: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month
gender gap project-related decision
Message-ID:
caa4ptmb9dg7ky_5y-nmstt6opkmsrrhjz+wztmw3xu5xjnw...@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hi Matt,
as thorough as your characterization of the issue at hand
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 09:03:40 -0500
From: nawr...@gmail.com
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender
gap project-related decision
You certainly put a lot of time and effort into being wrong. Any first
year
On 8 January 2015 at 16:46, mcc99 mc...@hotmail.com wrote:
If WMF still wants to pursue this kind of goal (which as you can tell I think
rests on false assumptions as well as ethically
bup-pow.
- d.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
January 2015 06:17 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender
gap project-related decision
On 8 Jan 2015 16:11, FRED BAUDER fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
...
I've noticed that women are often quite motivated and good
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month
gender
gap project-related decision
On 8 Jan 2015 16:11, FRED BAUDER fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
...
I've noticed that women are often quite motivated and good at
writing
grant
Hoi,
Given that a frequent complaint is the male chauvinist piggery that is
alive and well and meets not much sanction, this behaviour it being given
as one of the main reasons why so many people leave. I do suggest that the
hand above the head holding attitude of culprits is why we do so poorly.
On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 14:53:47 +0530
Srikanth Ramakrishnan srik.r...@wikimedia.in wrote:
On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.
Need I say anything else?
I think you've hit the nail on the head. It should not be easier to
dominate a player-killing MUD than to edit an article on Wikipedia.
Thank you for this thoughtful response. In the United States, at
least, girls routinely test higher than boys on verbal skills and have
recently surpassed young men in attaining higher education in nearly
all fields. There is a lot of dead time in the lives of many women.
They are all over
On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 11:25:23 +0100
Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote:
I partially disagree with this vision.
Without the North American and European men there would not be any
opportunity to say: we would share the sum of the human knowledge.
Probably Wikimedia would not exist.
True,
On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 11:29:57 +0100
Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote:
As this thread demonstrates, what discussions about the massive
gender imbalance in Wikimedia editorship need is more men discussing
why it
might or might not be important.
/sarcasm
Radical feminist notions that men
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 12:09 PM, FRED BAUDER fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 11:29:57 +0100
Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote:
As this thread demonstrates, what discussions about the massive
gender imbalance in Wikimedia editorship need is more men discussing why
it
I have one simple question: if the Grants program was to focus on some
other key area rather than the gender gap, would we be having this
discussion about how horrible it is to waste time this way? Would we see
throwing up of hands in this way if the focus was, say, requests from the
Global
Yes. Finally, a voice of reason.
On 8 January 2015 at 08:07, mcc99 mc...@hotmail.com wrote:
Dear fellow Wikipedia devotees,
While I'm new to this list, I've been an avid fan and proponent of
Wikipedia and all the great service it gives people since it launched.
People can learn not just all
That said, it doesn't matter who writes the content on Wikipedia so
long as it's relevant and factual.
That's the point; it would not matter if women contributed so long as
it's relevant and factual. Half the humans that could contribute are
not. Actually many more than half, as there are
Dear fellow Wikipedia devotees,
While I'm new to this list, I've been an avid fan and proponent of Wikipedia
and all the great service it gives people since it launched. People can learn
not just all the basics of nearly any topic imaginable, but for a large number,
readers can with diligence
On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.
Need I say anything else?
On 08-Jan-2015 2:45 pm, FRED BAUDER fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
That said, it doesn't matter who writes the content on Wikipedia so long
as it's relevant and factual.
That's the point; it would not matter if women
I think that the realistic point of view should be another.
There is a potential number of people who can be contributors (contributors
and not readers) but this potential number must be *realistic*.
Anyway these persons should have something to contribute to wikimedia
projects an basically:
a)
Hi Matt,
as thorough as your characterization of the issue at hand is, as
misguided it is as well. The main point of the gender debate isn't the
physical differences between men and women and some purported
difference in authorship flowing from that. That would rightfully be
considered absurd and
As this thread demonstrates, what discussions about the massive
gender imbalance in Wikimedia editorship need is more men discussing why it
might or might not be important.
/sarcasm
--
wittylama.com
Peace, love metadata
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list,
I partially disagree with this vision.
Without the North American and European men there would not be any
opportunity to say: we would share the sum of the human knowledge.
Probably Wikimedia would not exist.
