter (with higher participation rates than Caucasians), but for some reason haven't taken to Wikipedia in their masses. American Hispanics even more so That may in part be a language issue; I would hope that Spanish-speaking Hispanic Americans do contribute to the Spanish Wikipedia. Again, having data would be useful. American Indians barely edit. I edit articles on American Indian history and I don't think I've ever run into an Indian editor. My strategy with any of these groups, and women too, is to generally support them strongly, but not to support any particular campaign they engage in. For example, the idea that Egyptians are Black, which one young African-American woman was promoting strongly, against considerable opposition. I looked in on [[Ancient Egyptian race controversy]] once, and it was not pretty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive44#Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy_ban_review The same problems that women encounter with women's topics are also encountered by editors writing on black studies. For example, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lusala_lu_ne_Nkuka_Luka#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Marimba_Ani Marimba Ani is unquestionably a notable, black, female scholar, yet we didn't want to have an article on her: http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chromeie=UTF-8q=Henry+Louis+Gates+african+department#sclient=psyhl=ensafe=offsource=hpq=%22marimba+ani%22aq=faqi=g5aql=oq=pbx=1bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.fp=b662706466cc9ebdbiw=1079bih=848 http://www.google.co.uk/search?aq=fsourceid=chromeie=UTF-8q=%22marimba+ani%22#q=%22marimba+ani%22hl=ensafe=offtbs=ar:1tbm=nwsprmd=ivnsei=hIcPTpefIcKj8QOG4_CbDgstart=0sa=Nbav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.fp=e5040ccf0930f7ffbiw=1079bih=848 http://www.google.co.uk/search?aq=fsourceid=chromeie=UTF-8q=%22marimba+ani%22#q=%22marimba+ani%22hl=ensafe=offprmd=ivnsum=1ie=UTF-8tbo=utbm=bkssource=ogsa=Ntab=npbav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.fp=d0d016e5efcca757biw=1079bih=848 (As a matter of fact, I now know what my next article is going to be.) Having data on African-American participation, rather than guesses based on pictures uploaded to Commons, would help. Outreach to African Studies departments might help, as would an interview with Sue in The Root, or Ebony. Andreas So that is the first premise, the door has to be open for everyone and they should be able to depend on strong support by others. Whether they will come in the door is another matter. And how we handle particular strongly held points of view is another. For example, we had a Ute chief come and give a talk in Crestone. Very smart, wise man, an elder, but he made a point of maintaining that the Utes have always lived in the Rocky Mountain west and that any theory about crossing the Bering Strait was just nonsense. That sort of attitude can be documented, of course, but I doubt he could do that if he decided to edit. This guy was about my age so I know he could if he thought it mattered. And that, I guess, is the missing piece, believing, or knowing, that editing matters in shaping global knowledge and consciousness. That is kind of the story of academia, they thought they had a monopoly. Fred ___ 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] More on fem-edits
Thanks for your post, Karen. For reference, I just checked the data on singleness / parenthood in the most recent survey. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:WP_2011_Editor%27s_Survey_-_Topline.pdfpage=3 55% of Wikipedians are single, 17% have a partner, 28% are married. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:WP_2011_Editor%27s_Survey_-_Topline.pdfpage=4 24% have children, 76% don't. Assuming for a moment that the 9% figure for female participation applies equally to parents and non-parents (which it may well not do), only about 1 in 50 Wikipedians is a mother. Andreas --- On Fri, 8/7/11, Karen Sue Rolph karenro...@hotmail.com wrote: From: Karen Sue Rolph karenro...@hotmail.com Subject: [Gendergap] More on fem-edits To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Friday, 8 July, 2011, 4:16 Dear Colleagues, Thank you kindly for taking enough of an interest in this topic to respond; it is enlightening. My intention is affable, so please keep that in mind. I understand that many persons will choose to never parent, that some parent for the wrong reasons, and that there are any number of perspectives, and no shortage of opinion and ways to problematize the motherhood issue. It may bore some; it's a passion for others, such as those of us who experience the direct consequences of parenting. We are, for better or worse, generating the next population, its biology, genetics, social, political, and cultural values, and productive composition. I liked the Nielsen link, but I think dads around the world are stressed too, though maybe in different ways. In terms of U.S. society, for doubters on what is involved, you might consider reading The Motherhood Penalty, an academic essay, it is science rather than anecdote. Mothers are perceived as complainers, as less productive than non-parent females, and non-moms earn far more than mothers. Non-mothers get their pay disparity comeuppance however, when dads come along, and enjoy the fatherhood bonus. Dads are perceived as devoted, and highly productive providers. Mothers are irresponsible coworkers for needing to tend children, but fathers are virtuous for tending children. In terms of gender disparity and Wikipedia, I mean to empirically focus on 'productivity.' By this, I mean getting at those meaningful slices of daily, weekly, and lifestyle experience. As a research methodologist, Question One on a survey instrument might be: Are you a parent, have you given birth to any children? From there, an instrument would take two differing directions. Non-parents would be sorted and queried for demographic information, and eventually getting to education level and Wikipedia. Education or literacy is no small component, surely, because the learning curve, and important focus and interest mentioned by list members, will guide, if not determine, a woman's ability to contribute to Wikipedia. As for blogging, education is not a prerequisite, though some measure of literacy is, and is representative of the many ways that women communicate values. Gossip is largely a woman's privilege, and it is often, but not always, based on moral and cultural morays. It's extremely useful, but not in resolving the Wikipedia gender problem. Creating a well-worded posting for Wikipedia is time consuming, and as one colleague mentioned, kind of geeky. I'm talking about the productivity that gets measured by economics. Getting back to the mother-directed survey instrument, one of several age groups would be women of child bearing age, with a possible mean of close to 28 years, and questions would follow that look like: How old is your infant? - Are you nursing? - How many minutes does it take to nurse? - How often do you nurse? - along with prep time, clean up time, bottle chill time, and so on. A table would indicate that each nursing takes 10-15' on each side, roughly 25 minutes, and if newborn, x8 feedings per day plus management- another 10 per feeding, we are now into about 4 hours per day, and we haven't looked at mothers who must express milk for later use, diaper changes, meals, or playtime yet. These data at-a-glance may seem (ho-hum and) well beyond the scope of Wikipedia editing and gender biases, but I would argue these data have a role. To put this another way, non-mothers and non-fathers, might not be the units of focus here (though important in other ways); the parent dimension is likely to be shallow for non-parents (unless taking care of elders, another story for now). I understand we all function in certain non-gendered emphases, but someone needs to dig in and work at this, because policy is overlooking a number of disturbingly obvious issues. My view is that Sue G. has a wildly unique, outlying opportunity to shed light, and bring attention to modern (and ancient) underlying issues, largely because of the social potency of Wikipedia in the literate world;
[Gendergap] AfD - We love colors
There is a deletion discussion on an American online fashion store selling dance wear, leggings, coloured tights etc. here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/We_Love_Colors Notability is contested, but in my view on the right side of the threshold: Book coverage (11-page chapter on the company's history, marketing strategy etc., in a German degree thesis published by GRIN): http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gQFNMJk2J40Cpg=PA7dq=%22we+love+colors%22hl=enei=9gI4TpbLBYWG-wbkjMXEAgsa=Xoi=book_resultct=resultresnum=5ved=0CDoQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepageq=%22we%20love%20colors%22f=false GRIN specialises in degree theses. It's close to self-publishing, and not good enough for anything controversial, but seems okay to me in this context: http://www.grin.com/en/ Feature in BellaOnline, a women's Internet magazine that's got about 300 citations in Wikipedia: http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art63512.asphttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearchsearch=BellaOnline The company has been mentioned, or featured in fashion spreads, in the LA Times, Washington Post, The Age (Australia), Dance Magazine and others; e.g. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/07/image/ig-polyvore7http://www.coolhunting.com/archives/2008/02/08/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2010/02/10/DI2010021002402.html The current article is in a poor state and needs a lot of work of course, but all in all I think there is enough for a short description and reception section. Outside eyes welcome, without prejudice -- if you think the sources I found are insufficient, and fail to unearth additional ones, do what you think it is best. But I think fashion stuff like this may well be an area where we are more likely to delete than other areas, and this kind of thing can form a vicious circle. Andreas___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Consent for photographs on Commons
--- On Mon, 12/9/11, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: First, the issue of consent on Commons has been passionately debates for years, and has a long and tortured history. Before proposing anything, please make yourself familiar with the previous discussions and their outcomes. Most notably the discussions surrounding these pages: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archives/User_problems_7#Privatemusings http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Nudity The point I can't emphasize enough is that if you put forward any proposal on Commons that implies there is anything possibly problematic about sexual or nude images in any way, you will be completely shut down. And rightly so. After all, the idea -- -- that people might feel aggrieved if a picture of them naked, or giving a blowjob, is hosted on Commons for global reuse, without their consent, -- that their strength of feeling might be different if the matter concerned a picture showing them clothed, walking down the street -- and that the Foundation should bear that difference in strength of feeling in mind, by requiring more solid consent for the former type of image, is really outré, isn't it. :)) Andreas The only way you have any chance to shape the policies and guidelines on Commons is if you approach the problem from a sex/nudity-agnostic point of view. Here's a good example of what NOT to do: I think a general statement that permission of the subject is desirable / necessary for photos featuring nudity would be a good thing - thoughts? Privatemusings (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I think the horse is beyond dead by now. --Carnildo (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC) If the horse was beyond dead in January 2009, imagine where it is now. That said, there is still lots of room for improvement. In particular... Commons already requires consent for photos of identifiable people in private spaces. In addition, many countries require consent even for public spaces. (Take a look at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_persons#Country_specific_consent_requirements.) The way this requirement works, however, is completely passive and reactive - there is no impetus to proactively assert consent, only to assert it when an image is challenged. This is a very inefficient system. There are no templates or categories or anything to deal with consent on Commons (apart from Template:Consent which is tied up with the tortured history of Commons:Sexual_content and can't be used currently). I don't think it would be incredibly controversial to introduce a very simple consent template that was specifically tailored to the existing policies and laws. This would make things easier for Commons reusers, professional photographers who use model releases, and admins who have to constantly deal with these issues. In short, it would be a win for everyone and it would introduce the idea of thinking proactively about consent on Commons in a way that isn't threatening to people who are concerned about censorship. As soon as I have some free time, I'll whip up such a template and throw it into the water. It'll be interesting to see how it is received. Ryan Kaldari ___ 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] Black skins
Arnaud, I've just remembered a documentary related to your post that is very much worth watching. Here is a link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXG38QxXY-s Andreas --- On Mon, 19/9/11, Arnaud HERVE arnaudhe...@x-mail.net wrote: From: Arnaud HERVE arnaudhe...@x-mail.net Subject: [Gendergap] Black skins To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Monday, 19 September, 2011, 13:06 On 17/09/2011 22:40, Emily Monroe wrote: I remember accessing Wikipedia several times throughout my teenaged years; we cannot expect all of our readers to be an adult with a better understanding of anatomy. Just a quick note here : I've been talking to a dermatologist and she tells me one of the main issues is black women taking all sorts of meds to lighten their skin. It is often detrimental to health, and also it leads to considerable money loss in impoverished families, and unnecessary sorrow. I just thought Wikipedia should be aware of that. Here (fr) dermatologist are recruiting black women in the medical sector to lead campaigns against that. I guess one of the ways would be to show dark black women pictures more often, not just light brown. Arnaud ___ 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] Black skins
Here is an example of Caucasian bias: the en:WP article on [[hair straightening]]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair_straightening Despite the fact that this is a topic of great practical interest to black women, many of whom either have straightened their hair or have thought about doing it, the article makes no mention of afro hair, and the only two images are of Caucasian women. This article seems to fail a demographic of millions; and by failing these millions, we are also curtailing our chances of recruiting editors from this demographic, because it is likely to leave them with the impression that Wikipedia is not written for them. A. --- On Mon, 19/9/11, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Black skins To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Monday, 19 September, 2011, 13:59 My impression is that we have an appalling dearth of photographs of black people generally, just like our coverage of black topics in general is wanting, including such basic areas as hair care and skin care. Articles on black intellectuals are often either poor stubs, or get deleted for erroneous assertions of lack of notability. In my opinion, we need a major outreach to African studies scholars, and black media, because we are missing out on the knowledge people of colour could bring to the project. Andreas --- On Mon, 19/9/11, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com wrote: From: Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Black skins To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Monday, 19 September, 2011, 13:28 Very interesting point. Sydney On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Arnaud HERVE arnaudhe...@x-mail.net wrote: On 17/09/2011 22:40, Emily Monroe wrote: I remember accessing Wikipedia several times throughout my teenaged years; we cannot expect all of our readers to be an adult with a better understanding of anatomy. Just a quick note here : I've been talking to a dermatologist and she tells me one of the main issues is black women taking all sorts of meds to lighten their skin. It is often detrimental to health, and also it leads to considerable money loss in impoverished families, and unnecessary sorrow. I just thought Wikipedia should be aware of that. Here (fr) dermatologist are recruiting black women in the medical sector to lead campaigns against that. I guess one of the ways would be to show dark black women pictures more often, not just light brown. Arnaud ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -Inline Attachment Follows- ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -Inline Attachment Follows- ___ 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] Black skins
Arnaud, I've ordered a copy of Good Hair as well. :) There are excellent scholarly sources on [[hair straightening]] in the black community. I dropped a few on the article's talk page, but it's just the tip of the iceberg. I may do some work on the article. Any help by editors better qualified than me welcome! I agree about the Black Girls video. My wife showed it to me a few months ago, and it's stayed with me ever since. As for your other point, about unnecessary surgery, Sarah spotted that we had some frankly misleading before/after plastic surgery pictures in a number of articles on female genitalia (uploaded by a plastic surgeon, no less). There were also two (2) in the vulva article. I found that quite perturbing. Best, Andreas --- On Wed, 21/9/11, Arnaud HERVE arnaudhe...@x-mail.net wrote: From: Arnaud HERVE arnaudhe...@x-mail.net Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Black skins To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, 21 September, 2011, 0:15 On 20/09/2011 01:10, Andreas Kolbe wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXG38QxXY-s Not only worth watching but compulsory watching, I think. Thanks Andreas for this great link. I'll be watching the movie Good Hair next week-end. Yes I suspect light brown caffelatte skin is becoming a sort of norm now. In fact by watching American TV series, I would not be surprised if the light brown woman is the one who's here to stay and join the team, and the dark brown woman is the one being killed during the episode, or not a recurring character. On a more general scale, I first became aware of the dangers of unnecessary surgery by working for sports instructors a few years ago. If you imagine that sports physical enhancement will remain forever the mere injection of chemicals, well you're wrong. There is going to be carbon-fiber bones, all sorts of weird things. Now as far as average women are concerned, there is a deadly combination of : - the natural tendancy of women to take care of their appearance - new bio technologies - business interests eager to combine the two. But that will create Frankenstein's monsters really. Uneducated women are going to get convinced that their shoulders are too large, their hips to narrow, their humerus too long... it will really become crazy and extend to whatever possible. And then there is the problem of the consequences when growing older. In this case of skin whitening, even if the laboratory says it's safe, it nevertheless compulsorily means intervening in the skin as deep as the pigments, so frankly it doesn't sound that good to me. So I would compare it to food disorders or pathological gambling. Even if adults do that of their own free will, responsible institutions should not go that way. Arnaud ___ 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] 13 year old joins WP Pornography?
