Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
Sebastian, While I bristle at the words misguided, dubious, and especially the implication (and indeed it's only that) that I'm in support of discrimination based on X (sex, etc.), which I hope by now others can see isn't so, at least I've gotten an actual counter-argument from someone that pulls together premises and leads to conclusions that at least follow from the premises. Well of course I think my case is stronger ;), but I at least can acknowledge when someone else actually made a counter-argument. Matt Original message From: wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org Date:01/08/2015 6:28 AM (GMT-05:00) To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Subject: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 130, Issue 25 Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 11:19:46 +0100 From: Sebastian Moleski sebastian.mole...@wikimedia.de To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: 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 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 thus isn't really seriously promoted by anyone. The gender gap debate is rather an acknowledgment that only a surprisingly small subset of half the population contribute to Wikipedia - and the systemic bias that stems from that. In fact, it seems rather obvious that an encyclopedia that aspires to represent all of human knowledge must necessarily be written by a representative subset of humanity - or at least a representative subset of the scientific community. We, so far, spectactularly fail at that with respect to gender but also geography, language, and professional backgrounds and expertise. As a result, it's more than sensible to try to address that with the gender gap as the most prominent failure. I also find your argument that focusing on increasing female participation is devaluing the contribution of the prevalent majority highly dubious. It's unfortunately a rather unoriginal argument as it has been used many many times before in the political arean to combat initiatives aimed at increasing diversity and decreasing discrimination. The incessant fault of the argument is the premise that the value of a particular contribution is dependent on the value of all other contributions rather than viewing it in its own right. To give an example: when someone writes an outstanding article on the Great Wall of China and someone else writes an outstanding article on Jacques Chirac, the value of each of these contributions is completely separate from one another as well as from the fact whether one of the authors was recruited through a drive to increase female participation. They've both made excellent additions to Wikipedia and should be lauded for that. Making moves to increase female participation does not in any way devalue male participation. While I have no knowledge whether this focused approach to grant-making will indeed lead to increased female participation, I find it sensible to at least try it out. We'll see in the end whether it was succesful. Best regards, Sebastian Moleski Schatzmeister / Treasurer - Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 10963 Berlin ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Jens Best jens.b...@wikimedia.de wrote: Sorry to interrupted, just a short question. I'm looking for statistics of how many project ideas/requests were submitted in the past. How many volunteers and WMF-employees were and are involved in evaluating all these submissions and so on. Can anybody provide me with a link or any other kind of reliable informations on that? best regards Jens Best Hi Jens, Some quick stats: *PEG handles about 20 proposals per month *IEG handles about 30 submissions per round (of those requested, we ultimately funded 7 projects in the latest round) *2 program officers, 1 grants administrator, and several other staffers are advising or otherwise touching some portion of these grants to a much smaller degree. 16 members on each committee (give or take a couple members) are involved in reviewing proposals. 2015-01-08 15:13 GMT+01:00 Leigh Thelmadatter osama...@hotmail.com: 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 dont see this as sexism and playing that card is counter-productive. What I suggest is that instead of saying that for three months everyone else is sidelined, focus on inclusion. If there arent enough or good enough projects for addressing the number of women participating in Wikipedia, perhaps we should look into why. Perhaps also look into the Foundation directly reaching out to women's groups for collaborative purposes. But the OP does have a point. By telling certain groups we are not interested in you right now you are playing an us-against-them game and quite probably 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 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 cultural engineering goal. It is aimed squarely at increasing the diversity and caliber of content. Not only does the small proportion of women mean that millions of them with huge amounts of expertise to contribute are unheard, it also means that their perspective and approach are underrepresented or missing entirely. And yes, the same is true for others - not only African-Americans, but Africans. Not only people of Indo-Asian descent, but the people of the Indian subcontinent itself. This is not an American movement, yet the global south is deeply under-represented, and the WMF has been working for years to address this issue. This is, again, because diversity of contributors matters for the breadth and depth of coverage in our projects. The goal of the Wikimedia movement is the sum of all human knowledge, not the sum of knowledge held by white men between 15 and 35 living in Europe and North America. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Siko Bouterse Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. sboute...@wikimedia.org *Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. * *Donate https://donate.wikimedia.org or click the edit button today, and help us make it a reality!* ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
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: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Srikanth Ramakrishnan srik.r...@wikimedia.in wrote: Where is anyone whining about this? Nobody here is. The point being made is about why other grants are not being accepted. So, to summarise: Please, let's stop complaining on the basis that this excludes men Where is anyone doing that? We're complaining on the basis that this excludes men. On 08-Jan-2015 10:06 pm, Keilana keilanaw...@gmail.com wrote: Hearing people whine “what about the men” because, God forbid, men might not get *every single* grant this time (as they did in the pilot round of IEGs), is incredibly tiresome. On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote: If you take it entirely at face value, I find it quite inoffensive. As I have no experience with reviewing grant proposals, I can't comment on its accuracy, but I am quite happy to take Fred's word for it. Offence is often available if you search for it hard enough. Cheers, Peter -Original 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 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 appears. Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4257/8890 - Release Date: 01/08/15 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