It is correct to say that Wikimedia must offer to *all people* any
opportunity without
Is there any barrier for women to participate?
The discussion is open.
It would be worth if someone attacks a woman for her opinion.
There is more a big barrier in the participation to this thread connected
with a strong level of English to be required to read and to answer to this
thread.
I
I agree.
Women vs Men has never really stood out as a point of debate before and
ideally shouldn't.
On 08-Jan-2015 4:11 pm, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any barrier for women to participate?
The discussion is open.
It would be worth if someone attacks a woman for her
Hi there,
That said, it doesn't matter who writes the content on Wikipedia so long
as it's relevant and factual.
Who is to decide what is relevant and factual (or indeed, the other
editorial judgements we make in writing aricles)? If the only people doing
that are white North American and
On 8 January 2015 at 07:07, mcc99 mc...@hotmail.com wrote:
If you ask any RN the names of the greatest contributors to the nursing
profession, you'll get a stream of women's names. To suggest that nursing
needs more men or else it won't be able to achieve its greatest potential
would be a
You certainly put a lot of time and effort into being wrong. Any first year
undergraduate writing course will tell you that to make an argument you
need to address the counter-arguments, which you have failed even to
mention. Diversity of contributors isn't a social justice goal, or even a
@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap
project-related decision
You certainly put a lot of time and effort into being wrong. Any first year
undergraduate writing course will tell you that to make an argument you
need to address the counter
Mailing List; Liam Wyatt
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap
project-related decision
On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 11:29:57 +0100
Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote:
As this thread demonstrates, what discussions about the massive
gender imbalance in Wikimedia
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Leigh Thelmadatter osama...@hotmail.com
wrote:
I dont think the issue is the idea of encouraging projects that increase
the participation of women, but rather the message that everything else is
getting shoved aside.
I don't see how you can come to this
: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap
project-related decision
I have one simple question: if the Grants program was to focus on some other
key area rather than the gender gap, would we be having this discussion about
how horrible it is to waste time this way? Would we see
...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Fæ
Sent: 08 January 2015 06:17 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender
gap project-related decision
On 8 Jan 2015 16:11, FRED BAUDER fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
...
I've noticed that women
Sent: 08 January 2015 06:17 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender
gap project-related decision
On 8 Jan 2015 16:11, FRED BAUDER fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
...
I've noticed that women are often quite motivated
2015 06:17 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month
gender gap project-related decision
On 8 Jan 2015 16:11, FRED BAUDER fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
...
I've noticed that women are often quite motivated and good at
writing
grant proposals
causing more harm than good.
Leigh
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 09:03:40 -0500
From: nawr...@gmail.com
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender
gap project-related decision
You certainly put a lot of time and effort
: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Fæ
Sent: 08 January 2015 06:17 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender
gap project-related decision
On 8 Jan 2015 16:11, FRED BAUDER
...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:
wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Fæ
Sent: 08 January 2015 06:17 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender
gap project-related decision
On 8 Jan 2015 16:11, FRED BAUDER fredb
reconsider the 3-month
gender gap project-related decision
I have one simple question: if the Grants program was to focus on
some other key area rather than the gender gap, would we be having
this discussion about how horrible it is to waste time this way?
Would we see throwing up of hands
On 8 Jan 2015 16:11, FRED BAUDER fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
...
I've noticed that women are often quite motivated and good at writing
grant proposals.
Extending good faith I would presume this is irony. It does not transmit
well by email. Please keep in mind how offensive this sort of thing
Message-
From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Fæ
Sent: 08 January 2015 06:17 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap
project-related decision
On 8 Jan 2015
I'm just going to preface this by pointing out that I didn't actually
read all of the OP due to a philosophical opposition to giant walls of
text, but I think you've kind of missed the point in a few places.
Also please don't call people names. That's not nice.
On 08/01/15 10:52, geni wrote:
[mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Keilana
Sent: 08 January 2015 06:36 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap
project-related decision
Hearing people whine “what about the men” because, God forbid, men might not
get
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Frankly, there's not a single thing I've read, or a single objection I've
seen raised, that wasn't about how unnecessary it is to focus on women. I
don't think we've ever heard that about the global south, or non-European
On 08/01/15 20:04, Austin Hair wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Frankly, there's not a single thing I've read, or a single objection I've
seen raised, that wasn't about how unnecessary it is to focus on women. I
don't think we've ever heard that about
42 matches
Mail list logo