Whether or not the editor is indeed thirteen years old is probably relatively unimportant. What matters is that voices in the RfC generally (about 3:1) oppose the idea of a minimum age of 18 for contributors to the WikiProject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Should_underage_editors_be_topic_banned_from_articles_in_the_WikiProject_Pornography_topic_area.3F Andreas --- On Fri, 23/9/11, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: From: Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] 13 year old joins WP Pornography? To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Friday, 23 September, 2011, 21:24 What are some questions we could ask the user that only a real 13 year old would know? Actually, I have a better idea, let's ask him Who founded Wikipedia? :) Ryan Kaldari On 9/23/11 1:04 PM, Michael J. Lowrey wrote: On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Sarah Stierchsarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote: Entertaining...bizarre...scary...odd? Real? fake? Don't get me wrong. If Wikipedia was around when I was 14, I so would have joined WP:Feminism. But, I was a 14 year old riot grrrl using BBSes. ;-) -- Forwarded message -- From: Kim Bruningk...@bruning.xs4all.nl Date: Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 1:26 PM Subject: [Foundation-l] Larry Sanger tweets about 13 yo in Wikiproject Pornography To: foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org Dear Press: a self-described 13 YO joined Wikiproject Pornography. Wikipedians support him. webcitation.org/61v0ykxJe webcitation.org/61v1FfW3K - http://twitter.com/#!/lsanger/status/117299089439334400 The on-wiki argument is that there are many areas in that project that don't actually involve nudie pics, but rather cover areas of law, etc.scratches head sincerely, Kim Bruning Even before Sanger got involved in publicizing this to the press, I was suspicious that this was some kind of agente provocateur thing. The supposed 13-year-old hasn't actually been doing much of anything. ___ 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
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 sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote: From: Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com 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 called. I have beencalled a prude, bitch, agitator, bore, conservative, censor, anti-woman... someone with an agenda...etc. I can only thank you Sue for speaking on behalf of me - when I clumsily try to express myself on Foundation-L and fear being shot-down and having my Wiki self-esteem torn down.I just feel like giving up. Thanks. And I promise everyone, some of us are working towards this, and working towards a change and a towards a conversation that is adult, logical and respectful. 3 -Sarah -- GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Art and Sarah Stierch ConsultingHistorical, cultural artistic research advising. -- http://www.sarahstierch.com/ -Inline Attachment Follows- ___ 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
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] Gendergap Digest, Vol 9, Issue 5
--- On Sat, 1/10/11, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com 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
Thanks all for the feedback. I've started a discussion on-wiki, at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Feminism#Gender_neutrality_template
Andreas
--- On Sat, 1/10/11, Daniel and Elizabeth Case danc...@frontiernet.net wrote:
From: Daniel and Elizabeth Case danc...@frontiernet.net
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Gender neutrality template
To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Saturday, 1 October, 2011, 20:29
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
-Inline Attachment Follows-
___
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] Wikipedystka
Wouldn't the obvious thing in the Spanish Wikipedia be to differentiate between usuario and usuaria? As in Página del usuario / Página de la usuaria? Andreas --- On Wed, 5/10/11, patricia morales mariadelcarmenpatri...@yahoo.com wrote: From: patricia morales mariadelcarmenpatri...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedystka To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wednesday, 5 October, 2011, 18:10 From: patricia morales mariadelcarmenpatri...@yahoo.com To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 12:51 PM Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedystka It seems to me very kind, but not related to the ethymology nor the use of the words (I have not information about Polish). In English you have the male suffix -ian and the female suffix -ienne : comedienne, equestrienne, tragedienne. At the same time you have the suffix -ist for both gender (coming from -ista (Latin) and -istes (old Greek) In Spanish and other langues with differentiaded articles we have: El artista y la artista La wikipedista (female editor) and el wikipedista (male editor). In Spanish and other languages it is sometimes used amig@s for having a gender sensitivity. We could use wikipedist@ , explaining that. best regards, Patricia From: Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 8:18 AM Subject: [Gendergap] Wikipedystka Wikipedystka, in Polish, describes a female Wikipedian (as opposed to the male wikipedysta). As of today, Polish female Wikipedians are no longer called wikipedysta if they choose to publicly identify their gender as female. Here are a few examples: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedystka:Tanja5 http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedystka:Joanna_Ko%C5%9Bmider http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedystka:AldraW This is also visible in other places, e.g. recent changes on Polish Wikipedia. This change is a result of the roll-out of a new version of our software. Other languages, like German, which also have gender-specific terms to describe users, will be upgraded in the coming days. It's a small thing, but hopefully it'll make gender diversity (and lack thereof) a bit more visible, at least in languages which are more expressive than English. ;-) Cheers, Erik -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -Inline Attachment Follows- ___ 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] Wikipedystka
Cool. Andreas --- On Thu, 6/10/11, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: Indeed, that's the current implementation, which is now deployed. Here's an example female user's page on Spanish Wikipedia: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuaria:Angela_tocua And here's an example female user's page on German Wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzerin:Nicola So, should be supported everywhere now -- if your language isn't showing the correct term, please file a bug here: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=MediaWiki against the internationalization component. Note, again, that the female term will only be shown for users who've publicly disclosed their gender through their user preferences. Cheers, Erik -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ 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] Commons Searches
Brandon, On a matter that originally arose in Meta and on the Foundation list, but may be of interest to this list as well, do you know the answer to the question posed here ... http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-October/006290.html ... or do you know someone who does? Andreas From: Brandon Harris bhar...@wikimedia.org To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, 12 October 2011, 6:13 Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Mind the Gap Award is here. (offlist) I think your efforts are perfect, and above and beyond. I don't need to step in here. On 10/11/11 10:10 PM, Jutta von Dincklage wrote: Brandon, I still think we need to remake the logo. This was just a quick, basic whiz. I would still love your graphic skills on this one if you can spare the time ... cause I am a woman and I truly appreciate amazing design ... and this award deserves it ;-) Ah, too fast for me! I was about to remake the entire thing, but got stuck trying to find an acceptable replacement font (the real one is for sale at the princely sum of $299.00!). ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ 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] Commons Searches
Thanks for the link, Brandon. I had raised this in the image filter discussions on Foundation-l yesterday (as well as on http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Kurier ), and it seems to have triggered some thought, which is all for the good. Here are searches that deliver similar results in Wikipedia and Commons: pearl necklace cucumber Zahnbürste (German for toothbrush) toothbrush electric toothbrushes jumping ball underwater ... and likely many, many others. Andreas From: Brandon Harris bhar...@wikimedia.org To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, 12 October 2011, 21:31 Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Commons Searches Funnily, I just answered that question on Quora: http://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-second-image-returned-on-Wikimedia-Commons-when-one-searches-for-electric-toothbrush-an-image-of-a-female-masturbating On 10/12/11 7:48 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: Brandon, On a matter that originally arose in Meta and on the Foundation list, but may be of interest to this list as well, do you know the answer to the question posed here ... http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-October/006290.html ... or do you know someone who does? Andreas *From:* Brandon Harris bhar...@wikimedia.org *To:* Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org *Sent:* Wednesday, 12 October 2011, 6:13 *Subject:* Re: [Gendergap] Mind the Gap Award is here. (offlist) I think your efforts are perfect, and above and beyond. I don't need to step in here. On 10/11/11 10:10 PM, Jutta von Dincklage wrote: Brandon, I still think we need to remake the logo. This was just a quick, basic whiz. I would still love your graphic skills on this one if you can spare the time ... cause I am a woman and I truly appreciate amazing design ... and this award deserves it ;-) Ah, too fast for me! I was about to remake the entire thing, but got stuck trying to find an acceptable replacement font (the real one is for sale at the princely sum of $299.00!). ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org mailto: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 -- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ 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] Commons Searches
Ryan, Creating galleries would mitigate the problem for these half-dozen searches (though not eliminate it, as users would still have the option of searching Commons rather than navigating to a Commons page). But it's like the story of the Dutch boy trying to plug a hole in the levee with his finger. (Searching for levee in Commons brings up an image of a naked Suicide Girl called Levee in third place.) We should be under no illusion that we can find all search terms whose results violate the principle of least surprise, presenting adult images for everyday search terms. New such situations arise on a daily basis, each time someone uploads an explicit file that has a plausible search term in its name and description (try searching Commons for eating, and then search for drinking; or try finding images of Prince Albert). We should simply offer safe search, like Google does. Andreas From: Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, 13 October 2011, 19:31 Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Commons Searches One easy way to fix all of these searches is to create Gallery pages for these terms. If a gallery page for cucumber existed, all searches for cucumber would go immediately to that gallery page rather than pulling up random images. Ryan Kaldari On 10/12/11 3:49 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: Thanks for the link, Brandon. I had raised this in the image filter discussions on Foundation-l yesterday (as well as on http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Kurier ), and it seems to have triggered some thought, which is all for the good. Here are searches that deliver similar results in Wikipedia and Commons: pearl necklace cucumber Zahnbürste (German for toothbrush) toothbrush electric toothbrushes jumping ball underwater ... and likely many, many others. Andreas From: Brandon Harris bhar...@wikimedia.org To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, 12 October 2011, 21:31 Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Commons Searches Funnily, I just answered that question on Quora: http://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-second-image-returned-on-Wikimedia-Commons-when-one-searches-for-electric-toothbrush-an-image-of-a-female-masturbating On 10/12/11 7:48 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: Brandon, On a matter that originally arose in Meta and on the Foundation list, but may be of interest to this list as well, do you know the answer to the question posed here ... http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-October/006290.html ... or do you know someone who does? Andreas *From:* Brandon Harris bhar...@wikimedia.org *To:* Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org *Sent:* Wednesday, 12 October 2011, 6:13 *Subject:* Re: [Gendergap] Mind the Gap Award is here. (offlist) I think your efforts are perfect, and above and beyond. I don't need to step in here. On 10/11/11 10:10 PM, Jutta von Dincklage wrote: Brandon, I still think we need to remake the logo. This was just a quick, basic whiz. I would still love your graphic skills on this one if you can spare the time ... cause I am a woman and I truly appreciate amazing design ... and this award deserves it ;-) Ah, too fast for me! I was about to remake the entire thing, but got stuck trying to find an acceptable replacement font (the real one is for sale at the princely sum of $299.00!). ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org mailto: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 -- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap ___ Gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Commons Searches
I've created a page for the singular as well, with a redirect to your page. ;) Andreas From: Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, 13 October 2011, 20:14 Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Commons Searches http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Pearl_necklaces Wee! On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com wrote: The first hit is a gallery page. From Wikipedia articles we link to Commons and limit it to galleries images if one exists. But with searches all the images show up. Sydney On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: One easy way to fix all of these searches is to create Gallery pages for these terms. If a gallery page for cucumber existed, all searches for cucumber would go immediately to that gallery page rather than pulling up random images. Ryan Kaldari On 10/12/11 3:49 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: Thanks for the link, Brandon. I had raised this in the image filter discussions on Foundation-l yesterday (as well as on http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Kurier ), and it seems to have triggered some thought, which is all for the good. Here are searches that deliver similar results in Wikipedia and Commons: pearl necklace cucumber Zahnbürste (German for toothbrush) toothbrush electric toothbrushes jumping ball underwater ... and likely many, many others. Andreas From: Brandon Harris bhar...@wikimedia.org To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, 12 October 2011, 21:31 Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Commons Searches Funnily, I just answered that question on Quora: http://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-second-image-returned-on-Wikimedia-Commons-when-one-searches-for-electric-toothbrush-an-image-of-a-female-masturbating On 10/12/11 7:48 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: Brandon, On a matter that originally arose in Meta and on the Foundation list, but may be of interest to this list as well, do you know the answer to the question posed here ... http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2011-October/006290.html ... or do you know someone who does? Andreas *From:* Brandon Harris bhar...@wikimedia.org *To:* Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org *Sent:* Wednesday, 12 October 2011, 6:13 *Subject:* Re: [Gendergap] Mind the Gap Award is here. (offlist) I think your efforts are perfect, and above and beyond. I don't need to step in here. On 10/11/11 10:10 PM, Jutta von Dincklage wrote: Brandon, I still think we need to remake the logo. This was just a quick, basic whiz. I would still love your graphic skills on this one if you can spare the time ... cause I am a woman and I truly appreciate amazing design ... and this award deserves it ;-) Ah, too fast for me! I was about to remake the entire thing, but got stuck trying to find an acceptable replacement font (the real one is for sale at the princely sum of $299.00!). ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https
Re: [Gendergap] Commons Searches
John, From: John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com (Searching for levee in Commons brings up an image of a naked Suicide Girl called Levee in third place.) Its a thumbnail for !@#$ sake, and anyone who finds that image offensive should turn off their internet connection. It's a perfectly nice image, but does it answer the user's need? In most cases probably not. If I google levee, I see levees, not nude girls: http://www.google.co.uk/search?gcx=cq=leveeum=1ie=UTF-8hl=entbm=ischsource=ogsa=Ntab=wibiw=1041bih=638 If I want to google for pictures of Levee, I google for Levee Suicide Girls, and there she is: http://www.google.co.uk/search?gcx=cq=leveeum=1ie=UTF-8hl=entbm=ischsource=ogsa=Ntab=wibiw=1041bih=638#um=1hl=entbm=ischsa=1q=levee+suicide+girlpbx=1oq=levee+suicide+girlaq=faqi=aql=gs_sm=egs_upl=127182l129981l0l130379l15l15l0l11l0l0l291l930l0.1.3l4l0bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osbfp=120e52a58330422ebiw=1041bih=638 I guess Commons should give more weight to categories, and less weight to file names. So when I google cucumber, it should show me images in the cucumber category first of all, and not images that happen to have cucumber in the title. Brandon, is there something developers could do in this regard? I am sure you'll be appalled that libraries include nude pictures in their search results, often when searching for something else. http://trove.nla.gov.au/picture/result?q=contemporary+north+america+20th+century fix the metadata. create a gallery page. create a category and populate it. etc p.s. abstract art offends me. Can we please remove media related to John Levee's from the Commons search results for the term 'Levee'. ;-) We should be under no illusion that we can find all search terms whose results violate the principle of least surprise, presenting adult images for everyday search terms. New such situations arise on a daily basis, each time someone uploads an explicit file that has a plausible search term in its name and description (try searching Commons for eating, and then search for drinking; or try finding images of Prince Albert). The ordering of the search results isnt ideal. Have you raised a bug? The thing is, John, it's not a bug. How is it a bug? The image is called Drinking urine or whatever, and so it's a valid search result for drinking. No doubt, a bunch of people would argue that it would be non-neutral to exclude it from the search results for drinking, because Wikipedia is not censored, and we don't care if people are unhappy with our service, because that would be non-neutral. ;) Imagine rant here. It puts too much weight on the filename, which isnt good because recommend against rename, so the current search results are gamable by the uploader. We should simply offer safe search, like Google does. Google provides safe search. They need to convert 'the internet' into a search results page that their customer wants to see, and the Internet has a whole lot of stuff that 99% of the world never wants to see. Wikipedia provides encyclopedic information. Commons provides a depository of media, and if you search for keywords in the metadata you'll see thumbnails of the matching media. I find Google safe search seriously useful, because it gives me a choice, and enables me to tailor my search to my requirements. If I want to see porn, I can see porn. If I'm looking for something else, I can prevent my search being flooded with porn. If I am a researcher looking for images of Prince Albert on Commons, I would appreciate not being forced to wade through dozens of images of penises with rings in them to find the image I'm looking for. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Searchredirs=1ns0=1ns6=1ns9=1ns12=1ns14=1ns100=1ns106=1search=Prince+albertlimit=500offset=0 We will not attract a more mature audience until we get our act together. Andreas___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Commons Searches