Hoi, The only point for this experiment is that there is not enough bandwidth to cope with all the requests for funding as it is. The idea is that by concentrating on one area it is possible to do more. The argument against is that it is highly demotivating for everyone that finds its request for funding on hold. In addition, there is no continuity for a subject once its period of attention is over and another subjects gets the treatment. Thanks, GerardM On 8 January 2015 at 18:03, Oliver Keyes ironho...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Srikanth Ramakrishnan srik.r...@wikimedia.in wrote: Where is anyone whining about this? Nobody here is. The point being made is about why other grants are not being accepted. So, to summarise: Please, let's stop complaining on the basis that this excludes men Where is anyone doing that? We're complaining on the basis that this excludes men. On 08-Jan-2015 10:06 pm, Keilana keilanaw...@gmail.com wrote: Hearing people whine “what about the men” because, God forbid, men might not get *every single* grant this time (as they did in the pilot round of IEGs), is incredibly tiresome. On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote: If you take it entirely at face value, I find it quite inoffensive. As I have no experience with reviewing grant proposals, I can't comment on its accuracy, but I am quite happy to take Fred's word for it. Offence is often available if you search for it hard enough. Cheers, Peter -Original 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 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 appears. Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4257/8890 - Release Date: 01/08/15 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
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. As this is not acknowledged enough, it is not on the radar of people who are not as flawed as some. Thanks, GerardM On 8 January 2015 at 11:25, 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. It is correct to say that Wikimedia must offer to *all people* any opportunity without any difference of culture or gender or religion and probably to promote some disadvantaged potential contributors, but without forgetting that what Wikimedia is now is due to these neglected white men. I agree with your sentence: In my view our consensus-based decision-making model can only work well when there is enough diversity of contributions but we must be clear that the diversity of contribution and of opinions is not automatically connected with the race or with the gender. The neutral point of view has been assured until now, I would not read in your sentence that this is wrong. There may be men or women gathered in a key decision committee but having the same not neutral point of view because the gender doesn't assure automatically the neutrality of point of view. The risk I see in the association of diversity with the gender or with the race is that we can say that having people from different countries or different races or different sex it can assure the neutral point of view. But that is wrong. Regards On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: 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 European men with (or working towards) masters' degrees*, then their judgements will inevitably reflect their own backgrounds and perspectives - and other backgrounds and perspectives will be missing from those judgements. That does not and will not result in us fulfilling our mission to build and share the sum of human knowledge. In my view our consensus-based decision-making model can only work well when there is enough diversity of contributions in the first place. It is easy for a small group of similar people to reach a consensus. However, they are likely to miss important things in doing so. Regards, Chris * This isn't (quite) a description of the status quo but is pretty close ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469 Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
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. In other words, one should not need to adopt the persona of a snarling dog to successfully edit. Fred ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
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 Facebook. Routine child care and housework give ample opportunity to research and edit as do many jobs. Objective factors which might limit editing are minimal. Fred On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 10:47:22 +0100 Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: 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) ability to write (so a sufficient capacity to be active users and not passive, it means a valid education and knowledge) b) connection to the network (in order to have a continuous contribution to the projects) c) time to spent (volunteers must have time... a woman with children probably will dedicate her free time to the family) So there is a digital divide and a gender gap and so on but probably the barriers cannot be solved within Wikimedia. For this reason I don't think that half the humans could contribute. There are barriers (education, digital divide, freetime, etc.) that can only be partially solved by Wikimedia. Please don't do the same simpler association number of speakers = potential number of contributors because that strategy will be *surely* wrong. Regards On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 9:56 AM, 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 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 barriers other than gender. Fred ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469 Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
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, but our goal was to make knowledge and the opportunity to contribute to making knowledge available to everyone. Fred ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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 editorship need is more men discussing why it might or might not be important. /sarcasm Radical feminist notions that men should reduce editing or participation are counter-productive. The solution is OR not NOT; anyone should be able to edit without struggle. Fred ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
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 might or might not be important. /sarcasm Radical feminist notions that men should reduce editing or participation are counter-productive. The solution is OR not NOT; anyone should be able to edit without struggle. I'm not quite sure what you're aiming at here, but Liam's point was that it was somewhere between unhelpful and downright harmful to have discussions about the Wikimedia gender gap conducted entirely between men. (It's a bit like having a discussion about Wikipedia conducted entirely by people who've never used the internet.) I would describe this as common sense rather than radical feminism. Chris ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [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 throwing up of hands in this way if the focus was, say, requests from the Global South? A focus on getting great bots built and working across wikis? A focus on events and processes for media collection? (Incidentally the latter more or less happens anyway with several groups applying for funding for WLM within a narrow period...) 