Re: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology

I apologize Sarah. I thought that descriptions of the images would allow those who cannot view them to evaluate the contents if they wish. It will not happen again. Nepenthe On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to ask that people don't us

Re: [Gendergap] Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology

Bling-bling - table.jpg(An image of a young, thin, nude woman on hands and knees and long black hair obscuring here in side view. A vase is placed on the small of her back and rhinestones on her flank read "") is in use on the fr.wiki

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

File:Ronda F7998.JPGis clearly in scope. Could be used to illustrate "Urn", "Vase", "Pottery", "Crosslegged" etc. On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Russavia wrote: > I will be of course posting a link to this list on the DR given the > idio

Re: [Gendergap] Accidental Troll Policy - beyond gender gap

Presumably Sarah means Cindamuse . On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 9:12 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case < danc...@frontiernet.net> wrote: > >I know women (Cristamuse, Slim Virgin, just to name two) who deal with > plenty of crap and *ARE NOT* admins. > > Act

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

- 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

Re: [Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up

ll, 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 d

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

fect viewpoint as well? Are you going to suggest that there's some sort of class gap on Wikipedia too? Utter tosh. I hope you don't intend on editing any Wikipedia articles based on these ridiculous assertions. Nepenthe On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 4:12 AM, Joseph Reagle wrote: > On 04/3

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

predicting even heavier whinging about how adminship is terrible idea because they might block *him*, as if there's any chance of that. Nepenthe On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Sarah Stierch wrote: > RANT START > > If these people were behaving the way they do on other websites (i.

Re: [Gendergap] Does Wikipedia Hate Drag Queens?

esn't look great. Nepenthe On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote: > http://lindasimpson.org/2011/10/does-wikipedia-hate-drag-queens/ > > Funny little blog about the photos being used for...welldrag queens! > > -Sarah > > -- > GLAMWIKI Par

Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedystka

I'm curious; which feminists are these? I've never encountered that line of reasoning. On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Risker wrote: > > It seems we may be coming full circle, in that an increasing number of > feminist women are seeking to return to the sex-differentiated terms. > > > Risker/An

Re: [Gendergap] Why don't people edit wikipedia? Small survey results provide some insights.

nd for not editing". The survey results do, however, play into our theory of the situation; I think we have to be aware of confirmation bias. Nepenthe On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Laura Hale wrote: > Cross posted this to my blog at > http://ozziesport.com/2011/07/why-dont-people

Re: [Gendergap] [Commons-l] Fwd: Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

Fred, as I've already noted, the offending comment was apparently *not*eliminated from the final tally of the votes made by George Chernilevsky, though omitting it would not have changed the outcome of the vote. Nepenthe On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:23 AM, Fred Bauder wrote: > > --- O

Re: [Gendergap] [Commons-l] Fwd: Photo of the Day on Wikimedia Commons

I was all ready to point out that administrators (at least on en.wiki, theoretically) discount comments like that, but that was *not* done in this case per the closing summary. Nepenthe On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Sarah wrote: > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:36, Sarah Stierch wr

Re: [Gendergap] Proposal: Forking gendergap: Main list for women and transgender, sublist for male supporters

Unless Erik has alter egos posting here, I didn't have any problems with * his* comments. I find the idea that men and women are automatically equal participants on a list like this a bit naive, but it's not offensive. On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 4:04 PM, George Herbert wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011

Re: [Gendergap] FW: Proposal: Forking gendergap: Main list for women and transgender, sublist for male supporters

negotiate a world made for men does not mean that the many women like me are not real or important. There is a problem, not a "problem". Nepenthe On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Marc Riddell wrote: > > -- > *From: *Marc Riddell > *Date: *Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:49:

Re: [Gendergap] Meta: Don't be a dick

en I talk to my schmuck-ish lizard brain, I don't say "please Nepenthe, comment on content" and when trying to communicate with someone else's lizard brain (in the case of mentees/adoptees, I'm much more politic with editors I don't know) I don't say that either. I can

Re: [Gendergap] Meta: Don't be a dick

Are we seriously suggesting that women, as a class, are not editing Wikipedia because sometimes editors use naughty words? On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Brandon Harris wrote: > >"Jerk" would serve the exact sentiment. > > > On 3/13/11 10:21 AM, Fred Bauder wrote: > > > Feel free to su

Re: [Gendergap] Barnstars!

This is truly awesome, as long as there is never an option to give spiders. Nepenthe On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Sue Gardner wrote: > Hey folks, > > Did Ryan Kaldari post this to this group: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kaldari/wikilove ? Forgive me if he > or someo

Re: [Gendergap] A stereotype we should be careful about ...

edia, so there must not be a gender gap issue" or "some of the most prolific Wikipedians are women, so there's no problem with women in general not editing.") Nepenthe On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Sandra ordonez wrote: > *"Do you think it is an issue that people s

Re: [Gendergap] the terms "chicks" and "fellows"; systemic bias noticeboard

. I'm not sure where the Foundation refers to "chicks", so I can't comment on that. Nepenthe On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > > Is it appropriate for the Foundation to refer to women as "chicks" and > > use the title "fellow&q

Re: [Gendergap] Women's issues noticeboard

on it, makes me want to go back to categorising for the rest of eternity. At least the open expressions of sexism I've encountered on Wikipedia are rare. I deal with that kind of bull enough in "real" life; I don't want to seek it out in my pastime. Nepenthe On Tue, Feb 22,