Ryan, We have just performed a 24,000-people referendum on a personal image filter, and the Board has declared a willingness to devote resources to implementing a corresponding solution. If that work is done, we would also have all we need to make the Commons search function – which is also the Wikipedia multimedia search function – work in a way that would provide users with the results they are actually looking for. Andreas From: Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, 14 October 2011, 1:47 Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Commons Searches Unfortunately we currently have zero developers working on search (as far as I know). There are several more significant search bugs that are also not going to be fixed any time soon. Another issue is that our search engine is Java while the rest of MediaWiki is PHP. This makes sense for performance reasons, but makes the pool of potential developers who are able and willing to work on it much smaller. In other words, this might get fixed in a few years, but I wouldn't hold my breathe. In the meantime, it would be good to follow Sarah's lead and proactively curate the content we have so that there is less potential for astonishment in our search results. Ryan Kaldari On 10/13/11 5:37 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: John, From: John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com (Searching for levee in Commons brings up an image of a naked Suicide Girl called Levee in third place.) Its a thumbnail for !@#$ sake, and anyone who finds that image offensive should turn off their internet connection. It's a perfectly nice image, but does it answer the user's need? In most cases probably not. If I google levee, I see levees, not nude girls: http://www.google.co.uk/search?gcx=cq=leveeum=1ie=UTF-8hl=entbm=ischsource=ogsa=Ntab=wibiw=1041bih=638 If I want to google for pictures of Levee, I google for Levee Suicide Girls, and there she is: http://www.google.co.uk/search?gcx=cq=leveeum=1ie=UTF-8hl=entbm=ischsource=ogsa=Ntab=wibiw=1041bih=638#um=1hl=entbm=ischsa=1q=levee+suicide+girlpbx=1oq=levee+suicide+girlaq=faqi=aql=gs_sm=egs_upl=127182l129981l0l130379l15l15l0l11l0l0l291l930l0.1.3l4l0bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osbfp=120e52a58330422ebiw=1041bih=638 I guess Commons should give more weight to categories, and less weight to file names. So when I google cucumber, it should show me images in the cucumber category first of all, and not images that happen to have cucumber in the title. Brandon, is there something developers could do in this regard? I am sure you'll be appalled that libraries include nude pictures in their search results, often when searching for something else. http://trove.nla.gov.au/picture/result?q=contemporary+north+america+20th+century fix the metadata. create a gallery page. create a category and populate it. etc p.s. abstract art offends me. Can we please remove media related to John Levee's from the Commons search results for the term 'Levee'. ;-) We should be under no illusion that we can find all search terms whose results violate the principle of least surprise, presenting adult images for everyday search terms. New such situations arise on a daily basis, each time someone uploads an explicit file that has a plausible search term in its name and description (try searching Commons for eating, and then search for drinking; or try finding images of Prince Albert). The ordering of the search results isnt ideal. Have you raised a bug? The thing is, John, it's not a bug. How is it a bug? The image is called Drinking urine or whatever, and so it's a valid search result for drinking. No doubt, a bunch of people would argue that it would be non-neutral to exclude it from the search results for drinking, because Wikipedia is not censored, and we don't care if people are unhappy with our service, because that would be non-neutral. ;) Imagine rant here. It puts too much weight on the filename, which isnt good because recommend against rename, so the current search results are gamable by the uploader. We should simply offer safe search, like Google does. Google provides safe search. They need to convert 'the internet' into a search results page that their customer wants to see, and the Internet has a whole lot of stuff that 99% of the world never wants to see. Wikipedia provides encyclopedic information. Commons provides a depository of media, and if you search for keywords
Re: [Gendergap] Commons Searches
Brandon, Would it be a lot of work to give primary weight in the Commons search listing order to files included in 1. Categories (top level only) and 2. Galleries whose name matches the search term (or is the plural thereof)? So the top files listed for cucumber, say, would be all the files shown in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cucumber and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cucumbers ? Andreas On 10/13/11 5:47 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote: Unfortunately we currently have zero developers working on search (as far as I know). There are several more significant search bugs that are also not going to be fixed any time soon. Another issue is that our search engine is Java while the rest of MediaWiki is PHP. This makes sense for performance reasons, but makes the pool of potential developers who are able and willing to work on it much smaller. In other words, this might get fixed in a few years, but I wouldn't hold my breathe. In the meantime, it would be good to follow Sarah's lead and proactively curate the content we have so that there is less potential for astonishment in our search results. Yeah; this is really a curation issue and not a search engine issue. Sadly, I'm one of the few people at the Foundation who knows Java or could even work on this, but I expect that there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth were I to spend much time on this. -- Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] Niqab
This edit to the article on the niqab worn by Muslim women http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Niq%C4%81bdiff=482813756oldid=481659451 was pointed out on the Wikipediocracy forum the other day ( http://www.wikipediocracy.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8t=122; I'm a mod there). The edit has stood for five days now. The same image was also inserted in a bunch of other Wikipedias (and may still be present in them). Interestingly, in the German Wikipedia, it was stopped by the pending changes function. (I've reverted it in the German Wikipedia.) Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] BuzzFeed articles
Two recent Buzzfeed articles: 1. *Wikipedia's Gender Gap, As Measured By Famous Birthdays*, by Anna North http://www.buzzfeed.com/annanorth/wikipedias-gender-gap-as-measured-by-famous-birt A gender gap continues to plague Wikipedia, and one of its main effects is on the kinds of people the encyclopedia considers noteworthy. We took a look at this through the lens of birthdays. 2. *The Epic Battle For Wikipedia's Autofellatio Page*, by Jack Stuef In the underbelly of Wikipedia is an exhibitionist subculture dedicated to one thing: Ensuring that their penis is the visual definition of penis. Meet Jiffman, one such exhibitionist. (This article is very probably NSFW.) http://www.buzzfeed.com/jackstuef/inside-the-seedy-world-of-wikipedia-exhibitionism A Part II continuation of the second article should appear on BuzzFeed later today. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] World Naked Gardening Day
If you don't particularly object to that image http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Naked_Gardening_Dayoldid=485677881 then I would suggest you have very poor taste and very little sense of what an encyclopedia, even an online encyclopedia, should look like. Andreas On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: I removed it with this explanation: I've removed the image; I suggest not restoring it (as controversial) unless it is decided by consensus to be the permanent lead image. There is no need to have a sub-standard image in the mean time if a better one can be found (which I think is the case). The photo is a posed shot - apparently promotional(?) - which focuses on the nudity with only a token gesture to gardening. It is gratuitous, in that form, and not a good illustration of the subject. I don't particularly object to the image myself; but it's not a good illustration of the topic. Tom On 5 April 2012 11:36, Ole Palnatoke Andersen palnat...@gmail.com wrote: Someone might know (or know of) Mark Storey who is gardening on http://naked.wikia.com/wiki/World_Naked_Gardening_Day - or perhaps http://naked.wikia.com/wiki/User:Dlj (aka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dandelion1 ) who uploaded the image? Regards, Ole On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Gillian White whiteghost@gmail.com wrote: Sorry to say... Right now, on the English Wikipedia main page did you know section, is World Naked Gardening Day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Naked_Gardening_Day You will note on the talkpage of the article there's been a vigorous debate about the choice of image used http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_Naked_Gardening_Day This morning (my time) the image was not there, with [[user:alan liefting]] working hard to argue against the photo that has now been placed at the top. I am dismayed on behalf of women and of gardeners too! I have come across [[User:Supernova Explosion]] before - he seems to use titillating captions and images to increase the hits to otherwise legitimate 'did you know' nominations and is now the user who has been arguing that this photo has consensus to be included while they wait for a better one to be found. Groan! I don't want to get involved in an edit-war about this case, but can anything be done about this case specifically? Is it the right approach to remove the image and to ask that the discussion about its appropriateness be delayed until at least after the DYK link is gone?? Whiteghost.ink ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- http://palnatoke.org * @palnatoke * +4522934588 ___ 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] BuzzFeed articles
Sequel to Jack Stuef's piece: *It's Almost Impossible To Get Kiddie Porn Off Wikipedia* *Wikipedia's self-policing isn't working.* http://www.buzzfeed.com/jackstuef/its-almost-impossible-to-get-kiddie-porn-off-wiki ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Article Cumshot in English and German Wikipedia
I could have a go again, Carol. :) Gay porn is underrepresented in these articles. Andreas On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Carol Moore DC carolmoor...@verizon.netwrote: NO need to censor it. Just do a second one with bushier eyebrows and a goatee and put that up instead :-) On 4/27/2012 1:50 PM, Béria Lima wrote: Katrin, I hate to be captain obvious here, but: Do you know that cun shot is a porn related term right? Only used in Porn related articles (see related articleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Cum_shot)? And that what is in the article isn't a picture, but a illustration? I do agreed when people complained about the naked gardening article and pic, because isn't a sex related article. But this IS a sex related article, not only, this one is a PORN related article. Is not like someone will fall there accidentally by looking for Jesus or Santa. Therefore, I don't see the reason to censor the article. *Béria Lima* ___ 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] Article Cumshot in English and German Wikipedia
A Google image search for gay cumshot indicates there are 37.8 million results. Cumshot -gay has 44 million. If these numbers are correct, then gay and non-gay cumshots are almost equally common online, and it's a toss-up (pun intended) as to which we should use. There are really two separate issues here. One is that Wikipedia illustrates sexual and pornographic practices that most educational sources would not. For example, I have yet to find a medical website that illustrates its article on ejaculation with an ejaculation video, or a printed encyclopedia that shows a photograph of ejaculation. So while Wikipedia usually says that due weight should derive from practices in reliable sources, in this particular case Wikipedia departs very sharply from practices in reliable sources, because it understands WP:NOTCENSORED to override WP:NPOV. In other words, it assumes that reliable sources are censored, and that Wikipedia is not. That is not my understanding of policy, nor is it the understanding of policy as written, where WP:NPOV / WP:DUE is the senior and WP:NOTCENSORED is the junior policy, but in practice, WP:NOTCENSORED tends to win out over WP:NPOV and WP:DUE because of our demographics. So that is our status quo. The other issue is that Wikipedia in practice IS censored by not illustrating any of the articles on pornographic terms of art that apply to both gay and straight porn genres with images taken from gay porn, even though, as we can see, both are published in almost equal numbers. One reason is that User:Seedfeeder, the artist who drew most of these images, is straight and usually declined requests to draw gay images (he has done one or two, but it isn't what he enjoys doing). http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Seedfeeder I did once convert one of Seedfeeder's images (of snowballing) so the recipient of the semen was a male, rather than a female, because that was actually what the sourced text was calling for. And I confess it did give me a certain satisfaction to see male users complain that the image was disgusting, and demanding that it show the woman receiving. So far, however, no woman has complained. The German article still has it wrong by the way, as it confounds snowballing with cum swapping; they are different activities. Snowballing originates in gay sex and is when the (male or female) recipient spits the semen back into the donor's mouth after oral sex. Cum swapping is primarily a pornographic practice, where one woman spits the semen into another woman's mouth; it never touches a man's lips. Andreas On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: On 27 April 2012 20:54, Béria Lima beria.l...@wikimedia.pt wrote: *Perhaps the conversation should be more about equal representation of gender in articles like this...* Should I ask what the appropriate equal representation in this case might be? Female to male.ejaculation? _ I guess Male on Male. Although in this case that is probably undue because it isn't all that common in gay pornography (YMMV). Tom ___ 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] Article Cumshot in English and German Wikipedia
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 12:16 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.orgwrote: ** Fun fact: Female ejaculation is the most viewed Wikipedia article related in any way to feminism (at least since WikiProject Feminism started keeping stats). It's 3 times as popular as the next article on the list, Abortion. Ryan Kaldari On 4/27/12 2:52 PM, Laura Hale wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ejaculate would be an equivalent. It seems one of the most absurd facts of science to me that the scientific community can agree that stars several light years away are orbited by planets, and how large these planets are, while they cannot agree whether or not female ejaculation exists, and what it is. Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Article Cumshot in English and German Wikipedia
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 12:22 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: No one here has commented on the fact that the German Wikipedia article uses a special, local version of one of Seedfeeder's images. The German version is more amateurish, and a little more nasty. Compare: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Wiki-facial_cumshot.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wiki-cumshot.png I noticed that. However, the German article focuses on the use in pornography, and the nastier image is more appropriate in that setting. Personally, I thought the extra bit of nastiness unnecessary (especially combined with the lack of drawing expertise in execution). The English article about [[Cum shot]] drifts into areas that are more sexuality than pornography, often reproducing content which is on [[Facial (sex act)]]. German Wikipedia doesnt appear to have an article about the sexual act. A cumshot is not a sexual act, but a photographic recording of a sexual act (shot refers to the photography, not the ejaculation). Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Article Cumshot in English and German Wikipedia
Wonderful. Don't miss http://thehairpin.com/2011/01/women-laughing-alone-with-salad Andreas On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote: ** Perfect opportunity to share one of my favorite blog memes: http://thehairpin.com/2011/11/women-struggling-to-drink-water Ryan Kaldari On 5/2/12 2:20 PM, Thomas Morton wrote: Advertising not sexist. Really. Well I'd be interested to hear rational arguments that it is... I've always found advertising to be highly sexualised, but refreshingly free of sexism. Tom ___ Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://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] Article Cumshot in English and German Wikipedia
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote: There was an idea brainstormed a little while back with me and a few other folks about seeking funding to have a Wiki Loves Women photography event that wanted photographers to take photographs of women - and this wouldn't be some broad crowdsourced thing like WLM, we would work with photographers, various models etc and make this legit with releases, etc - doing whatever we needed them to be better represented doing, so to say. So, wearing certain articles of clothing (i.e. go go boots), certain make up looks or uses, hairstyles, - places that are often poorly represented regarding women's stuff (i.e. men don't get manicures that often, sorry) even as extreme as sex acts, I also wanted to just have women doing things like mowing the lawn and planting flowers or pan searing salmon or whatever things need videos to represent them (and no, these women wouldn't be nude :P). The latter was inspired by Jenny Geigel Mikulay's work at Alverno College where she had her students (it's a women's college) make films of things like playing drums, the art museum building kinetic architecture time-lapsed, etc. All of these videos have been uploaded to Commons. Someday I'll do it =) I can see it being a project that would be a perfect fit for Kickstarter. Commons' coverage of platform shoes or high-heeled shoes for example is appalling, given the thousands of designer shoes out there: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Platform_shoes http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:High-heeled_shoes Generally, Commons lacks Pinterest ... http://pinterest.com/ ... meaning that the sort of imagery that is characteristic of a women-dominated site like Pinterest is very underrepresented in Commons. As the WMF board resolution last year noted, the situation with model releases for pictures taken in private situations is dire in Commons. So many photos of this type are poached from Flickr without bothering to ask the Flickr account holder for model consent. The best way of showing up the present inadequacies would indeed be to do some work where all the t's are crossed, and all the i's dotted: proper copyright release, proper consent forms. It could be a model to be emulated. Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Should there be a Wikipedia boycott over the lack of an image filter?
