On 07/06/14 06:36, Risker wrote:
Yep, I'm not happy with that particular quote. But you know what? It was
a set-up. Any reporter worth her salt attending a conference like this
knows how to spot the person in the room that will give them the story they
want to tell, and this is what happened here. She came in looking for the
geeky white guy whose talent at chatting up women was, um, not his strong
suit, and then quoted him instead of talking to the women. Notice that?
One would think that the people to talk to about the challenges of being a
woman Wikipedian would be the Wikimedia women. And yet the reporter
herself refuses to allow them their voice.
I wasn't able to attend this conference, but I talked to several people who
did, and I also looked at the photos. What struck me was how many women
were there. Some of those who attended were struck by how engaged the women
were, too; they were committed to being part of the "gendergap" solution.
Russavia, give everyone a break here. I feel badly for the young woman,
because she was put on the spot in a very awkward situation. I feel badly
for Kevin, because I think he really does get the importance of expanding
the perspectives on Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects, but he was put in a
situation that was well outside his comfort level. Wikipedia, Wikimedia and
the conference itself were inaccurately portrayed by a media outlet. We
all know it happens all the time; it's why we look for multiple reliable
sources in our articles.
Hi. Thank you for this.
I was there, the woman who randomly joined in, and I must say, what the
journalist did was very unfair to Kevin and the others. It wasn't just
putting them on the spot in the way in which she did, but even going so
far as the rather childish descriptions to further stereotype them...
naming folks by name and then doing that, that seems perhaps even more
rude than what we tend to do to each other around here. As I recall
Schulenberg had the sense to leave partway through (for which I say good
for him), but most of us wouldn't know to do that (or how), and taking
advantage of that wasn't very nice either.
Thing is, these guys were put on the spot and pressed, and that they are
the ones getting crap for it is ridiculous. Sure, there may have been
some some awkward things said, but the entire thing got very awkward and
quite frankly I think they handled it remarkably well considering the
line of questioning and discourse. A lot of what looks so bad appears to
have been jokes taken seriously - because in a tense situation, trying
to alleviate the tension with humour is a pretty normal response - and
as a result I don't even know how much of what was quoted is even
representative of the views of those quoted, never mind the wider community.
For my part, no apologies are owed, nor should anyone expect them to be;
these are awkward issues with often no right way to bring them up, and
outrage against those who try to respond under pressure and fail to do
so diplomatically does not help matters in the slightest when we're all
just doing the best we can. So apologise to them, I say, if to anyone.
They were the ones wronged.
-K
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