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 languages, or a lot of other areas where there are acknowledged biases. Risker/Anne On 8 January 2015 at 02:07, 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 the basics of nearly any topic imaginable, but for a large number, readers can with diligence become expert on more than a few and save themselves the cost of tuition/training. All this, in addition to satisfying their curiosity about millions of subjects. That said, it doesn't matter who writes the content on Wikipedia so long as it's relevant and factual. Unlike the published, single-authority edited encyclopediae of the past, Wikipedia allows anyone with relevant information to contribute to it. Their additions or other edits are checked by volunteers to make sure the edit isn't a defacement, irrelevant, patently unfactual, or unverifiable. They are typically left as written or maybe edited only for grammar/spelling. Wikipedia is a rare success story in democracy of knowledge. If one feels moved to contribute, they do. If not, they don't. It's like voting in a sense, though it's true people in democracies should perhaps take the opportunity to do so more often. But it's up to them. Like voting or anything else, to single out a particular group of people based on their indelible characteristics as being desirable as contributors to any field implicitly devalues the contributions not just of those currently contributing who don't fall into that category, but also says to any other group of a particular identity that you care more about the group you're trying to get more involvement from than them. Identity politics is unfortunately a fact of our current political climate and I hope one day we can, as MLK Jr. hoped, judge one another not by skin color (and I'd add gender, sexuality, and a few others), but by content of character. In the context of Wikipedia, this would translate to the veracity and applicability of contributions made to the vast Wikipedia knowledge-base -- not who in particular is doing the contributing, nor their indelible characteristics of person. Because identity politics is today part of general electoral politics doesn't mean it need be for anything else, and especially given how such things as a person's ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc., say nothing about what they know about or can do, I don't see how it's relevant to the veracity and applicability of Wikipedia's knowledge base. I don't care that, for example, a black person (Charles Drew, MD) came up with the process of creating blood plasma, an innovation that has saved millions of lives. He was tragically and mortally injured in a car accident, however, and so his potential future achievements were lost to humanity. (He was not refused treatment for his injuries at the hospital he was taken to because of his ethnicity, as is widely but falsely believed; he was just so badly injured that he died. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_R._Drew#Death ). I also don't care that Adm Grace Hopper (USN) wad female, only that she wrote the first computer language compiler so programmers of lesser brain power than her (such as myself) could go on to program computers without struggling with binary switches and punch cards. Her contributions were what was important, not her gender, skin color, or anything else as far as her professional achievements go. 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 crass and inaccurate insult to the many thousands of women who have made modern nursing what it is. Of course there have been and will be male nurses who stand out as contributors, but only a very small percentage, probably in keeping with the ratio of men to women in nursing. And yet, despite the high salaries RNs command, are there any gov't-sponsored initiatives to get men
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
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 the basics of nearly any topic imaginable, but for a large number, readers can with diligence become expert on more than a few and save themselves the cost of tuition/training. All this, in addition to satisfying their curiosity about millions of subjects. That said, it doesn't matter who writes the content on Wikipedia so long as it's relevant and factual. Unlike the published, single-authority edited encyclopediae of the past, Wikipedia allows anyone with relevant information to contribute to it. Their additions or other edits are checked by volunteers to make sure the edit isn't a defacement, irrelevant, patently unfactual, or unverifiable. They are typically left as written or maybe edited only for grammar/spelling. Wikipedia is a rare success story in democracy of knowledge. If one feels moved to contribute, they do. If not, they don't. It's like voting in a sense, though it's true people in democracies should perhaps take the opportunity to do so more often. But it's up to them. Like voting or anything else, to single out a particular group of people based on their indelible characteristics as being desirable as contributors to any field implicitly devalues the contributions not just of those currently contributing who don't fall into that category, but also says to any other group of a particular identity that you care more about the group you're trying to get more involvement from than them. Identity politics is unfortunately a fact of our current political climate and I hope one day we can, as MLK Jr. hoped, judge one another not by skin color (and I'd add gender, sexuality, and a few others), but by content of character. In the context of Wikipedia, this would translate to the veracity and applicability of contributions made to the vast Wikipedia knowledge-base -- not who in particular is doing the contributing, nor their indelible characteristics of person. Because identity politics is today part of general electoral politics doesn't mean it need be for anything else, and especially given how such things as a person's ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc., say nothing about what they know about or can do, I don't see how it's relevant to the veracity and applicability of Wikipedia's knowledge base. I don't care that, for example, a black person (Charles Drew, MD) came up with the process of creating blood plasma, an innovation that has saved millions of lives. He was tragically and mortally injured in a car accident, however, and so his potential future achievements were lost to humanity. (He was not refused treatment for his injuries at the hospital he was taken to because of his ethnicity, as is widely but falsely believed; he was just so badly injured that he died. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_R._Drew#Death ). I also don't care that Adm Grace Hopper (USN) wad female, only that she wrote the first computer language compiler so programmers of lesser brain power than her (such as myself) could go on to program computers without struggling with binary switches and punch cards. Her contributions were what was important, not her gender, skin color, or anything else as far as her professional achievements go. 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 crass and inaccurate insult to the many thousands of women who have made modern nursing what it is. Of course there have been and will be male nurses who stand out as contributors, but only a very small percentage, probably in keeping with the ratio of men to women in nursing. And yet, despite the high salaries RNs command, are there any gov't-sponsored initiatives to get men into nursing? If so, it'd be news to me and many others. But I ask, if men by and large, for whatever reasons, aren't interested in becoming nurses, why make a big deal about it? Are there gov't-sponsored campaigns to get more women into the relatively lucrative job of refuse collection? Or, the likewise lucrative jobs of plumber, ordnance disposal engineer, nuclear materials technician, etc.? No. But other fields that are a lot less dirty and/or dangerous, yes. (Think professional STEM fields.) This isn't by accident, nor is the fact that the nursing profession with its high salaries (for RNs, anyway) is in no hurry to recruit men simply because they're men. But why should they? That one receives care from a female vs. male nurse isn't relevant. To trumpet a need for men in nursing minimizes the
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
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 barriers other than gender. Fred ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