From Larry Sanger's blog: ---o0o--- I want to start a conversation. [...Larry says, in his blog] I. Problem? What problem? So, you didn’t know that Wikipedia has a porn problem? Let me say what I do not mean by “Wikipedia’s porn problem.” I do not mean simply that Wikipedia has a lot of porn. That’s part of the problem, but it’s not even the main problem. I’m 100% OK with porn sites. I defend the right of people to host and view porn online. I don’t even especially mind that Wikipedia has porn. There could be legitimate reasons why an encyclopedia might want to have some “adult content.” No, the real problem begins when Wikipedia features some of the most disgusting sorts of porn you can imagine, while being heavily used by children. But it’s even more complicated than that, as I’ll explain. (Note, the following was co-written by me and several other people. I particularly needed their help finding the links.) Here is the short version: Wikipedia and other websites of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) host a great deal of pornographic content, as well as other content not appropriate for children. Yet, the Wikimedia Foundation encourages children to use these resources. Google, Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, and many other high-profile sites have installed optional filters to block adult content from view. I believe the WMF sites should at a minimum install an optional, opt-in filter, as the WMF Board agreed to do in 2011. I understand that the WMF has recently stopped work on the filter and, after a period of community reaction, some Board members have made it clear that they do not expect this filter to be finished and installed. Wikipedians, both managers and rank-and-file, apparently do not have enough internal motivation to do the responsible thing for their broad readership. But even that is too brief. If you really want to appreciate Wikipedia’s porn problem, I’m afraid you’re going to have to read the following. http://larrysanger.org/2012/05/what-should-we-do-about-wikipedias-porn-problem/ Feel free to repost! ---o0o--- There is further discussion of this, with Larry in attendance, on Wikipediocracy.com: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15t=429 Note that the related thread is in the Sexualisation subforum, which is only accessible to registered Wikipediocracy members. Registration is free though, and anyone wishing to have a look is welcome to join up and participate! http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/ Best, Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Should there be a Wikipedia boycott over the lack of an image filter?
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:10 AM, Caroline Becker carobecke...@gmail.comwrote: What is the relationship with gender-gap ? Are female children more unlikely to contribute to Wikimedia projects if they saw some porn on Wikipedia or Commons ? Caroline This was something we discussed at WikiWomenCamp during several sessions. (On our list of why women do NOT contribute, I do not think it even made the board.) I think the consensus most of the participants had was this was largely a problem confined to English Wikipedia amongst a certain subset of English speakers, most of whom are from the United States. I remember Robert Harris once saying to me, in an e-mail, something to the effect that one of the main reasons Wikimedia does so poorly at curating sexual content responsibly is its gender imbalance. He expressed the view that the only way this was ever going to change was by Wikimedia having a healthier gender ratio. I thought he was absolutely right. The belief was most women were not intentionally seeking this information out and you could not find it as easily as some conversations suggested: You had to be actively looking for it and actively looking to be offended by it. These types of people were not likely to be contributing to Wikipedia anyway. There was a real feeling amongst some people that this was a red-herring type issue that was taking away valuable time and resources from doing activities towards increasing female participation on Wikimedia related projects, and that to a certain degree, the obsession with this topic was actively derailing the ability to work on these goals. For an example of a woman exasperated by Wikipedia's handling of sexual content, see this post http://www.junkland.net/2011/11/donkey-punch-or-how-i-tried-to-fight.html by blogger Penny Sociologist, which my wife somehow came across. This concerned a crudely animated cartoon of a woman being struck in the back of the neck during sex, which the blogger had encountered in a Wikipedia article. Here is a quote from her post, commenting on Wikipedia's editorial process: ---o0o--- Let's revisit the serious, consensus-building Discussion page for donkey punching: Misogynist: Just want to say that the picture with this article is HILARIOUS!!! Another Misogynist: Same here. It made me laugh for a good 10 minutes. Voice of Reason: As this act is probably apocryphal and possibly lethal, I would suggest the current picture is unnecessary and inappropriate and should therefore be removed. Another Misogynist: And I would suggest that ur a fag who has a stick up the butt. Somewhere later down the page, while misogynists coldly discuss the merits of an earlier illustration that wasn't animated, one says: Preferably the image shouldn't be a cartoon, but actually showing a real couple. So there you have Wikipedia's serious discussion and consensus building. ---o0o--- It may well be true that women do not seek these types of pages out generally. But what you are forgetting is that this is only one-half of the story. You are forgetting that men and boys do seek these pages out, in their millions – especially those who are not in relationships with women. And finding material and discussions like those described in Penny's blog attracts and repels different kinds of male contributors. Like calls to like. Now, it is my belief that those attracted to this type of stuff, those who find it cool, funny or whatever, and who feel at home and comfortable on a site that hosts discussions like this, are less likely to make women feel welcome than the type of man repelled by it. To give another example, some weeks ago, a Russian-born grandmother complained on Jimbo's English Wikipedia talk page that in response to a harmless search term, Commons had presented her with a masturbation video. And she said, in somewhat broken English, that she could not see how publicising that video helped Wikimedia's charitable mission. She said, I fail to see any public benefit in public mastrubation. It hurts. The response she got was remarkable. Another (male) Wikimedian responded, When I masturbate in public, I don't really feel any different than when I do it in private; can you possibly tell us why when you masturbate in public, it hurts? That user is an administrator and bureaucrat on Wikimedia Commons, based on community vote. (He is, incidentally, also the administrator who kept the donkey punch animation on Commons when it was nominated for deletion.) Do you think this level and mode of discourse is likely to attract women contributors? You see, the question is not just whether a certain editorial style in sexual articles repels women. The real question is whether that editorial style attracts male editors that women enjoy working with. If you have 4chan discourse and content, you attract a (mostly male) 4chan crowd. If you have
Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Should gender gappers really pay attention?
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com wrote: So yes, systematic bias can be overcome by encouraging the growth of female contributors. The failure to attract women contributors to editing Wikipedia across various languages has little to do with that. I am actually in agreement with you on both points. The linkage I postulated was a far more indirect one – I postulated an effect on *male* demographics, and how it may affect the behaviour of *male* contributors on Wikimedia sites. This has whut to do with the issue? Misogyny and pornography are not the same thing. I'll take the opinion of a global group of women who came to the conclusion on their own that this is a red herring issue that does NOT work in terms of addressing the gendergap by trying to eliminate pornographic material from one white woman from the United States, which I previously stated was a consensus view at an internationally attended conference for addressing the gender gap was not an issue. Thanks for your links. If I may, I'd like to offer some thoughts on the first two links you provided. The first of these was http://www.ludost.org/content/wikipedia-why-few-women-edit It mentioned, among other things, that – the specific jargon, aggressive behaviours, strict rules and meritocracy are factors pushing away certain users ... there is harassment aggressivity towards women ... lack of mentorship ... special jargon, unwritten rules ... The other link was the pinboard image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/WikiWomenCamp_day_2_011.jpg It includes such points as these five: – baja autoestima (low self-esteem), – La opinión de los hombres vale mas que la de las mujeres (men's opinions count more than women's opinions), – harassment on the mailing list and on the wiki, – La comunidad hace que te sientes incompetente (the community makes you feel incompetent) – Es un contexto agresivo? (is it an aggressive environment?) Of course, there are many other points mentioned on the pinboard as well, such as women having less time for volunteer work (beyond our means to fix), or lack of mentorship/lack of community building compared to content building (something the Tea House is designed to address, for example). So clearly there are other important factors, and what I am talking about is just one element in the overall equation. But I believe the items I highlighted above relate to what I was driving at. The fact is that certain male behaviours are only found in environments like locker rooms or building sites where men feel that they are among themselves and need not consider women's opinions. Locker-room type imagery (as reflected in en:WP articles like tit torture or hogtie bondage for example, which are transparently and needlessly designed to serve the male gaze) psychologically *signals* to men that they are in a male environment and are free to behave in that way. I believe this explains something of the vehemence with which some male editors defend articles illustrated like this: for some of them it is not so much about censorship, it is really about defending the vision that *Wikipedia is owned by men*. A woman passing by a men-only building site has a greater chance of being teased, cat-called, harassed, disparaged, put down, or belittled than a woman passing a mixed-gender group standing by the road. A single woman entering a male locker room is less likely to be treated respectfully than a woman serving a male customer at a bank, or a woman being served by a male shop employee. This sense of being belittled, discounted, harassed and aggressed is what is reflected in the pinboard statements above. Every woman entering Wikipedia is surrounded by nine men who feel the place belongs to them. It is no coincidence that banks and shops do not have calendars with naked women (or men) on the walls, and that there are rules against displaying such imagery in many workplaces. These rules open workplaces up to women. Wikipedia's porn has a significance to the gender gap that goes far beyond its capacity to turn off individual women encountering it. (And pardon for my terseness. It is 4:14am and I'm still jet lagged from my trip to Buenoes Aires where I got to meet some truly wonderful women, and discuss many of these issues for about five days. The ascyrhonous nature of coming back to the list where the discussion is so out of line with all these conversations from those actively involved in the movement is a bit jarring on the brain.) No worries. I hope you have a good rest ... I (and I am sure everybody else here) would love to hear more from you about the conference when you are rested. It sounds exciting! Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?
Here are results of a multimedia search for human female in Wikipedia (NSFW): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Searchlimit=250offset=100redirs=0profile=imagessearch=human+female Did you look at the examples Larry mentioned in his post? There are many more: e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep-throating, viewed more than 50,000 times this month (this actually had three rather than two images until a couple of days ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deep-throatingoldid=494580914) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_torture (16,000+ views this month) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bukkake (120,000+ views this month) Basically, if you go through the articles listed in en:WP templates like the sexual slang template, the Outline of BDSM template etc. you will come across many such articles, all with high viewing figures. An example from de:WP: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaginalverkehroldid=97830340 Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/46879013@N03/4414846436/ http://www.flickr.com/people/46879013@N03 The Flickr account has been closed down (usually for breach of Flickr's terms of service). Note that there are no 18 USC 2257 records demonstrating that the persons depicted were 18 or over. According to my understanding of US law, any Wikimedian who uploads or inserts such an image without having documentation of model age, name, and publication consent is in breach of US law; see discussion at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philippe_(WMF)#Implications_of_2257_record_keeping_requirements_for_editors.3F Andreas On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com wrote: On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Kim Osman kim.os...@qut.edu.au wrote: My first thought was that this indeed is a red herring in terms of addressing the gendergap, however in my limited editing experience I do at times feel like Wikipedia is a boys' club, and perhaps the prevalence of pornography goes some way to an imagining of what is hanging on the clubhouse walls Hi, I edit Wikipedia a lot. I probably spend more time than I should editing Wikipedia. Can I ask where there is a prevalence of pornography on Wikipedia? I honestly can't think of a single time I have come across it when I wasn't directly looking for it. Misogny to a degree, yes. Discrimination against women's topics and topics outside the United States, youbetcha. But pornography? Maybe I just don't edit articles where pornography is very prevalent? -- 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] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Caroline Becker carobecke...@gmail.comwrote: The Flickr account has been closed down (usually for breach of Flickr's terms of service). Note that there are no 18 USC 2257 records demonstrating that the persons depicted were 18 or over. According to my understanding of US law, any Wikimedian who uploads or inserts such an image without having documentation of model age, name, and publication consent is in breach of US law; see discussion at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philippe_(WMF)#Implications_of_2257_record_keeping_requirements_for_editors.3F Andreas Does it also apply to artwork of nude underages, such as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Boy_playing_jonchets_by_Julien-Charles_Dubois or the trillion paintings with nude babies ? No. Record-keeping is required by law for images whose production involved actual people engaged in sexually explicit conduct, meaning actual or simulated—(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; (ii) bestiality; (iii) masturbation; (iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or (v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2256 If creation of the image did not involve real people engaged in such conduct, no record-keeping requirements apply. Note that while the Wikimedia Foundation, due to Section 230(c) safe harbor provisions, does not have a record-keeping duty here, my layman's reading of http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2257 is that every *individual contributor* who – uploads an image depicting real people engaged in sexually explicit conduct, or – inserts such an image in Wikipedia, or – manages such content on Wikimedia sites, thereby becomes a secondary producer required to keep and maintain records documenting the performers' age, name, and consent, with failure to do so punishable by up to five years in prison. Note that this includes anyone, say, inserting an image or video of masturbation in a Wikipedia article or categorising it in Commons without having a written record of the name, age and consent of the person shown on file. I've asked Philippe Beaudette to confirm that this reading is correct. He has said that while they cannot provide legal advice to individual editors, they will put someone to work on that, and that it will be a month or so before they can come back to us. Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not convinced that sexual images is a gender gap issue. But my non-expert opinion is that there is, or ought to be, a degree of feminist interest in the problems of model releases and age verification. I've always thought it strange that Andreas, and privatemusings before him, focused primarily on the very low probability that someone might accidentally stumble onto sexual images... to the near exclusion of the far more important problem, to me, of hosting potentially thousands of images where the subject is unknown, unaware of the publication of the image and did not (and would not have) given permission for such publication. For most images on Commons of a sexual nature there is no model release and no age verification, but despite the Board resolution and the lip-service paid to personality rights on Commons, there have been only minimal efforts to rectify this problem. Nathan, I agree with you that the consent issue is a huge problem. Wikimedia is allowing people to upload revenge porn (= sexual images of ex-partners) anonymously, without models' knowledge or consent, and editors then use this kind of material to illustrate articles. Editors are pinching hundreds of private sexual images off Flickr and upload them to Wikimedia sites without asking Flickr account owners for consent, in violation of the board resolution. The March/April thread on personality rights I started on the Commons list was exactly about that: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2012-March/006409.html Even after that post it took over a month to get these images deleted, after a total of six or seven deletion nominations: even though Commons *knew all along* that the models did not want these images on Wikimedia. Commons has images here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Lesbic_use_of_nipple_clamps_and_strap-on_dildo.jpg from an uploader who has written on Commons, First of all, I am the photographer of this photo [dianaoftripoli]. I'm not even sure WHY this photo is on Wikimedia. the photo was posted on my Flickr account. This is in violation of how I want the photo to be used, so I do want it to be taken DOWN. For the record, no one involved in that project was underage. This conversation is completely idiotic. It was a college final project and of course it was taken with a high quality camera and of course it doesn't match my normal life because it is ART. You're all crazy. REMOVE this photo from this site and all others that I have taken. If you need to contact me, contact me directly via Flickr. Do NOT publish any more of my photos on another site WITHOUT my consent. PERIOD. FURTHERMORE, your posting of my photography AND COMMENTARY are in VIOLATION of my PRIVATE life and those who are in the photographs. You all should be ASHAMED. Bunch of speculative meddlers. Find something better to do and respect other people's privacy. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFile%3ATasting_a_condom.jpgdiff=67108318oldid=66957446 and Commons is STILL refusing to delete her images. I did my best to get them deleted, bringing them to the attention of the Wikimedia UK chair, who nominated them for deletion. To no avail (well, one of the images was deleted; it was a simulated image of a naked woman having her throat cut in a bathtub). Any help on consent issues is very much appreciated, Nathan. For a list of current nudity and sexuality-related Commons deletion requests, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nudity_and_sexuality-related_deletion_requests I am sorry – this thread may now actually be in danger of derailing the discussion. If people want to debate this further, but consensus is that the discussion should take place elsewhere, we could perhaps create a page on Meta. Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: Now, things got complicated when DOJ added an entirely new class of producers you speak of secondary producers, anyone who publishes, reproduces, or reissues explicit material. This is where things get complicated. What followed was a circuit court decision, and other proceedings, that ruled these requirements were facially invalid because they imposed an overbroad burden on legitimate, constitutionally protected speech. The real question now becomes about its enforcement. Much of the sexual material on the internet, even depiction of works of art several hundred years old, any form of nudity even for educational, anatomical purposes might fall under this law (lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person). Theo, that is completely wrong. Record-keeping requirements only apply to images where models were required to engage in actual sexually explicit conduct, and moreover, it only applies to images created from 1990 onward. The burden on service providers, and hosting websites would be massive to speak of - consider the implication on Facebook for example, or Flickr, or even Google, being responsible for linking every single image in results, they don't possess the proper records of the depicted subjects, which might very well number into tens of millions. Again, that is completely wrong. Facebook and the Wikimedia Foundation are already protected by 230(c) safe harbor provisions. Responsibility lies with the individual uploader or editor, who enjoys no such protection but is fully liable for their own actions. Maybe that's why, it has been implemented only in one specific case primarily based on the new 2257 law and related legislation. The case was against Joe Francis, the originator of Girls gone Wild series. Also, of relevance might be that the series in question only depicted nudity, and not any sexual act. Even these charges were for the most part dropped later on. The thing is: Wikimedia keeps edit histories and contributions lists for decades. We have no idea what implementation of US law will look like in five or ten years' time, given political vagaries. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] Gossamer threads archive
To the list administrators: Would it be possible to have this list archived on gossamer-threads, like the Foundation list? http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/ It's a much more convenient format to refer back to than the monthly archive page. Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: Outside prosecutors can not prosecute, or charge any editor based on their username, whether its User:someguy542 or User:Ladiesman232, there is no real world link without the IP records. Firstly, that's not the sort of reasoning a charitable foundation should rely on. It makes for bad PR. Secondly, it is often relatively trivial to identify people. You'll remember that the person who posted the Seigenthaler hoax was identified from his IP, and lost his job (I think he got it back afterwards, when Seigenthaler took pity on him and spoke to his employer). Furthermore, many established Commonists and Wikipedians either disclose their real names on mailing lists and/or their user pages, have pictures of themselves on Commons from Wikimania or other Wikimedia events, or are otherwise trivially identifiable. Take the recent Beta M case, for example. Yes, an anonymous uploader who made only one edit from an Internet café may escape scrutiny. Although the other day I came across one uploader who had inadvertently uploaded geolocation data from his mobile phone along with his image, identifying the precise street address of the bedroom in Germany where the image was taken ... many mobile phones these days include geolocation in their metadata. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On the Commons side of things, I think there has been an over-aggressive campaign to extract license compliant images from Flickr and other non-WMF repositories that include subjects who were very unlikely to know that their image was going to be made available on Commons. I believe that whoever uploads those images to Commons has a personal responsibility to verify that all of the subjects in those images was aware of, and agrees to, the licensing terms. I also believe that it should become part of the process that prior to uploading such images, the person uploading to Commons confirms with the Flickr uploader that the terms of the license are correct, and that there are suitable model releases where applicable. Let's not worry so much about what courts have decided, and pay more attention to developing best practices within our own projects. Risker/Anne Agreed. Most of these are from Flickr, for example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Handcuffed Going by past experience, the Flickr account holders are quite likely unaware of these uploads. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] gendergap research
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote: Usually it's because they are busy. The smallest group - 2% said because of sexualized environments on wiki spaces. Which has led me to believe in the red herring theory about porn and Wikipedia. I think it's concerning about model contracts and so forth, but, I think we have bigger fish to fry at this point. I think it's sexualized language and behavior that we need to be more concerned about - sexist comments and bad manners. (and of course, sexism can be experienced by people of any gender and has on Wikipedia.) But, that relies on culture change and allies within the community to shoot down behavior like that (civility!). Please consider the likelihood that there may be a correlation between the let-it-all-hang-out attitude towards porn, and the problem you describe as sexualized behavior – sexist comments and bad manners. The let-it-all-hang-out approach towards porn is likely – to attract people who engage in sexualized behavior – sexist comments and bad manners, and – to repel the type of people who would be allies within the community to shoot down behaviour like that (civility!). A more responsible and mainstream approach, on the other hand, is apt to repel the first and attract the second type of contributor. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] gendergap research
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Michael J. Lowrey orangem...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Please consider the likelihood that there may be a correlation between
the
let-it-all-hang-out attitude towards porn, and the problem you describe
as
sexualized behavior – sexist comments and bad manners.
The let-it-all-hang-out approach towards porn is likely
– to attract people who engage in sexualized behavior – sexist comments
and
bad manners, and
– to repel the type of people who would be allies within the community
to
shoot down behaviour like that (civility!).
A more responsible and mainstream approach, on the other hand, is apt to
repel the first and attract the second type of contributor.
{{citation needed}}
Unquestioned premises almost inevitably lead to false conclusions. In
this case, the unquestioned premise is that those who oppose
censorship are people who engage in (or at least tolerate) sexist
comments and bad manners, as opposed to the possibility that those who
people oppose censorship believe in opposing censorship as a matter of
principle. You are unilaterally defining opponents of censorship as
irresponsible, out of the mainstream, and unwilling to support
civility: again I say, {{citation needed}}!
(I won't bother to ask for an apology.)
I'll work on a citation. But in my experience, the places that are most
radically free speech, and most anti-censorship when it comes to porn, like
parts of 4chan and reddit, are also places where the level of discourse
goes way south. I don't think that is a particularly novel or contentious
observation.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] gendergap research
The screenshots below are from a blog post by a girl geek going onto 4chan
/b/.
http://boards.4chan.org/b/ (probably NSFW)
4chan is the site that gave Wikipedia and the world its lolcats, as well as
the saying, There are no girls on the Internet. As you'll no doubt see if
you navigate to the above address, it is also full of anonymously posted
girlie pictures, not unlike parts of Wikimedia. One of the board's
catchphrases is, Tits or GTFO. Rather male-centric, right?
The Wikipedia article on 4chan is a featured article. (Why am I not
surprised ...)
The following screenshots are SFW:
http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Picture-81.png
http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Picture-9.png
http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Picture-10.png
http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Picture-11.png
The following is the dialogue they show:
---o0o---
/b/abes get no love! I hate you, /b/. Where are the female /b/tards?
in the kitchen.
stop making these shit threads ... girls on /b/ are anon, and stay anon.
i lol'd go make me a fucking sandwich
If girls on /b/ are non and stay anon, why is anon assumed to be male by
default? Can we just purge all the cam whores, plz?
making me a god damn sammwich
make my sandwich silently
im a girl,im in florida
Tits or GTFO. Pic related.
Girls on the Internet don't fucking exist.
girl, why do you have a pc in the kitchen?
female /b/tard here, trolling threads and not making samiches
Oh silly, there are no girls on the internet
---o0o---
Now, this dialogue illustrates how anonymous uncensored porn and sexist
behaviour towards a woman can go together, and reinforce each other.
The blog post the screenshots are taken from is here:
http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/elisaverna/wait-did-4chan-just-enlighten-me-i-feel-dirty/
Andreas
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Michael J. Lowrey
orangem...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com
wrote:
Please consider the likelihood that there may be a correlation between
the
let-it-all-hang-out attitude towards porn, and the problem you describe
as
sexualized behavior – sexist comments and bad manners.
The let-it-all-hang-out approach towards porn is likely
– to attract people who engage in sexualized behavior – sexist
comments and
bad manners, and
– to repel the type of people who would be allies within the community
to
shoot down behaviour like that (civility!).
A more responsible and mainstream approach, on the other hand, is apt to
repel the first and attract the second type of contributor.
{{citation needed}}
Unquestioned premises almost inevitably lead to false conclusions. In
this case, the unquestioned premise is that those who oppose
censorship are people who engage in (or at least tolerate) sexist
comments and bad manners, as opposed to the possibility that those who
people oppose censorship believe in opposing censorship as a matter of
principle. You are unilaterally defining opponents of censorship as
irresponsible, out of the mainstream, and unwilling to support
civility: again I say, {{citation needed}}!
(I won't bother to ask for an apology.)
I'll work on a citation. But in my experience, the places that are most
radically free speech, and most anti-censorship when it comes to porn, like
parts of 4chan and reddit, are also places where the level of discourse
goes way south. I don't think that is a particularly novel or contentious
observation.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] gendergap research
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Andreas - you seem to have the belief that the pervasive exposure to pornography is having an adverse effect on community dynamics, and in particular is having a negative impact on the recruitment of women editors. Perhaps you might want to consider whether your pervasive discussions of pornography aren't having a similar effect. This is a great way to kill a thread, when twice in the last few hours, members of this forum have striven to redirect threads from the topic of pornography. Risker/Anne Anne, It is not about pervasive exposure to pornography at all. We have established – and all of us are in agreement on this point – that women generally are very rarely exposed to it in Wikipedia, unless they seek it out. The problem is that the male culture that likes its pornography out there, and rails against any limitation of it, even a token one like an opt-in filter, concomitantly ALSO happens to be sexist and unwelcoming to women, which is again something at least the women here are largely agreed on. Let's just leave it at that. Wikimedia has far and away the most pro-porn, anti-censorship/anti-filtering policy of any top-10 website. It also has the lowest female participation of all these 10 websites. I believe that it is appalling, and I believe that these two facts are closely related: you are welcome to disagree. Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Where is the pornography?
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:56 AM, Kim Osman kim.os...@qut.edu.au wrote: Hi, I edit Wikipedia a lot. I probably spend more time than I should editing Wikipedia. Can I ask where there is a prevalence of pornography on Wikipedia? I honestly can't think of a single time I have come across it when I wasn't directly looking for it. Misogny to a degree, yes. Discrimination against women's topics and topics outside the United States, youbetcha. But pornography? Maybe I just don't edit articles where pornography is very prevalent? Hi Laura, I totally agree with you - I have never come across anything remotely offensive in the course of editing or browsing. What I was trying to say is that rather than being a reason more females don't edit Wikipedia (and perhaps here my use of the word prevalence was wrong) the presence of certain types of pornography on Wikipedia contributes to the culture which results in the instances of misogny and discrimination you note. So I do see the editorial decisions made around the type of content Larry Sanger referenced as being part of a wider conversation about female participation. Cheers, Kim That, in a nutshell, was the point I was making. Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Larry Sanger's blog post: Should there be a Wikipedia boycott over the lack of an image filter?
We are not talking about filtering standard sex education images as you might find in a school book. We are talking about images or videos of women drinking their urine, masturbating with a toothbrush, or having sex with a dog. Andreas On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Michelle Gallaway mgalla...@gmail.comwrote: You know, while I'd rather my son learns about human sexuality in a way that I'm comfortable with and can control, the reality is that he's not going to come to his mum for that information! I'd really much rather he reads that information on Wikipedia, (even if that information is not perfect), than gets his education on the topic from *actual* internet pornography. In this sense putting in a family friendly content filter like Larry Sanger advocates would probably be a massive own goal. If there are any other mothers on the list, I'd be interested in hearing their thoughts too... On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote: The problem with all enforced filtering systems is that they aren't going to stop kids getting to porn (15-year-old boys have both a lot of time, technical expertise and will find creative ways to get their hands on porn), but they often will over-censor. Back in the 90s, GLAAD put out a report called Access Denied that described how filtering technology was restricting access to LGBT information sites. My university used to prevent students (adults!) from accessing the Wikipedia article on Same-sex marriage because, well, the URL contains the word sex. Breast cancer awareness/information sites get hammered for the word breast. ___ 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] positive action Re: Nastiness
This case presents a good argument for flagged revisions. Given that the people who made these edits weren't logged in, none of their additions and changes would have been visible to the public. Andreas On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:04 AM, koltzenb...@w4w.net wrote: Hi Gillian, thank you for this information do you have any suggesting as a positive action that members of this list might take, in this case as well as generally? open for suggestions, Claudia On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:33:38 +1000, Gillian White wrote Hi All, The Community is aware of this and is discussing it. However, it's worthwhile bringing to the attention of this list that one woman's efforts at studying gender stereotyping (reported in The New Statesman http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/internet/2012/06/dear-internet- why-you-cant-have-anything-nice) have resulted in massive and nasty vandalism of Anita Sarkeesian's page on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian. Gillian thanks cheers, Claudia koltzenb...@w4w.net ___ 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] positive action Re: Nastiness
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not so sure. As soon as the incident was noted, the article was semi-protected, which solved the problem. Perhaps you are suggesting flagged revisions for *all* biographies of living persons (BLPs), by default? Indeed I am. Sorry for not making that clearer. Note by the way that some of the vandalism was quite clueful. Adding a Nazi stub template? That wasn't a random forum poster, but someone who knew their way around Wikipedia. Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] Holly Graf
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holly_Grafoldid=476031995 This article, on a female Navy officer – apparently the first woman to command a cruiser in the history of the Navy – seems to exemplify some of the failings of what I call WP:ADAM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ADAM It looks like an article written to pillory her. Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] uk chairman band
Also coverage of varying quality in ... The Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/9439046/Chairman-of-Wikipedia-charity-banned-after-pornography-row.html Civil Society (media outlet focused on charities) http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/news/content/13090/wikimedia_chairman_banned_from_editing_wikipedia Gizmodo http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/07/bondage-porn-links-earn-uk-wikipedia-charity-boss-a-ban-from-editing-the-site/ Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/08/01/50-shades-wikipedia-uk-head-banned-after-bondage-porn-ties/ On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Sandra Ordonez sandratordo...@gmail.comwrote: the uk chairman band was mentioned in daily dot today http://dly.do/M9K4Sv Sent from my iPhone On Aug 1, 2012, at 6:16 AM, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson cindam...@gmail.com wrote: My own thoughts echo those expressed by others. Great job, Christine! No surprise though, I think your work is outstanding! Cindy On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.comwrote: Christine, that's truly awesome. :-) I've watched you working on the Maya Angelou topic for years now, and thrilled to see that you've got her biography to FA. It will be fantastic for her article to be on the main page on her birthday as a feature article! Sydney User:FloNight On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Christine Meyer christinewme...@gmail.com wrote: I've been doing my part in addressing the gender gap in en.Wikipedia, and this week marks a major accomplishment for me in this area and for me as an editor. [[Maya Angelou]] is now a featured article. I've been literally working on Angelou's article for years; my very first edit of it was early in my WP-editing career, in September 2007: [diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maya_Angeloudiff=prevoldid=158867180]. It took this long mostly because I do have a life, most of the time. When I came across it, I realized that Angelou's work and life was sorely underrepresented and not at all comprehensive, way before I came to understand the gender gap in this project. I also realized that in order to do the subject justice, I needed to become a MA-expert, something I definitely was not at the time. I realized that at the very least, I needed to read her six autobiographies, and while I was at it, write articles about them. Only one article existed at the time: her first autobiography [[I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings]], which was in a pitiable state. A year's worth of research, a lot of assistance from some of the most premiere editors in the project, and 3 FACs later, it became an FA. In the ensuing years, I created and wrote articles about Angelou's five remaining autobiographies (one is a FA, the others are GAs), some ancillary articles about her other works, and a couple of lists. ([[Works of Maya Angelou]] is currently up for FLC.) After I completed the article about Angelou's final autobiography, I worked to get her bio up to snuff, and it had a relatively easy FAC, my first FA to pass in its first candidacy. I think that was due to the fact that the article was truly prepared before it was submitted. For anyone who wants to drive an article through the FAC process, that's my advice: make sure it's ready to be reviewed, and do not use FAC (or GAC, even) to review it. There are other places for that, so use them before bringing it to FAC. My next goal is to create a Maya Angelou Featured Topic. There are some things that need to be accomplished before that; my goal is to get there before Dr. Angelou's 85th birthday in April. I'm certain, at the very least, that her bio will on the front page. Ironically, this is the week I started researching the article about another elderly and important woman: [[Joan Ganz Cooney]], co-creator of Sesame Street. Christine Username: Figureskatingfan ___ 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 -- Best regards, Cindy Ashley-Nelson Yes. *Her again.* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cindamuse ___ 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] uk chairman band
The Telegraph has now reported Fæ's resignation as Chair of Wikimedia UK http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/9447161/Wikipedia-charity-chairman-resigns-after-pornography-row.html ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Violentacrez and civility
What I was most struck by was the hypocrisy: in Reddit's vision, freedom of speech includes anonymously posting invasive images of teenagers, but excludes posting the name of a 49-year-old programmer who anonymously posts invasive images of teenagers. No privacy rights for teenage girls, complete privacy rights for those who invade their privacy. There are most definitely parallels to Wikimedia. On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote: Unmasking Reddit’s Violentacrez, The Biggest Troll on the Web https://gawker.com/5950981/ One reason Violentacrez continued to occupy such a high-profile position on Reddit was of course his free speech rhetoric. But Violentacrez has historically had a close relationship with Reddit's staff, a fact far less well-known than his controversial behavior. For all his unpleasantness, they realized that Violentacrez was an excellent community moderator and could be counted on to keep the administrators abreast of any illegal content he came across. Wow, it's like Wikipedia's civility vs. established editors dynamic but with more misogyny, homophobia and racism... -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ ___ 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] Wall Street Journal: an overabundance of testosterone
There was an article in the Wall Street Journal last week reporting on a longstanding war in Wikipedia: Editors Won't Let It Be When It Comes to 'the' or 'The' http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1872396390444657804578048534112811590.html ---o0o--- The Beatles once sang, Have you heard the word is love? In a Wikipedia war raging around the group, the word is the. For some eight years, editors at the online encyclopedia have been debating whether the article the should be uppercased when referring to the band. Is it the Beatles or The Beatles? [...] Tina Vozick, who has been editing Wikipedia entries for six years, says disputes have become more frequent over the years. She blames an overabundance of testosterone running around the pages. ---o0o--- There are now a couple of discussions related to the latter comment: one on Jimbo's talk page (headed Sexist comments made against male Wikipedians in a national publication) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Sexist_comments_made_against_male_Wikipedians_in_a_national_publication_.28WSJ.29 , and one on Tina's talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tvoz#On_sexism ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Do the April Fool's Day jokes on English Wikipedia's front page deter women editors?