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 become expert on more than a few and save themselves the cost of tuition/training. All this, in addition to satisfying their curiosity about millions of subjects. That said, it doesn't matter who writes the content on Wikipedia so long as it's relevant and factual. Unlike the published, single-authority edited encyclopediae of the past, Wikipedia allows anyone with relevant information to contribute to it. Their additions or other edits are checked by volunteers to make sure the edit isn't a defacement, irrelevant, patently unfactual, or unverifiable. They are typically left as written or maybe edited only for grammar/spelling. Wikipedia is a rare success story in democracy of knowledge. If one feels moved to contribute, they do. If not, they don't. It's like voting in a sense, though it's true people in democracies should perhaps take the opportunity to do so more often. But it's up to them. Like voting or anything else, to single out a particular group of people based on their indelible characteristics as being desirable as contributors to any field implicitly devalues the contributions not just of those currently contributing who don't fall into that category, but also says to any other group of a particular identity that you care more about the group you're trying to get more involvement from than them. Identity politics is unfortunately a fact of our current political climate and I hope one day we can, as MLK Jr. hoped, judge one another not by skin color (and I'd add gender, sexuality, and a few others), but by content of character. In the context of Wikipedia, this would translate to the veracity and applicability of contributions made to the vast Wikipedia knowledge-base -- not who in particular is doing the contributing, nor their indelible characteristics of person. Because identity politics is today part of general electoral politics doesn't mean it need be for anything else, and especially given how such things as a person's ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc., say nothing about what they know about or can do, I don't see how it's relevant to the veracity and applicability of Wikipedia's knowledge base. I don't care that, for example, a black person (Charles Drew, MD) came up with the process of creating blood plasma, an innovation that has saved millions of lives. He was tragically and mortally injured in a car accident, however, and so his potential future achievements were lost to humanity. (He was not refused treatment for his injuries at the hospital he was taken to because of his ethnicity, as is widely but falsely believed; he was just so badly injured that he died. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_R._Drew#Death ). I also don't care that Adm Grace Hopper (USN) wad female, only that she wrote the first computer language compiler so programmers of lesser brain power than her (such as myself) could go on to program computers without struggling with binary switches and punch cards. Her contributions were what was important, not her gender, skin color, or anything else as far as her professional achievements go. 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 crass and inaccurate insult to the many thousands of women who have made modern nursing what it is. Of course there have been and will be male nurses who stand out as contributors, but only a very small percentage, probably in keeping with the ratio of men to women in nursing. And yet, despite the high salaries RNs command, are there any gov't-sponsored initiatives to get men into nursing? If so, it'd be news to me and many others. But I ask, if men by and large, for whatever reasons, aren't interested in becoming nurses, why make a big deal about it? Are there gov't-sponsored campaigns to get more women into the relatively lucrative job of refuse collection? Or, the likewise lucrative jobs of plumber, ordnance disposal engineer, nuclear materials technician, etc.? No. But other fields that are a lot less dirty and/or dangerous, yes. (Think professional STEM fields.) This isn't by accident, nor is the fact that the nursing profession with its high salaries (for RNs, anyway) is in no hurry to recruit men simply because they're men. But why should they? That one receives care from a female vs. male nurse isn't relevant. To trumpet a need for men in nursing minimizes the huge contributions of women nurses and is a patently false proposition. Nursing needs competent,
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
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 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 barriers other than gender. Fred ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
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) ability to write (so a sufficient capacity to be active users and not passive, it means a valid education and knowledge) b) connection to the network (in order to have a continuous contribution to the projects) c) time to spent (volunteers must have time... a woman with children probably will dedicate her free time to the family) So there is a digital divide and a gender gap and so on but probably the barriers cannot be solved within Wikimedia. For this reason I don't think that half the humans could contribute. There are barriers (education, digital divide, freetime, etc.) that can only be partially solved by Wikimedia. Please don't do the same simpler association number of speakers = potential number of contributors because that strategy will be *surely* wrong. Regards On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 9:56 AM, 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 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 barriers other than gender. Fred ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469 Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
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 thus isn't really seriously promoted by anyone. The gender gap debate is rather an acknowledgment that only a surprisingly small subset of half the population contribute to Wikipedia - and the systemic bias that stems from that. In fact, it seems rather obvious that an encyclopedia that aspires to represent all of human knowledge must necessarily be written by a representative subset of humanity - or at least a representative subset of the scientific community. We, so far, spectactularly fail at that with respect to gender but also geography, language, and professional backgrounds and expertise. As a result, it's more than sensible to try to address that with the gender gap as the most prominent failure. I also find your argument that focusing on increasing female participation is devaluing the contribution of the prevalent majority highly dubious. It's unfortunately a rather unoriginal argument as it has been used many many times before in the political arean to combat initiatives aimed at increasing diversity and decreasing discrimination. The incessant fault of the argument is the premise that the value of a particular contribution is dependent on the value of all other contributions rather than viewing it in its own right. To give an example: when someone writes an outstanding article on the Great Wall of China and someone else writes an outstanding article on Jacques Chirac, the value of each of these contributions is completely separate from one another as well as from the fact whether one of the authors was recruited through a drive to increase female participation. They've both made excellent additions to Wikipedia and should be lauded for that. Making moves to increase female participation does not in any way devalue male participation. While I have no knowledge whether this focused approach to grant-making will indeed lead to increased female participation, I find it sensible to at least try it out. We'll see in the end whether it was succesful. Best regards, Sebastian Moleski Schatzmeister / Treasurer - Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 10963 Berlin Telefon 030 - 219 158 26-0 www.wikimedia.de Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei! http://spenden.wikimedia.de/ Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
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, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