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 7:23 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: I don't know that they contribute to the gender imbalance - although in fairness the women who make it as far as adminship and discussions on Jimbo's page tend to be unusually thick-skinned (I mean it as a compliment!). I think that the puerile proposals being bandied about are likely to make Wikipedia look like it's run by, well...juvenile geeks who haven't got past giggling every time they hear someone say a bad word. It would be different if these things were actually funny, but they aren't. Although I think it probably says something about the general mentality of a significant portion of our editorship what was being proposed for April Fool's day - sex, body parts, and swearing. Hmmm. +1. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Do the April Fool's Day jokes on English Wikipedia's front page deter women editors?
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:06 AM, Carol Moore DC carolmoor...@verizon.netwrote: It took forever to get the actual article [[Circle jerk]] into Wikipedia - a female did it. Now, now, Carol. The record shows that *I* created the circle jerk article, and I am not a female. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circle_jerk_(sexual_practice)action=history However, I will concede that I created the article entirely in response to your helpful suggestion. So in a way, the credit is indeed all yours. :) Best, Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] Wiki New Zealand
A lady down under has started her own Wikipedia about New Zealand. http://www.hawkesbay.co.nz/general-stories-page:/52063-a-new-wikipedia-about-new-zealand-origionates-in-hawkes-bay.html ---o0o--- Wiki web to satisfy Kiwi curiosity If knowledge is power then Lillian Grace's new website - WikiNewZealand.org - will put power in the hands of ordinary Kiwis. The concept - which is supported by crowd funding - was seeded a year ago when the former New Zealand Institute research associate and physical education teacher sat down under a Hawke's Bay tree to think out her next hobby. She came up with a Kiwi version of Wikipedia. Grace hopes her not-for-profit hub of information - mostly data and statistics represented as graphs and infographics - will, like the globally recognised online encyclopedia, become a universal resource for students, business people, politicians and ordinary citizens alike. The data on Wiki New Zealand won't be coloured by ideological viewpoints, or undergo endless revisions, as occurs on Wikipedia; its main aim is to be an unfettered source of information for rational debate, whether it is used to settle a bar bet or to inform a submission to a select committee. ---o0o--- http://wikinewzealand.org/ ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] Anita Sarkeesian, again
I think most people here will remember the appalling harassment Anita Sarkeesian suffered in YouTube and on Wikipedia. If not, see http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/06/harassment-misogyny-and-silencing-on-youtube/ http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/06/harassment-and-misogyny-via-wikipedia/ So now we have another ANI thread on her biography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#BLP_issues_at_Anita_Sarkeesian The discussion is whether a chap who made the following comment (among many others) should be topic-banned from her biography: ---o0o--- Now she has over 4 million views, which is a huge leap (relatively), despite not publishing any new videos since then - these 3 million new views, and a big fame (especially among gamers), and the notability (also on Wikipedia), and the money (from donations), all of it was only due to the massive trolling response to her trailer video for a Kickstarter project, which she then *media-savy way used to start a huge moral panic (a smooth move, I'll admit) instead of just ignoring it, or do things like [ http://www.destructoid.com/bioware-writer-s-vagina-versus-the-internet-06.phtmlcounter-attack literally using her vagina, * which is what Hepler did], and so this is what she is best known for (note: best). ---o0o--- That guy is the most frequent editor of her biography's talk page, having made over three times more edits to it than the next editor. http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=enwikifam=.wikipedia.orggrouped=onpage=Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian The ANI discussion has been running for a week. Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Anita Sarkeesian, again
Diff of the quoted edit, for reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anita_Sarkeesiandiff=prevoldid=523584174 On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: I think most people here will remember the appalling harassment Anita Sarkeesian suffered in YouTube and on Wikipedia. If not, see http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/06/harassment-misogyny-and-silencing-on-youtube/ http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/06/harassment-and-misogyny-via-wikipedia/ So now we have another ANI thread on her biography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#BLP_issues_at_Anita_Sarkeesian The discussion is whether a chap who made the following comment (among many others) should be topic-banned from her biography: ---o0o--- Now she has over 4 million views, which is a huge leap (relatively), despite not publishing any new videos since then - these 3 million new views, and a big fame (especially among gamers), and the notability (also on Wikipedia), and the money (from donations), all of it was only due to the massive trolling response to her trailer video for a Kickstarter project, which she then *media-savy way used to start a huge moral panic (a smooth move, I'll admit) instead of just ignoring it, or do things like [ http://www.destructoid.com/bioware-writer-s-vagina-versus-the-internet-06.phtmlcounter-attack literally using her vagina, * which is what Hepler did], and so this is what she is best known for (note: best). ---o0o--- That guy is the most frequent editor of her biography's talk page, having made over three times more edits to it than the next editor. http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=enwikifam=.wikipedia.orggrouped=onpage=Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian The ANI discussion has been running for a week. Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Anita Sarkeesian, again
If anyone is interested, I wrote a blog post about the history of Sarkeesian's WP biography last week. http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/01/29/a-feminists-wikipedia-biography Andreas On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Christine Meyer christinewme...@gmail.comwrote: I remembered this thread as I began my most recent GAC-review, Mona Sax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Sax. Sure enough, the nominator and main editor of this article is the same guy who was topic-banned! I only chose it because I wanted to review an article and it's short. I know almost nothing about gaming, but not knowing about a topic has never stopped me from reviewing an article; I tend to choose ones that are at the top of the queue and to expand my knowledge about stuff I don't know much about. I was still tempted, though, to fail it on principle, but that would be the wrong principle. The guy doesn't come across as all that smart; plus, English isn't his native language and he's using that as an excuse for his weak prose. (As a second language-user myself, I tend to not accept that as a reason to be a weak writer, since just because you're a native speaker of English doesn't mean that you can write well in it, and plenty of non-native speakers are good writers.) Thus far, we're being polite with each other, although I must admit that part of me wonders how it'll turn out and if me being a girl will come into play. Will keep you informed! Christine User: Figureskatingfan On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.comwrote: Diff of the quoted edit, for reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anita_Sarkeesiandiff=prevoldid=523584174 On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.comwrote: I think most people here will remember the appalling harassment Anita Sarkeesian suffered in YouTube and on Wikipedia. If not, see http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/06/harassment-misogyny-and-silencing-on-youtube/ http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/06/harassment-and-misogyny-via-wikipedia/ So now we have another ANI thread on her biography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#BLP_issues_at_Anita_Sarkeesian The discussion is whether a chap who made the following comment (among many others) should be topic-banned from her biography: ---o0o--- Now she has over 4 million views, which is a huge leap (relatively), despite not publishing any new videos since then - these 3 million new views, and a big fame (especially among gamers), and the notability (also on Wikipedia), and the money (from donations), all of it was only due to the massive trolling response to her trailer video for a Kickstarter project, which she then *media-savy way used to start a huge moral panic (a smooth move, I'll admit) instead of just ignoring it, or do things like [ http://www.destructoid.com/bioware-writer-s-vagina-versus-the-internet-06.phtmlcounter-attack literally using her vagina, * which is what Hepler did], and so this is what she is best known for (note: best). ---o0o--- That guy is the most frequent editor of her biography's talk page, having made over three times more edits to it than the next editor. http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=enwikifam=.wikipedia.orggrouped=onpage=Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian The ANI discussion has been running for a week. Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- Christine -- Christine W. Meyer christinewme...@gmail.com 208/310-1549 ___ 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] William Shatner calls Reddit out for racism, sexism
http://www.dailydot.com/society/william-shatner-reddit-moderation-racism-sexism/ ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] How Twitter turned a hashtag prank into a feminist victory
http://www.dailydot.com/society/ineedmasculismbecause-4chan-mens-rights-mra/ (I hope these may be of tangential interest, even though they are not directly related to Wikipedia.) A. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Joseph Reagle on Wikipedia's category taxonomy
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 5:43 AM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case danc...@frontiernet.net wrote: This system keeps the categories more straightforward, and pretty well avoids the sort of subtle bias Wikipedia has been caught with here. Defining the precise intersection of interest is up to the user. But the corresponding weakness is that it depends on the editors hitting all the right categories to work properly (as well as the tool itself, which as heavy toolserver users know is not always the case). Someone may categorize in two of three but not the third (guess which one might get forgotten?) Compare it to the weaknesses of the current category system. 98% of editors don't know what they are doing. Categories and subcategories are applied inconsistently all the time. Nobody has an overview of the entire tree structure, or even a major branch of it. Something that is a subcategory of American novelists today may stop being one tomorrow, just by dint of a single edit, and no one would be the wiser (unless they keep hundreds of categories on their watchlist). The category tree (or weave, as categories can have several parents) changes daily, with categories created, renamed, recategorised, and deleted. There are incessant arguments about how to name, categorise and diffuse categories, and about perceived iniquities. Wiki-gnomes spend days working and undoing each other's work. It's insane. Using a defined set of basic tags in combination with something like CatScan – ported across to the Foundation server if you like, and given a friendly front-end with shortcuts to the most common searches – would do away with that. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote: But I think it's important to mention it in the context of this thread. It does seem to me that the sexism is getting worse, more blatant. It is, and the reason is that it is humoured and swept under the carpet, rather than confronted. Why is it humoured? Because people fear upsetting a certain segment of male contributors, and the reputational cost to the Wikimedia Foundation is still not significant enough. I so admire Filipacchi. She did the right thing: rather than going to Wikipedia and arguing with the likes of Qworty and JPL, where she would *simply have been abused with impunity, and accused of violating AGF*, she went to the press. Sexism in Wikipedia may or may not be addressed when the general public is fully aware of it, and thoroughly disgusted with it, but certainly not before then. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Sue's blog about Categorygate
Commentary in The Daily Dot. http://www.dailydot.com/society/wikipedia-sexism-problem-sue-gardner/ ---o0o--- Wikipedia found itself squirming uncomfortably last week after charges of systemic sexism drew heat from media outlets across the world and sparked widespread outrage on social media. Yet according to the head of Wikimedia, the nonprofit that runs the encyclopedia, the whole sexism kerfuffle shows the system actually works. [...] Gardner begins backing herself into a corner of contradictions. She claims Wikipedians are a vastly more diverse group than the staff of any newsroom or library or archive, past or present. That statement is demonstrably false: Wikipedia is overwhelmingly young, white, and male. Its users are as diverse as the readership of Maxim. [...] In this instance the system worked, Gardner writes. Filipacchi saw something on Wikipedia that she thought was wrong. She drew attention to it. Now it’s being discussed and fixed. That’s how Wikipedia works. If that's the system, then it's broken. Women should have never been cut from that list. And they probably wouldn't have, if only more than 10 percent of editors on the biggest encyclopedia in history were women in the first place. ---o0o--- He's right. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote: It's a good question. Why is it humoured? It doesn't look like you're going to get an answer. So, in the absence of an answer, why do other contributors here think the sort of nonsense Sarah has had to deal with a [[Talk:List of vegetarians]] is humoured? What could the WMF do to address it that it isn't doing right now? ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Mary Mark Ockerbloom celebration.wo...@gmail.com wrote: Regarding the question of what can you do, I had the experience last week of starting a new job. I had to read through the guidelines for the organization, which included a section on Equal Opportunity and Freedom from Harassment. Prominent on the first page: Harassment Defined 1. Hostile Environment Harassment prohibited under this policy includes verbal, visual, or physical conduct relating to matters of race, national origin, sex, sexual preference, religion, age or disability which is unwelcome to the reasonable person, and a. has the purpose or effect of interfering with a person's work performance b. has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment. Item 2 goes on to deal with more direct incidents such as unwelcome sexual attention, sexual advances, etc. I also looked at the relevant page on Wikipedia, to see what Wikipedia's policy is. (Sorry I don't have the link to hand to include.) It covered item 2. But Hostile environment, item 1 on my workplace's guidelines, is not included. Note too that item 1 is not limited to sexual materials; this is not identified as a feminist problem but as a type of behavior potentially relevant and unacceptable to anyone. I would suggest that one reason that it's hard to get people to address this sort of situation is that it's not clearly identified at a high level as unacceptable behavior which creates a hostile environment A very interesting point, which reminded me of The Benevolent Dictator Incident: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_incident Wikimedia has a friendly space policy for physical meetings, but apparently no exact equivalent for its online environment. To give an example, Commons has a hot sex barnstar, present on a number of user talk pages, which does not appear to have violated any Wikimedia policy, judging by its existence for more than a year now. The imagery is grossly pornographic, and would be unacceptable in almost any workplace outside of the adult entertainment industry: NSFW: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_sex_barnstar.png Similar imagery is sometimes found on user pages. It is widely accepted that the open display of pornographic photographs or drawings is a key contributor to a sexually hostile workplace. This is something that could have been addressed as part of the Foundation's terms of use: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities However, the present terms of use appear to permit anything that is not outright illegal. If the Wikimedia Foundation is serious about addressing the gender gap, why does it not apply customary workplace standards to its online environment? ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Nepenthe topazbutter...@gmail.com wrote: The more I look into it, the more it seems like it's a pointless endeavor. From the deletion discussions I've looked at ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Save_the_Redwoods.jpg), a photo of two nude young women in a tree considered in scope. After all, it's been categorized! (Is that really all it takes? Absurd.) And it could be used to illustrate the article on Bagby Hot Springs! Of the seven images Commons proposes to have illustrate encyclopedic articles on Bagby Hot Springs, 3 are of nude women. It's female nudes all the way down. Nepenthe I would say that until the Foundation does something to set a different direction, it is indeed pointless to argue about things like this in Wikipedia or Commons. However, sexism and the gender gap have been prominent topics in the press these last couple of weeks. Talk to journalists instead. You may find them more sympathetic, and such an effort has a better chance of bringing about change. On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Mary Mark Ockerbloom celebration.wo...@gmail.com wrote: Regarding the question of what can you do, I had the experience last week of starting a new job. I had to read through the guidelines for the organization, which included a section on Equal Opportunity and Freedom from Harassment. Prominent on the first page: Harassment Defined 1. Hostile Environment Harassment prohibited under this policy includes verbal, visual, or physical conduct relating to matters of race, national origin, sex, sexual preference, religion, age or disability which is unwelcome to the reasonable person, and a. has the purpose or effect of interfering with a person's work performance b. has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment. Item 2 goes on to deal with more direct incidents such as unwelcome sexual attention, sexual advances, etc. I also looked at the relevant page on Wikipedia, to see what Wikipedia's policy is. (Sorry I don't have the link to hand to include.) It covered item 2. But Hostile environment, item 1 on my workplace's guidelines, is not included. Note too that item 1 is not limited to sexual materials; this is not identified as a feminist problem but as a type of behavior potentially relevant and unacceptable to anyone. I would suggest that one reason that it's hard to get people to address this sort of situation is that it's not clearly identified at a high level as unacceptable behavior which creates a hostile environment A very interesting point, which reminded me of The Benevolent Dictator Incident: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Benevolent_dictator_incident Wikimedia has a friendly space policy for physical meetings, but apparently no exact equivalent for its online environment. To give an example, Commons has a hot sex barnstar, present on a number of user talk pages, which does not appear to have violated any Wikimedia policy, judging by its existence for more than a year now. The imagery is grossly pornographic, and would be unacceptable in almost any workplace outside of the adult entertainment industry: NSFW: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_sex_barnstar.png Similar imagery is sometimes found on user pages. It is widely accepted that the open display of pornographic photographs or drawings is a key contributor to a sexually hostile workplace. This is something that could have been addressed as part of the Foundation's terms of use: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities However, the present terms of use appear to permit anything that is not outright illegal. If the Wikimedia Foundation is serious about addressing the gender gap, why does it not apply customary workplace standards to its online environment? ___ 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] Topless image retention -don't give up
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote: Andreas - when you say until the Foundation does something, what are you looking for them to do? Sarah, change has to come from the top: from Sue and the board. As far as I am concerned, they have failed abysmally. There have been words and PR exercises, and no deeds. One idea was raised just now: Enshrine the equivalent of the friendly space policy that applies to meet-ups in the terms of use, to apply to the online environment. Treat it like any workplace environment. Make clear that sexism, including inappropriate use of sexual imagery, will not be tolerated. Here is another: redefine the scope of Commons, making it clear that the more sordid and pointless contributions are not welcome. The Foundation should have cleaned up the festering sore that is Commons (ethically broken, as Jimmy Wales called it recently) years ago. It has lacked the will to do so. Without support from the top it is no surprise that people like you burn out, or simply stop challenging certain issues, because doing so makes you an outcast in the community that assembles under those conditions. Here is what you said a few days ago: ---o0o--- I basically had to stop doing the painful nomination and arguing about nudity and women's images on Commons. Part of this was because it was so demoralizing and depressing, and the other was the repeated You'll never be an admin on Commons if you keep doing this, and I always wanted to be an admin on Commons. The fact that I let this argument - being made by male Commonists - trigger me to not participate in the conversations is an entirely different psychological issue in itself! Oy vey. ---o0o--- Again, without support from the top, there is nothing you can do, or could have done as a fellow, to address this. But know this: the people who will leave in protest if the Foundation ever does step up to the plate are the ones who made your life hell there. What Kaldari said earlier – Don't mention the sexism! – is a policy of appeasement and collusion. It reminds me of the parable of the boiling frog: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog People in Wikipedia who are not sexists seem to have gotten so used to the institutionalised sexism that they have stopped noticing it, accepted it as part of the deal – something they can't change – and lost touch with the moral bearings they had before they entered the project. Every non-Wikipedian I have described the situation at List of vegetarians to, or sent a link to the discussion, has reacted with complete incomprehension (or derision). What are people like that doing in a Wikipedia article like this? The Wikimedia Foundation should adjust its policies to be less welcoming to editors with such strange views of women, so they no longer outnumber, to use Kaldari's expression, normal people. The Foundation should have done so years ago. It has had many opportunities to do so, and has so far failed to take any of them. You can always directly write the legal team and ask them for input on what they could do regarding your concerns. That's what I would do if I was you. As you very well know, grantmaking and technical aren't able to do much of anything, due to our new focus. However, community members are welcome to develop Individual Engagement Grants and chapters are able to acquire funding for programs and projects, and the gender gap is something everyone loves to talk about over and over and over again but no one seems to be willing to step up as individuals or as chapters to make large scale changes outside of outreach activities. (And I am grateful for all people do on this list, but..I'm just sayin...it seems to be the same people over and over again bringing this up, however, all people seem to do to about it is complain and talk about it, and take no action, and it's really tiring and depressing to watch and puts the burden on those of us who have limited time and are already burnt out). -Sarah On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Nepenthe topazbutter...@gmail.comwrote: The more I look into it, the more it seems like it's a pointless endeavor. From the deletion discussions I've looked at ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Save_the_Redwoods.jpg), a photo of two nude young women in a tree considered in scope. After all, it's been categorized! (Is that really all it takes? Absurd.) And it could be used to illustrate the article on Bagby Hot Springs! Of the seven images Commons proposes to have illustrate encyclopedic articles on Bagby Hot Springs, 3 are of nude women. It's female nudes all the way down. Nepenthe I would say that until the Foundation does something to set a different direction, it is indeed pointless to argue about things like this in Wikipedia or Commons. However, sexism and the gender gap
Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
Pete, I'd invite you to run a Google image search for Bagby Hot Springs, with safe search turned off. The first one hundred images include about as many images of female nudity as the nine-image Commons category. That is the difference between Commons demographics, and general demographics. Andreas On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: As possibly the only person in this discussion who's been to Bagby, I'd hasten to point out that arguably, including nudity in the article would be the most accurate way to depict it. I've seen more naked people there than clothed people. But yes, I agree with Sarah -- having images of naked people on Commons is a very different thing than having naked people used to illustrate an encyclopedia article. And this particular example is one of many, many thousands of images of nudity on Commons, some of which are far more problematic. I would urge anyone wanting to take this issue on to spend some time processing maybe 20 or 30 of the dozens of deletion requests that come through Commons on a daily basis. It's a good way to get a sense of the scope of the issues involved, and the thinking around what does and doesn't get kept. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote: Just to follow up - the English Wikipedia article about the Babgy Hot Springs does not depict any nudity in the images: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagby_Hot_Springs At this point, I'm so over fretting about porny stuff on Commons - I'm more concerned about personality rights - but, if it doesn't end up on Wikipedia - which is the most used of all of our websites, then I'm not really losing sleep over it unless personality rights are involved. (Meaning naked photo of woman/man who doesn't know their naked photo is on Commons under a free license.) -Sarah On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Nepenthe topazbutter...@gmail.comwrote: The more I look into it, the more it seems like it's a pointless endeavor. From the deletion discussions I've looked at ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Save_the_Redwoods.jpg), a photo of two nude young women in a tree considered in scope. After all, it's been categorized! (Is that really all it takes? Absurd.) And it could be used to illustrate the article on Bagby Hot Springs! Of the seven images Commons proposes to have illustrate encyclopedic articles on Bagby Hot Springs, 3 are of nude women. It's female nudes all the way down. Nepenthe -- -- *Sarah Stierch* *Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian* *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 ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: The Terms of Use prohibit harassment, which is the same word that's used to characterize the behaviors the friendly space policy prohibits. So at least in that respect the two are already somewhat analogous. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities Come on Erik, the mere fact that the Terms of Use mention the word harassment in the sentence Engaging in harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism; and Transmitting chain mail, junk mail, or spam to other users. is a very weak straw to cling to here! The Terms of Use section most closely related to our discussion is actually this one: ---o0o--- *Misusing Our Services for Other Illegal Purposes* - Posting child pornography or any other content that violates applicable law concerning child pornography; - Posting or trafficking in obscene material that is unlawful under applicable law; and - Using the services in a manner that is inconsistent with applicable law. ---o0o--- This allows editors to introduce everything to the work environment that is allowed in a porn shop. Hence the hot sex barnstar in Commons, which if challenged would no doubt be defended with gleeful jeers of NOTCENSORED. The point I have been trying to get across here in this list is that the welcoming attitude to pornography in Wikimedia projects affects *male contributors' mindsets*, making men more likely to be subtly dismissive of women, and making women feel unvalued, depressed and demoralised – with corresponding effects on women's participation. This is not brain surgery. Millions of workplaces reflect this in their workplace rules, but you don't have any equivalent. There is plenty of published research on this; here is an example, describing the effects on both women's and men's state of mind: ---o0o--- Courts that have found a hostile environment as a result of pornography and sexual banter have often cited negative psychological effects of pornography similar to those described in the social science literature. The opinions point to emotional distress, such as fear,37 humiliation,38 and low self-esteem.39 They also indicate that ambient harassment of this type makes it hard for the subjected women to focus on work.40 The court in Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc.41 found that the emotional upset created by this type of harassing behavior, combined with its negative impact on job performance, was sufficient to “alter the conditions of [the victim’s] employment.”42 Further, courts have recognized that the prevalence of pornography and sexualized language in the workplace makes it *more difficult for women to * *be viewed professionally by their male coworkers.43 In such environments, * *men are more likely to disrespect and to sexually demean women.*44 In Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co.,45 the court found that in “an environment where women were viewed primarily in terms of women qua women: sexual objects and inferior to men,” a “reasonable woman would find the terms, conditions, and privileges of her employment affected by that harassment.”46 The expert in Jenson cited the results of a study that he had conducted,47 which demonstrated that *mere exposure to sexist advertisements made men more likely to view women in the workplace in a sexualized manner and less likely to view them as professionally competent.*48 The court found that this study was probative of the question whether a female employee’s terms and conditions of employment were impacted,49 and it summarized the study’s findings as follows: The results showed that [male] subjects who had been sexually primed selected almost twice as many sexist questions [to ask a female interview candidate] as subjects who had not been primed. The results further showed that men who had been primed moved physically closer to the woman than non-primed males and evaluated the female interviewee in a sexist manner—rating her as “more friendly and less competent.”50 This research lends empirical weight to the idea that a sexualized workplace places a discriminatory burden on female employees.51 http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v102/n2/945/LR102n2BergerParker.pdf ---o0o--- With your very permissive policies and culture you are encouraging male mindsets which according to mainstream scholarship actively undermine and discourage female participation. To be clear, I can't say that I have observed very many cases of men coming onto women in Wikimedia talk pages, but dismissive attitudes and the sorts of superior, smug, hair-splitting contributions that seem to take a perverse pleasure in frustrating a woman contributor are very common. The Foundation goes on and on and on in the press about the gender gap, yet is not prepared to do what every workplace does as a matter of course to facilitate women participating on equal terms. Do you understand why I feel
Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap
Two good posts. Bear in mind though that there is also a half-way house solution, whereby contributors would identify to the Foundation, but remain at liberty to use a pseudonymous user name. Identification might then be a prerequisite for certain community roles (as indeed it is today). Andreas On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Katherine Casey fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com wrote: What you're describing sounds a lot like Citizendium, which is about as much of a failure as it's possible to get in the crowdsourcing world. Users who were told they couldn't contribute unless they turned over their real-life details mostly just opted to not sign up. The ones who did sign up found themselves mercilessly sorted by an imposed pseudo-meritocracy of real-life credentials, and what's left now is a a handful of editors who rule now-empty topic kingdoms. As far as safety, knowing what I know about the number of violent threats and libelous statements that are directed at Wikipedians quite regularly (and to which, I think it could be argued, female editors can be disproportionately subjected), I don't think there's much ground to stand on when it comes to assuring people that somehow they'll be *more *safe when the people who hate them have access to their real names, phone numbers, and addresses. I mean, I see how you could come to the conclusion that anonymity gives the trolls another weapon to use against the non-trolls, but unless you first do something about the threats, etc, you're going to have a hell of a time convincing anyone it's in their best interest to give the people threatening them their name and home address. Keeping ourselves as safe as possible is not a game we play for fun; it's literally a survival strategy when you know there are people out there trying to physically harm Wikipedians. Rather than forcing contributors to give up their personal details in exchange for being allowed to edit, why not focus on strengthening the harassment policies and the WMF's relationships with law enforcement, and maybe create relationships with some counselling services, such that anyone who makes another editor feels threatened or harassed is no longer welcome, and anyone who is threatened or harassed is completely supported? On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Sylvia Ventura sylvia.vent...@gmail.comwrote: I command Sarah, Sarah, Anne and few other women and men commenting on this list for their tireless work trying to move the needle. I wish I had seen more movement/women coming forward and stepping up – but I would not be surprised if many of us were…. uncomfortable. I know I am. or simply burned out … which seems to be the case. I had to think long and hard about writing this. Sarah, once again is trying to be constructive by creating momentum and a page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_gap/Policy_revolution to capture and focus conversations. I think it's a great initiative but I also think the problem we're dealing with is more systemic and might need a tougher conversation. How can we 'speak openly' in a forum like Policy Revolution when a few of us are playing a different game – most folks here use their real identities, take their contribution work at heart, we know who we are. But then we have the Ghosts, those hiding behind the cloak of “Privacy” (perverse effect of a well-meant policy I am sure) while trolling, harassing, messing with images/content with impunity. If we are serious about creating a broader more sustainable more representative participation to the projects the WMF folks (those with some level of mandate) need to seriously revise the community’s rules of engagement and stand behind it. A have been sitting on this note (below) for a while, I understand the need for privacy in the context of political/individual/speech freedom and to insure personal safety in some cases. This group is composed of some of the smartest people on the planet, we surely can come up with some mechanism to protect those who need protection (anonymity) while creating a healthy, open, constructive, environment. == NB: this was written shortly after Hersfold resignation, focuses on harassment but its relevant to all questionable behavior.== Accidental troll policy My ID was recently deleted on Meta-Wiki, the reason given was: wait for it… Vandalism. Little than I knew I had breached protocol – as a newbie I had created a page on Meta and had clearly broken the rules. Or was it, since then, I learned that your individual history (been banned/suspended, etc…) determines your capacity of progressing in the ranks of WP – so this might have been purely accidental or not. But back to my point, after being notified of my ban, as a good citizen and a steward of open-culture I felt it was my duty to get educated. I checked the Wikipedia’s user policy. What I found was lengthy, detailed but overall clear. Except for a portion
Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Pete, I don't know which Commons you participate in. The one I know has tons of nude pictures of women uploaded by anonymous throwaway accounts, with no indication whatsoever that the women concerned are aware of and have consented to the upload, snip Andreas, you are of course correct. I believe two factors address the distance between what you and I said: (1) The word consent is not qualified in the Board's resolution, which invites this critical question in every case: are we talking about consent to be photographed, or consent to have the photo released under a free license on a widely viewed, open access web site? This is obviously a question of critical importance. The resolution's language doesn't provide much guidance. In practice, the places where Commons participants do well are with photos where it's visually clear that the subject may not have consented to being photographed at all, in the first place (i.e., no reason to believe the subject is even aware of the camera). The resolution wording is: ---o0o--- We feel that it is important and ethical to obtain subject consent for the use of such media, in line with our special mission as an educational and free project. We feel that seeking consent from an image's subject is especially important in light of the proliferation of uploaded photographs from other sources, such as Flickr, where provenance is difficult to trace and subject consent difficult to verify. ---o0o--- I don't see anything ambiguous about that. This topless image is typical: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Miss_Lovely_F3247.JPG Categorised under Hooters. Zero evidence of model consent for the use of this image. Here is another of the same woman: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Miss_Lovely.JPG This was okayed by Commons administrator Mattbuck: ---o0o--- This image, originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on 3 March 2013 by the administrator or reviewer Mattbuck, who confirmed that it was available on Flickr under the stated license on that date. ---o0o--- Zero concern for model consent to this use of the file. As long as that is the accepted standard of behaviour in Commons, I'd be a fool to waste my time contributing there. (2) The existence of files on Commons, vs. the ones where somebody takes the trouble to write a well-formed nomination for deletion, is a huge one. My comments concern only the latter; but of course, there are many thousands of files on Commons that could or should be nominated for deletion, but haven't. It's important to acknowledge that while such cases may reflect the intent of the uploading individual, they by no stretch of the imagination reflect the considered judgment of the Commons community. Frankly, what difference does it make when it is the considered judgment of the Commons community not to give a toss about such uploads, not to give a toss about 18 USC 2257 compliance, and the Foundation sees no reason to intervene. This reminds me of the defence proffered by some with respect to the recent women's categorisation controversy following Amanda Filipacchi's op-ed about Wikipedia's sexism in the New York Times: that these categorisations were in violation of obscure guidelines. Having guidelines does not absolve an organisation from responsibility for its actions when in practice it makes no effort to enforce them. You are simply in denial. Address the reality, rather than hiding behind a policy that is not observed in practice. Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