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 any difference of culture or gender or religion and probably to promote some disadvantaged potential contributors, but without forgetting that what Wikimedia is now is due to these neglected white men. I agree with your sentence: In my view our consensus-based decision-making model can only work well when there is enough diversity of contributions but we must be clear that the diversity of contribution and of opinions is not automatically connected with the race or with the gender. The neutral point of view has been assured until now, I would not read in your sentence that this is wrong. There may be men or women gathered in a key decision committee but having the same not neutral point of view because the gender doesn't assure automatically the neutrality of point of view. The risk I see in the association of diversity with the gender or with the race is that we can say that having people from different countries or different races or different sex it can assure the neutral point of view. But that is wrong. Regards On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: 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 European men with (or working towards) masters' degrees*, then their judgements will inevitably reflect their own backgrounds and perspectives - and other backgrounds and perspectives will be missing from those judgements. That does not and will not result in us fulfilling our mission to build and share the sum of human knowledge. In my view our consensus-based decision-making model can only work well when there is enough diversity of contributions in the first place. It is easy for a small group of similar people to reach a consensus. However, they are likely to miss important things in doing so. Regards, Chris * This isn't (quite) a description of the status quo but is pretty close ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469 Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
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 see more a cultural and linguistic gap that a gender gap. Regards On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 11:29 AM, 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 -- wittylama.com Peace, love metadata ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469 Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
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 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 see more a cultural and linguistic gap that a gender gap. Regards On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 11:29 AM, 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 -- wittylama.com Peace, love metadata ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469 Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
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 European men with (or working towards) masters' degrees*, then their judgements will inevitably reflect their own backgrounds and perspectives - and other backgrounds and perspectives will be missing from those judgements. That does not and will not result in us fulfilling our mission to build and share the sum of human knowledge. In my view our consensus-based decision-making model can only work well when there is enough diversity of contributions in the first place. It is easy for a small group of similar people to reach a consensus. However, they are likely to miss important things in doing so. Regards, Chris * This isn't (quite) a description of the status quo but is pretty close ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
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 crass and inaccurate insult to the many thousands of women who have made modern nursing what it is. Of course there have been and will be male nurses who stand out as contributors, but only a very small percentage, probably in keeping with the ratio of men to women in nursing. And yet, despite the high salaries RNs command, are there any gov't-sponsored initiatives to get men into nursing? In fact nurses get paid less than the male national average wage. This is clearly some definition of high salaries I wasn't previously familiar with If so, it'd be news to me and many others. But I ask, if men by and large, for whatever reasons, aren't interested in becoming nurses, why make a big deal about it? Reducing the recruitment pool is less than ideal. However the number of men training to be nurses has been increasing so it is probably felt the problem will solve itself. Are there gov't-sponsored campaigns to get more women into the relatively lucrative job of refuse collection? Ah you can tell the piece you are recycling from is dated. Post privatisation refuse collection has ceased to be a particularly lucrative job. Or, the likewise lucrative jobs of plumber, http://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/business-news/call-more-women-construction-3m-6942911 Although again due to eastern European labour plumbing isn't as lucrative as it used to be. ordnance disposal engineer, I understand there have been various attempts to recruit women into the military nuclear materials technician, etc.? No. But other fields that are a lot less dirty and/or dangerous, yes. Were you under the impression that nuclear materials technician was dirty and/or dangerous? For very obvious reasons it isn't. However the nuclear industry has been downsizing of late so I don't think there are significant programs to recruit anyone. (Think professional STEM fields.) I'm a chemist you insensitive clod. Depending on what you are doing it can be dirty or dangerous. -- geni ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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-arguments, which you have failed even to mention. Diversity of contributors isn't a social justice goal, or even a cultural engineering goal. It is aimed squarely at increasing the diversity and caliber of content. Not only does the small proportion of women mean that millions of them with huge amounts of expertise to contribute are unheard, it also means that their perspective and approach are underrepresented or missing entirely. And yes, the same is true for others - not only African-Americans, but Africans. Not only people of Indo-Asian descent, but the people of the Indian subcontinent itself. This is not an American movement, yet the global south is deeply under-represented, and the WMF has been working for years to address this issue. This is, again, because diversity of contributors matters for the breadth and depth of coverage in our projects. The goal of the Wikimedia movement is the sum of all human knowledge, not the sum of knowledge held by white men between 15 and 35 living in Europe and North America. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
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 dont see this as sexism and playing that card is counter-productive. What I suggest is that instead of saying that for three months everyone else is sidelined, focus on inclusion. If there arent enough or good enough projects for addressing the number of women participating in Wikipedia, perhaps we should look into why. Perhaps also look into the Foundation directly reaching out to women's groups for collaborative purposes. But the OP does have a point. By telling certain groups we are not interested in you right now you are playing an us-against-them game and quite probably 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 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 cultural engineering goal. It is aimed squarely at increasing the diversity and caliber of content. Not only does the small proportion of women mean that millions of them with huge amounts of expertise to contribute are unheard, it also means that their perspective and approach are underrepresented or missing entirely. And yes, the same is true for others - not only African-Americans, but Africans. Not only people of Indo-Asian descent, but the people of the Indian subcontinent itself. This is not an American movement, yet the global south is deeply under-represented, and the WMF has been working for years to address this issue. This is, again, because diversity of contributors matters for the breadth and depth of coverage in our projects. The goal of the Wikimedia movement is the sum of all human knowledge, not the sum of knowledge held by white men between 15 and 35 living in Europe and North America. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