Pete, Please suggest a revised wording that you feel would be clearer. Then we can request that the board adopt it and amend the resolution accordingly. Andreas On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: The resolution wording is: ---o0o--- We feel that it is important and ethical to obtain subject consent for the use of such media, in line with our special mission as an educational and free project. We feel that seeking consent from an image's subject is especially important in light of the proliferation of uploaded photographs from other sources, such as Flickr, where provenance is difficult to trace and subject consent difficult to verify. ---o0o--- I don't see anything ambiguous about that. I find it highly ambiguous, and while I tend to agree with you that probably the majority of nude images on Commons should be deleted due to lack of explicit and verifiable declarations of consent, I do not feel the wording quoted above would be helpful in persuading others of that. (In addition, the absence of a clearly documented process for obtaining and expressing consent doesn't help. Again, something that anybody can do, very little technical knowledge required.) Consent is a verb that is only useful in its transitive form. It is meaningless to say the subject consents. Consents *to what*? ...for the use of such media is not specific. Also, we feel is not language that lends itself to strong project-specific policies. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] ___ 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] Topless image retention -don't give up
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, I have some comments inline. ---o0o--- This image, originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on 3 March 2013 by the administrator or reviewer Mattbuck, who confirmed that it was available on Flickr under the stated license on that date. ---o0o--- Zero concern for model consent to this use of the file. As long as that is the accepted standard of behaviour in Commons, I'd be a fool to waste my time contributing there. Andreas, just curious, have you tried nominating anything like this for deletion with citing the board statement? I think we start experimenting with that (I can't do that right now, as I'm in an airport restaurant and not feeling comfortable looking at that image right now!). I'm curious how that would work. We could develop a process: 1) Nominate for deletion with that clause called into play (since our challenges for being non-education or out of scope will be challenged most likely) 2) If challenged on discovering model consent, generic email letter developed to email Flickr account owner (since that's often the plague of this) 3) If account is deleted, the image should be deleted assuming no other acceptance of model agreement is able to be discovered based on anonymity of model and deletion of Flickr account. 4) Fight the good fight on Commons. Perhaps we can develop something like that. Seriously, for years, it's often been..me, pete, Kevin, and Kaldari (and if you've been involved, forgive me for not listing you) who have nominated content for deletion. Again stop bitching, start a revolution comes into play here. I have wasted too many hours already arguing deletion cases which were then closed as Keep by Mattbuck. How about we ask Erik, who started Wikimedia Commons, to nominate them, citing the board resolution? This would make a stronger impression. What do you say, Erik? Or do you feel these images should remain on Commons? Just for reference, the images we are talking about are here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Austin_photoguy50 All are Flickr imports, uploaded pseudonymously. None have evidence of model consent for use on Wikimedia projects. The women concerned are most likely unaware that the images are on Commons. Frankly, what difference does it make when it is the considered judgment of the Commons community not to give a toss about such uploads, not to give a toss about 18 USC 2257 compliance, and the Foundation sees no reason to intervene. This is where it falls two ways IMHO: 1) It's up to US to start *trying* to implement said compliance 2) If it's not being complied too, we need to know who to contact And if that means sending a crap ton of emails to le...@wikimedia.org, so be it. Right? Because we aren't informed of any other type of action to be taken in the TOS, or whatever other policies developed by the board. Unlike copyright infringement, nothing is suggested on what *we* can do when this stuff is happening. We can try to implement, and then when it fails, directly contact the Foundation. Seriously, sitting here on this mailing list is great, we're getting conversation started (Again) about it, but...we need to do more! -Sarah -- -- *Sarah Stierch* *Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian* *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] Topless image retention -don't give up
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote: Would you like the board to adopt and amend a resolution based purely upon the opinions of editors who are members of this mailing list, or do you intend to open it up to discussion for the wider, including the Commons, community? Most definitely the former. Board resolutions are not meant to reflect community consensus, but guide it. For what it's worth, I don't believe the Commons community were consulted prior to the announcement of the existing wording either. On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Pete, Please suggest a revised wording that you feel would be clearer. Then we can request that the board adopt it and amend the resolution accordingly. Andreas ___ 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] Topless image retention -don't give up
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:22 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote: Would you like the board to adopt and amend a resolution based purely upon the opinions of editors who are members of this mailing list, or do you intend to open it up to discussion for the wider, including the Commons, community? Most definitely the former. Board resolutions are not meant to reflect community consensus, but guide it. It's not that clear-cut. Again, I think the TOU rewrite is a good example of how the community and the board can make progress together effectively. A great deal of wisdom and passion resides in the global community that has brought Wikimedia to the point it is at today, alongside more frustrating elements. But in this case, I would say something initiated on this list (by one part of the community) and improved upon by others, in other venues, would be a great way to draft a proposed resolution for the board's consideration. Well, I'll have a go then: ---o0o--- We feel that it is important and ethical to obtain subject consent for the use of such media *on Wikimedia sites*, in line with our special mission as an educational and free project. We feel that seeking consent from an image's subject is especially important in light of the proliferation of uploaded photographs from other sources, such as Flickr, where provenance is difficult to trace and subject consent difficult to verify. ---o0o--- Would you feel that is sufficient? This would make it clearer that editors are expected to obtain subject consent before uploading images taken in private situations to Wikimedia websites. Do you agree with the principle? Or do you think editors should continue to upload images taken in a private place or situation to Wikimedia sites without the knowledge and consent of the people depicted? ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 4:08 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote: I will be of course posting a link to this list on the DR given the idiocy and trolling of a Commons admin going on here. Cheers, Russavia The message you posted at the DR, ---o0o--- *Comment* This nomination is a somewhat pointish trolling nomination as noted herehttp://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2013-May/003644.html . *There is NO evidence of this being revenge porn.* The only suggestion of such is here on the gendergap mailing listhttp://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2013-May/003623.html by User:Jayen466 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jayen466 (so take anything from that source with a grain of salt). Now, let's look at these unfounded comments on this being revenge porn; it does not add up; it makes for nice emotional fallacy, but not much else. If one looks at the sets http://www.flickr.com/photos/photoguy412001/sets/ of photos taken by the photographer are obviously as part of their amateur photography. All EXIF data checks out (same camera being used), and Google and Tineye searches reveal nothing of concern. It is somewhat clear say from this sethttp://www.flickr.com/photos/photoguy412001/sets/72157629460674458/ (and other sets) that the photos are part of an amateur photoshoot. The consent issue is easily rectified by contacting the photographer and asking if they have consent to publish the photos...I am sure someone will do so. russaviahttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Russavia (talk http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Russavia) 03:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_Austin_photoguy50 ---o0o--- is based on a misunderstanding of what I said in the linked post. The point I made there about revenge porn was in response to earlier comments by Pete Forsyth and concerned images of women who are not identifiable (my point being that for revenge porn to work, it is not necessary for the woman's face to be shown). It did not pertain to these images, in which the women clearly *are* identifiable. I believe these images should be deleted if there is no evidence that the models are aware of and have consented to their upload to Wikimedia sites. There is no evidence that they have consented to their upload to Flickr either, of course. The original categories applied by the pseudonymous uploader on Wikimedia Commons (Big Titts, Titts, Naked etc.) suggest a purely exploitative mindset. A difference between Flickr and Wikimedia that comes into play here is that on Flickr, the images are visible only to users who have signed into a Flickr account whose preferences are set to viewing adult images, restricting their audience to Flickr's adult images community, whereas on Wikimedia, they are visible to all and sundry. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Oliver Keyes ironho...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: Two good posts. Bear in mind though that there is also a half-way house solution, whereby contributors would identify to the Foundation, but remain at liberty to use a pseudonymous user name. This would involve incredible overhead on the Foundation's role. It also wouldn't provide any real protection for the individuals being harassed. Let's be clear here; there are really two types of harassment we should be concerned about. The first is, simply, illegal; where such harassment occurs, and a complaint to the police results, the WMF has procedures in place to provide (for example) IP addresses and other identifying information on receipt of a valid request from a court, and these can then percolate back through ISPs and such to identify the person responsible for the statements or actions. All very simple, all very well-handled. I'd argue our failing here is not in not having a mechanism for illegal harassment, but simply a greater societal issue; internet harassment is, while a crime, something with few benefits for the police to prosecute. We can't solve for that; we could reduce the barrier a bit by cutting out the middle man and being able to provide the police with the real-world identity of contributors, sure, but again, that's going to be a ton of work. The second type of harassment is motivated by, well, John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.[1] Some people, to be cynical, behave well because people see and judge them by their behaviour. As a result, when you get anonymity or pseudonymity - more specifically, a type of pseudonymity that does not overlap with their real-world reputation, or reputation in other domains, you get people misbehaving, because their actions and the consequences of those actions cannot follow them back to a reputation they care about. It's as simple as that. Merely knowing that someone, somewhere, knows who they are is not going to get these people to act differently; there is no immediate action/reaction interaction between them misbehaving and this biting them on the backside. [1] http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19 Identification might then be a prerequisite for certain community roles (as indeed it is today). Then the change is...? The difference might be for example that editing biographies of living persons would be a right reserved to editors who have identified to the Foundation. I am pretty certain that this would have prevented cases like Johann Hari's, for example. http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/09/hari-rose-wikipedia-admitted It would also prevent people from returning with sock after sock to add negative material to the biographies of people they don't like, or indeed fluff up their own. Let's not forget that a significant number of editors and administrators have for years edited under their real names, or have their identities known. At the moment, I believe the only editors required to identify are arbitrators and chapter members. It would be conceivable to expand that requirement to various other user rights. Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up
Here is an example of a recent deletion request that was closed as Keep.
(While the image is not safe for work, the following link to the deletion
discussion is. The deletion discussion does not show the image, only a link
to it.)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Labret_phallic_coddling.jpg
The image discussed on that page shows a young woman caressing her
partner's erect penis with her lips, hands and cheek. Most of her face is
visible. The image is tagged with a personality rights warning, saying that
This work depicts one or more identifiable persons. Further photographs
showing the woman's full face are included in the same Flickr stream.
The image has undergone four deletion requests over the years. All were
closed as Keep. The most recent one was in March of this year and reads:
---o0o---
File:Labret phallic
coddling.jpghttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Labret_phallic_coddling.jpg
To quote a previous nomination: No model age, or consent given in source.
This has not been addressed *at all*, as you can see above. We need more
information than a random CC tag before we use images like these.
Contihttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Conti
|✉ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Conti 19:36, 11 March 2013
(UTC)
- Photo has been publicly available on Flickr since early 2008, and on
Commons since late 2009, with no evidence of any consent problem. Given
that and 3 previous keep votes, [image: Symbol keep vote.svg] *Keep*. --
Infrogmation http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Infrogmation
(talkhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Infrogmation)
02:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, looking at other photos in the uploader's Flickr photo stream, person
shown appears to be the the woman who appears in multiple photos, some of
which describe her as the photographer's wife. --
Infrogmationhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Infrogmation
(talk http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Infrogmation) 02:57,
12 March 2013 (UTC) Shouldn't we default to requiring consent, instead of
defaulting to assuming that consent was given? Especially when it comes to
identifiable people in sexually explicit images?
--Contihttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Conti
|✉ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Conti 12:10, 12 March 2013
(UTC)
[image: Symbol keep vote.svg] *Keep*: For the first concern (model age),
please see {{2257 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:2257}}. For
the other (consent of the depicted), the flickr account identifies the
depicted person as the photographer's wife and contains pictures over a
number of years (flickr
sethttp://www.flickr.com/photos/overdrive_cz/sets/72157603896218916/),
some taken by herself. Consent is only implied here, and it is assumed, but
justifiably in my opinion
--moogsihttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Moogsi
(blah http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moogsi) 18:31, 25
March 2013 (UTC)
[image: Symbol keep vote.svg] *Keep* I absolutely agree with Moogsi. This
deletion request should be closed. --Ladislav
Faiglhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Faigl.ladislav
(talk http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Faigl.ladislav) 01:49,
1 April 2013 (UTC)
--
Per above, subject identified as uploader's wife, available across many
photos. -*mattbuck http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mattbuck*
(Talkhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mattbuck
) 02:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
---o0o---
The following passage from Erik Möller's recent post here on this list is
particularly relevant in this regard:
---o0o---
Even if they are uploaded in good faith (I put them on Flickr with
permission and now I'm uploading them to Commons), it's still desirable to
ask for evidence of consent specifically for uploading to Commons, because
publishing a photo of a person in the nude in Flickr's NSFW ghetto is quite
different from having that same photograph on Commons and potentially used
on Wikipedia.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2013-May/003650.html
---o0o---
In addition, note that in this case, it was not actually the Flickr account
holder himself who put the image on Commons. The image was uploaded to
Commons by User:Max Rebo Band, a Commons user who specialised in uploading
sexual media from Flickr. I believe a similar role has more recently been
played by a different account, Handcuffed, after Max Rebo Band ceased
editing in early 2011.
No indication is given that the Flickr account holder or the woman depicted
are aware of and have consented to the Commons upload. Instead, it appears
it is assumed in Commons that if a man uploads sexual images of his current
or former wife (or a woman who is neither, but whom he describes as such)
to Flickr's adult section, this means that the woman in question is aware
of and has consented to the Flickr upload, and is happy for her likeness to
be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, to be used in Wikipedia