Did someone suggest that men should reduce editing or participation? I missed that. Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of FRED BAUDER Sent: 08 January 2015 02:10 PM To: Wikimedia 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 editorship need is more men discussing why it might or might not be important. /sarcasm Radical feminist notions that men should reduce editing or participation are counter-productive. The solution is OR not NOT; anyone should be able to edit without struggle. Fred ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4257/8890 - Release Date: 01/08/15 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
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 conclusion. His entire e-mail is explaining why no effort should be expended on the gender gap. It seems as if the grant initiative is simply the proximate motive for explaining why the gender gap is not a problem and working to address it is harmful and insulting. I did not describe that position as sexist, and I couldn't confidently assert that it is. It is, however, ignorant. Perhaps the grants teams could have gone about this initiative in a better way - that is usually the case when it comes to WMF communication and organization. They could have set aside a specific dollar amount, or some proportion of grants over a period of time. But three months is a short period, and I find the sense of entitlement to WMF funds reflected in some comments to be troubling. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
How is it possible to give a realistic answer to that question? Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Risker Sent: 08 January 2015 02:42 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [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 throwing up of hands in this way if the focus was, say, requests from the Global South? A focus on getting great bots built and working across wikis? A focus on events and processes for media collection? (Incidentally the latter more or less happens anyway with several groups applying for funding for WLM within a narrow period...) 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 languages, or a lot of other areas where there are acknowledged biases. Risker/Anne On 8 January 2015 at 02:07, 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 the basics of nearly any topic imaginable, but for a large number, readers can with diligence become expert on more than a few and save themselves the cost of tuition/training. All this, in addition to satisfying their curiosity about millions of subjects. That said, it doesn't matter who writes the content on Wikipedia so long as it's relevant and factual. Unlike the published, single-authority edited encyclopediae of the past, Wikipedia allows anyone with relevant information to contribute to it. Their additions or other edits are checked by volunteers to make sure the edit isn't a defacement, irrelevant, patently unfactual, or unverifiable. They are typically left as written or maybe edited only for grammar/spelling. Wikipedia is a rare success story in democracy of knowledge. If one feels moved to contribute, they do. If not, they don't. It's like voting in a sense, though it's true people in democracies should perhaps take the opportunity to do so more often. But it's up to them. Like voting or anything else, to single out a particular group of people based on their indelible characteristics as being desirable as contributors to any field implicitly devalues the contributions not just of those currently contributing who don't fall into that category, but also says to any other group of a particular identity that you care more about the group you're trying to get more involvement from than them. Identity politics is unfortunately a fact of our current political climate and I hope one day we can, as MLK Jr. hoped, judge one another not by skin color (and I'd add gender, sexuality, and a few others), but by content of character. In the context of Wikipedia, this would translate to the veracity and applicability of contributions made to the vast Wikipedia knowledge-base -- not who in particular is doing the contributing, nor their indelible characteristics of person. Because identity politics is today part of general electoral politics doesn't mean it need be for anything else, and especially given how such things as a person's ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc., say nothing about what they know about or can do, I don't see how it's relevant to the veracity and applicability of Wikipedia's knowledge base. I don't care that, for example, a black person (Charles Drew, MD) came up with the process of creating blood plasma, an innovation that has saved millions of lives. He was tragically and mortally injured in a car accident, however, and so his potential future achievements were lost to humanity. (He was not refused treatment for his injuries at the hospital he was taken to because of his ethnicity, as is widely but falsely believed; he was just so badly injured that he died. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_R._Drew#Death ). I also don't care that Adm Grace Hopper (USN) wad female, only that she wrote the first computer language compiler so programmers of lesser brain power than her (such as myself) could go on to program computers without struggling with binary switches and punch cards. Her contributions were what was important, not her gender, skin color, or anything else as far as her professional achievements go. 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
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
+1 to Keilana. The fact that people still believe that valuing women somehow devalues men never fails to amaze me. It's not a zero-sum game. On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Keilana keilanaw...@gmail.com wrote: Hearing people whine “what about the men” because, God forbid, men might not get *every single* grant this time (as they did in the pilot round of IEGs), is incredibly tiresome. On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote: If you take it entirely at face value, I find it quite inoffensive. As I have no experience with reviewing grant proposals, I can't comment on its accuracy, but I am quite happy to take Fred's word for it. Offence is often available if you search for it hard enough. Cheers, Peter -Original 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 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 appears. Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4257/8890 - Release Date: 01/08/15 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
Where is anyone whining about this? Nobody here is. The point being made is about why other grants are not being accepted. On 08-Jan-2015 10:06 pm, Keilana keilanaw...@gmail.com wrote: Hearing people whine “what about the men” because, God forbid, men might not get *every single* grant this time (as they did in the pilot round of IEGs), is incredibly tiresome. On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote: If you take it entirely at face value, I find it quite inoffensive. As I have no experience with reviewing grant proposals, I can't comment on its accuracy, but I am quite happy to take Fred's word for it. Offence is often available if you search for it hard enough. Cheers, Peter -Original 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 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 appears. Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4257/8890 - Release Date: 01/08/15 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
I am optimistic that some great proposals might surface. Fred On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 18:30:08 +0200 Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote: If you take it entirely at face value, I find it quite inoffensive. As I have no experience with reviewing grant proposals, I can't comment on its accuracy, but I am quite happy to take Fred's word for it. Offence is often available if you search for it hard enough. Cheers, Peter -Original 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 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 appears. Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4257/8890 - Release Date: 01/08/15 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
Sorry to interrupted, just a short question. I'm looking for statistics of how many project ideas/requests were submitted in the past. How many volunteers and WMF-employees were and are involved in evaluating all these submissions and so on. Can anybody provide me with a link or any other kind of reliable informations on that? best regards Jens Best 2015-01-08 15:13 GMT+01:00 Leigh Thelmadatter osama...@hotmail.com: 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 dont see this as sexism and playing that card is counter-productive. What I suggest is that instead of saying that for three months everyone else is sidelined, focus on inclusion. If there arent enough or good enough projects for addressing the number of women participating in Wikipedia, perhaps we should look into why. Perhaps also look into the Foundation directly reaching out to women's groups for collaborative purposes. But the OP does have a point. By telling certain groups we are not interested in you right now you are playing an us-against-them game and quite probably 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 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 cultural engineering goal. It is aimed squarely at increasing the diversity and caliber of content. Not only does the small proportion of women mean that millions of them with huge amounts of expertise to contribute are unheard, it also means that their perspective and approach are underrepresented or missing entirely. And yes, the same is true for others - not only African-Americans, but Africans. Not only people of Indo-Asian descent, but the people of the Indian subcontinent itself. This is not an American movement, yet the global south is deeply under-represented, and the WMF has been working for years to address this issue. This is, again, because diversity of contributors matters for the breadth and depth of coverage in our projects. The goal of the Wikimedia movement is the sum of all human knowledge, not the sum of knowledge held by white men between 15 and 35 living in Europe and North America. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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 *every single* grant this time (as they did in the pilot round of IEGs), is incredibly tiresome. On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote: If you take it entirely at face value, I find it quite inoffensive. As I have no experience with reviewing grant proposals, I can't comment on its accuracy, but I am quite happy to take Fred's word for it. Offence is often available if you search for it hard enough. Cheers, Peter -Original 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 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 appears. Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4257/8890 - Release Date: 01/08/15 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
I am in two grant committees, and I can assure that I comment the value of the project and not the sex or the race of the candidate. I think that a woman would appreciate more that a project is supported because it's a good project than because it is a project submitted by a woman. Anyway the number of the projects focused to reduce the gender gap are not so many, but there are no barriers for submission. Personally I support to dedicate some months for a topic like the gender gap not because the grants can be assigned to the women, but because the expectation is to have a better communication and to widespread that the women can apply for a grant and (last but not least) that some best practices or examples can come up to be replicated in other linguistical communities. regards On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Keilana keilanaw...@gmail.com wrote: Hearing people whine “what about the men” because, God forbid, men might not get *every single* grant this time (as they did in the pilot round of IEGs), is incredibly tiresome. On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote: If you take it entirely at face value, I find it quite inoffensive. As I have no experience with reviewing grant proposals, I can't comment on its accuracy, but I am quite happy to take Fred's word for it. Offence is often available if you search for it hard enough. Cheers, Peter -Original 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 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 appears. Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4257/8890 - Release Date: 01/08/15 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Ilario Valdelli Wikimedia CH Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera Switzerland - 8008 Zürich Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario Skype: valdelli Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469 Tel: +41764821371 http://www.wikimedia.ch ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
It's a rhetorical question, but, based on experience, I would probably chime in if a similar proposal was floated about native people such as African tribes or American Indians; most hardly ever edit, even in their own language, and throwing money at the problem is unlikely to be productive. It may be that a few clever effective proposals about gender participation might surface. I've noticed that women are often quite motivated and good at writing grant proposals. Fred On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 17:43:40 +0200 Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote: How is it possible to give a realistic answer to that question? Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Risker Sent: 08 January 2015 02:42 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [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 throwing up of hands in this way if the focus was, say, requests from the Global South? A focus on getting great bots built and working across wikis? A focus on events and processes for media collection? (Incidentally the latter more or less happens anyway with several groups applying for funding for WLM within a narrow period...) 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 languages, or a lot of other areas where there are acknowledged biases. Risker/Anne On 8 January 2015 at 02:07, 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 the basics of nearly any topic imaginable, but for a large number, readers can with diligence become expert on more than a few and save themselves the cost of tuition/training. All this, in addition to satisfying their curiosity about millions of subjects. That said, it doesn't matter who writes the content on Wikipedia so long as it's relevant and factual. Unlike the published, single-authority edited encyclopediae of the past, Wikipedia allows anyone with relevant information to contribute to it. Their additions or other edits are checked by volunteers to make sure the edit isn't a defacement, irrelevant, patently unfactual, or unverifiable. They are typically left as written or maybe edited only for grammar/spelling. Wikipedia is a rare success story in democracy of knowledge. If one feels moved to contribute, they do. If not, they don't. It's like voting in a sense, though it's true people in democracies should perhaps take the opportunity to do so more often. But it's up to them. Like voting or anything else, to single out a particular group of people based on their indelible characteristics as being desirable as contributors to any field implicitly devalues the contributions not just of those currently contributing who don't fall into that category, but also says to any other group of a particular identity that you care more about the group you're trying to get more involvement from than them. Identity politics is unfortunately a fact of our current political climate and I hope one day we can, as MLK Jr. hoped, judge one another not by skin color (and I'd add gender, sexuality, and a few others), but by content of character. In the context of Wikipedia, this would translate to the veracity and applicability of contributions made to the vast Wikipedia knowledge-base -- not who in particular is doing the contributing, nor their indelible characteristics of person. Because identity politics is today part of general electoral politics doesn't mean it need be for anything else, and especially given how such things as a person's ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc., say nothing about what they know about or can do, I don't see how it's relevant to the veracity and applicability of Wikipedia's knowledge base. I don't care that, for example, a black person (Charles Drew, MD) came up with the process of creating blood plasma, an innovation that has saved millions of lives. He was tragically and mortally injured in a car accident, however, and so his potential future achievements were lost to humanity. (He was not refused treatment for his injuries at the hospital he was taken to because of his ethnicity, as is widely but falsely believed; he was just so badly injured that he died. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_R._Drew#Death ). I also don't care that Adm Grace Hopper (USN
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. 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 appears. Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
If you take it entirely at face value, I find it quite inoffensive. As I have no experience with reviewing grant proposals, I can't comment on its accuracy, but I am quite happy to take Fred's word for it. Offence is often available if you search for it hard enough. Cheers, Peter -Original 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 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 appears. Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4257/8890 - Release Date: 01/08/15 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
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: 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 crass and inaccurate insult to the many thousands of women who have made modern nursing what it is. Of course there have been and will be male nurses who stand out as contributors, but only a very small percentage, probably in keeping with the ratio of men to women in nursing. And yet, despite the high salaries RNs command, are there any gov't-sponsored initiatives to get men into nursing? In fact nurses get paid less than the male national average wage. This is clearly some definition of high salaries I wasn't previously familiar with Are male nurses paid more than female ones? Otherwise that's not really relevant. If so, it'd be news to me and many others. But I ask, if men by and large, for whatever reasons, aren't interested in becoming nurses, why make a big deal about it? Reducing the recruitment pool is less than ideal. However the number of men training to be nurses has been increasing so it is probably felt the problem will solve itself. Are there gov't-sponsored campaigns to get more women into the relatively lucrative job of refuse collection? Ah you can tell the piece you are recycling from is dated. Post privatisation refuse collection has ceased to be a particularly lucrative job. I think that was supposed to be a joke. Gender disparities exist across the field in both low-paying and high-paying fields, but generally the focus is only to get more women into higher-paying ones, especially ones involving technology. In a way it does seem to be a bit of a tangent here, where contributors aren't necessarily paid in the first place, but research into how we as a movement fit into the overall pattern of field-based gender disparities might show a solid connection. It'd certainly be interesting, if nothing else, especially if folks were to compare both regionally and globally. (Think professional STEM fields.) I'm a chemist you insensitive clod. Depending on what you are doing it can be dirty or dangerous. I get that you disagree, but that's not helping anything. -I ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
If this was intended as a response to my post I'm afraid I don’t get the relevance. I was also not aware that the grants were awarded to men. I thought they were awarded to projects on merit. Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [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 *every single* grant this time (as they did in the pilot round of IEGs), is incredibly tiresome. On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote: If you take it entirely at face value, I find it quite inoffensive. As I have no experience with reviewing grant proposals, I can't comment on its accuracy, but I am quite happy to take Fred's word for it. Offence is often available if you search for it hard enough. Cheers, Peter -Original 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 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 appears. Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4257/8890 - Release Date: 01/08/15 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4257/8890 - Release Date: 01/08/15 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
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 languages, or a lot of other areas where there are acknowledged biases. Maybe you're only talking about this specific fork of the thread, but I was happy to see that the previous discussion managed to stay on-topic and largely avoid the specific social issue. I saw a lot of people with specific criticism of the decision, completely separate from the cause. (I appreciate that Leigh was still clinging to that idea while the thread was being dragged into the abyss, only to be insulted in the process.) Having addressed that, I want to say to everybody that Wikimedia-l is a lot of things, not all good, but the previous conversation was at least on-topic. Does anyone seriously think that this one is? Please, please don't make me start content filtering based on words like feminazi or misogynist. Austin ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
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 the global south, or non-European languages, or a lot of other areas where there are acknowledged biases. Maybe you're only talking about this specific fork of the thread, but I was happy to see that the previous discussion managed to stay on-topic and largely avoid the specific social issue. I saw a lot of people with specific criticism of the decision, completely separate from the cause. (I appreciate that Leigh was still clinging to that idea while the thread was being dragged into the abyss, only to be insulted in the process.) Having addressed that, I want to say to everybody that Wikimedia-l is a lot of things, not all good, but the previous conversation was at least on-topic. Does anyone seriously think that this one is? Please, please don't make me start content filtering based on words like feminazi or misogynist. Austin As far as I can tell, this is the first time either of those words have shown up in the discussion. It's true that the bulk of this thread is only about the particular topic chosen for the 3-month focus, whereas the previous thread was about the nature of having 3-month focuses in the first place and particularly the chosen implementation, but so long as people remain civil, why can both not be valid topics of discussion? It doesn't even matter what the topic is, really. It ought to be worth discussing if only to clarify what it means to different folks, but even and in doing so, how better to generate possible ideas for projects? -I ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe