My (rejected) message below anyway.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why is my message to this thread getting rejected? It says "Message
> rejected by filter rule match"?
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I guess we are discussing this contest:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in
>> _Red/The_World_Contest
>>
>> because this is the one which starts in two weeks.
>>
>> For the full disclosure, I have absolutely no relation to the contest and
>> will likely not participate.
>>
>> First, this is an internal affair of the English Wikipedia. I am not sure
>> why it should be discussed on wikimedia-l.
>>
>> Second, we have seen many writing contests and drives and personal
>> initiatives on Wikipedia. Some were successful, some were complete
>> disaster. Whether the contest/drive is successful depends on the
>> organizers, and, in particular, on whether the goals are set properly.
>>
>> This one aims at 10K (not 100K) new articles in two months. This is
>> realistic and, even if some articles are substandard, will not disturb the
>> flow of Wikipedia. I recognize a lot of people who signed up as established
>> editors who certainly know how to source articles. The rules of the contest
>> establish 1K of pure prose (it indeed stated in one place 0.75K, which I
>> changed to align with what is written in the  rules of the contest.) They
>> also specify that the articles must be properly sourced. A fully sourced 1K
>> prose is a solid stub, and I do not see how it could harm Wikipedia. The
>> organizer is Dr. Blofeld, who previously organized events of similar scope
>> which were successful. (I for example participated in the Arfica destubaton
>> last year and won a prize; I closely monitored the quality and I saw how
>> Dr. Blofeld handled the quality control, I have no issues with that).
>>
>> To summarize, at this point I do not see any reasons for alarm.
>>
>> I would like, however, to address two more points which were raised in
>> this topic. First, the monetary prizes. I personally oppose giving monetary
>> prizes for writing Wikipedia articles. When I participated in the Africa
>> destubaton I mentioned above, I made it very clear that I am not going to
>> accept a monetary prize. After I won the contest in the nomination of the
>> articles on Mozambique, I had an Amazon voucher sent to me, which I spent
>> to buy an article on the history of Mozambique. So I am definitely not a
>> fan of monetary prizes, on the other hand, this is not the first contest
>> which offers monetary prizes, the prizes are of a scope comparable to what
>> what offered at similar contests previously, and if the issue has to be
>> discussed, it has to be discussed in a broader scope, not in relation to
>> this particular contest.
>>
>> Second, I am not sure how I should interpret the opinions that the
>> articles about women should be sourced worse than the articles about men,
>> but currently there is consensus on the English Wikipedia on how the
>> notability and verifiability policies should be implemented (I guess this
>> could be different in other projects). The community is currently not
>> accepting unsourced and poorly sourced articles, we have the trial running
>> for autoconfirmed article creation, and the queue of new page patrol, which
>> is now 13K articles, slowly goes down. (We actually struggled a lot to get
>> it going down, for several years). Any unsourced article about living
>> people gets PRODded within hours. No action which would attempt to revert
>> this trend is going to be accepted. It is not about woman vs man or Africa
>> vs Europe, it is about verifiability.
>>
>> Having said this, if there is a competition suddenly up in the air, aimed
>> at 100K articles, poorly organized and with unrealistically weak
>> requirements, I would definitely call it a road to disaster. It is just
>> what I referenced is not this.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Yaroslav
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This has nothing to do with Gender,
>>>
>>> The issue is the standards required and the aim of the event not the
>>> subjects of the content....
>>>
>>> The event set a minimum standard at 0.75k per article created, new
>>> editors
>>> going through articles for creation are required to have 1.5k of prose
>>> which is twice the requirement  for this competition.
>>>
>>> I'll repeat we should not expect more from new editors than we do from
>>> existing editors, regardless of the subject.  With any competition we
>>> should be expecting a higher amount than the minimum from existing
>>> community members, mass creation of stubs is not the best way to address
>>> to
>>> encourage those editors to take an interest in developing subjects.
>>>
>>> Any competition of this magnitude should also have the resources to
>>> ensure
>>> that in the process we dont do more damage
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 16 October 2017 at 13:57, Natacha Rault <n.ra...@me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Dear All,
>>> >
>>> > I can only agree with GorillaWarfare. I am also tired of having to
>>> proove
>>> > anything concernig gender has to be perfect, when the whole principle
>>> of
>>> > Wikipedia is that everything is always perfectible.
>>> > I think we should assume good faith and avoid <sarcastic> comments.
>>> > Doing nothing about the gender gap would not bring a positive image of
>>> our
>>> > movement. The gap is huge and we do need quantity. Readers noticing
>>> > mistakes sometimes become contributors (dont we need new
>>> contributors?).
>>> > Chosing such a tone “intentionally” (citing Gnangarra) is something I
>>> find
>>> > shocking. I think criticism is good to make progress, one does not
>>> need to
>>> > fuel resentmemt by making it <sarcastic>.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Kind regards,
>>> >
>>> > Nattes à chat / Natacha
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > > Le 16 oct. 2017 à 05:51, GorillaWarfare <gorillawarfarewikipedia@
>>> > gmail.com> a écrit :
>>> > >
>>> > > Also, in case it's not clear from my forwarding of Emily's/Keilana's
>>> > > message, I endorse it completely and am glad she made her points.
>>> > >
>>> > > I agree fully with Keegan and Sydney. I don't think the concerns that
>>> > this
>>> > > will be overtaken by bots are well-founded; that was planned for in
>>> the
>>> > > document outlining the competition, and editors involved in this
>>> project
>>> > > will be subject to all expectations of normal editors (including not
>>> > > mass-producing poor-quality content).
>>> > >
>>> > > As for Keegan's original post, there is a major difference between
>>> > > describing an email as sexist versus labeling the sender as a
>>> sexist. I
>>> > > believe Keegan meant the former, and I'm not sure anything he's said
>>> can
>>> > be
>>> > > described as an attack on the sender so much as a valid criticism of
>>> poor
>>> > > wording.
>>> > >
>>> > > – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
>>> > >
>>> > > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:44 PM, GorillaWarfare
>>> > <gorillawarfarewikipedia@
>>> > > gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >> Emily (User:Keilana) is having some trouble getting mails through to
>>> > this
>>> > >> list, so I'm forwarding this on her behalf in case it's an issue
>>> with
>>> > her
>>> > >> email address.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> "This is some sexist bullshit. You really think we can't handle some
>>> > >> stubs? And do you really, really think that people won't try to AFD
>>> > >> everything that comes out of this contest as it is?
>>> > >>
>>> > >> I'm sick and tired of this idea that we have to hold shit about
>>> women
>>> > to a
>>> > >> higher standard than literally anything else. The encyclopedia isn't
>>> > going
>>> > >> to break because, god forbid, some inexperienced newbies write a
>>> bunch
>>> > of
>>> > >> stubs.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> And so what if people think we're paying lip service to women? It's
>>> > better
>>> > >> than being seen as being actively hostile to women, which, as I
>>> > shouldn't
>>> > >> have to remind you, is our reputation as it currently stands."
>>> > >>
>>> > >> – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
>>> > >>
>>> > >>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> No worries Keegan I read it as sarcastic, given the amount of
>>> noise on
>>> > >>> here
>>> > >>> I chose my tone intentionally to draw attention to the competition,
>>> > yes it
>>> > >>> looks like a wonderful idea until to look at the mechanics of
>>> > comeptition
>>> > >>> given it has a start time in 2 weeks, people are being encourage to
>>> > start
>>> > >>> now in sandboxes, its being advertised on banners yet it has very
>>> > obvious
>>> > >>> under lying issues
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>   - unrealistic targets
>>> > >>>   - quantity not quality
>>> > >>>   - an expectation that competitors are required to do half of
>>> what is
>>> > >>>   expected from new editors , we should hold ourselves and expect
>>> of
>>> > >>> higher
>>> > >>>   standards than that we expect from new comers
>>> > >>>   - no methodology for notability. blp, copyright issues arent
>>> weeded
>>> > out
>>> > >>>   during the event or judging
>>> > >>>   - judging is done by a bot just doing a count
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> To win this event all you need is a list, a script, and reliable
>>> > internet
>>> > >>> connection, despite having so many signed up well experience good
>>> > editors
>>> > >>> on the list.   <sarcasm> Sadly one person using a Wikidata script
>>> to
>>> > >>> create
>>> > >>> articles could be the winner,  just imagine the unimaginable
>>> > >>> frankenstienian horror that would create </sarcasm>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Any competition that relies on numbers alone is fraught with
>>> danger,
>>> > the
>>> > >>> big international events  all succeed not because of numbers but
>>> > because
>>> > >>> of
>>> > >>> large teams(this run by one person alone) focused on quality with
>>> the
>>> > >>> whole
>>> > >>> processes divided into manageable opt-in regional sections.  All
>>> the
>>> > >>> initiatives to focus on under represented topics need to be
>>> careful few
>>> > >>> thousands of poor quality stubs about women is more harmful than
>>> having
>>> > >>> nothing as people will perceive Wikipedia to be paying lip service
>>> to
>>> > >>> women.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> On 16 October 2017 at 07:18, Keegan Peterzell <
>>> keegan.w...@gmail.com>
>>> > >>> wrote:
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Gergő Tisza <gti...@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> > >>>>>
>>> > >>>>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Keegan Peterzell <
>>> > >>>> keegan.w...@gmail.com>
>>> > >>>>> wrote:
>>> > >>>>>
>>> > >>>>>> "The nerve of these women, to think that they can write
>>> encyclopedia
>>> > >>>>>> articles on women who must inherently be non-notable! There's
>>> > >>> nothing
>>> > >>>> to
>>> > >>>>>> write about here."
>>> > >>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>> That's basically what your email says. No complaints when the
>>> > >>> subject
>>> > >>>> is
>>> > >>>>>> anything else from you, when these thematic editing are held on
>>> > >>> other
>>> > >>>>>> subjects.
>>> > >>>>>
>>> > >>>>>
>>> > >>>>> Please avoid personal attacks based on hidden motivations you
>>> assume
>>> > >>>> other
>>> > >>>>> parties to have; it's contrary to the Wikimedia movement's social
>>> > best
>>> > >>>>> practices [1] and bound to take discussions in unproductive
>>> > >>> directions.
>>> > >>>>> When criticizing what someone said, stick to what they actually
>>> said.
>>> > >>>>> Especially so if your accusation of bad faith would be
>>> essentially
>>> > >>>>> content-free.
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>> ​Todd, Gnangarra, Gergő,
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>> My intention, as I touched on earlier, was not to make a personal
>>> > attack
>>> > >>>> but to address the tone in which I perceived the email to be
>>> written.
>>> > I
>>> > >>>> don't believe Gnangarra is actually sexist. I certainly stand by
>>> my
>>> > >>>> position that the content of the initial post is unhelpful
>>> criticism
>>> > and
>>> > >>>> mostly hyperbole, but I'm more than willing to apologize if my
>>> > language
>>> > >>>> came across as a personal attack. I could have written it
>>> differently.
>>> > >>> So,
>>> > >>>> sorry about that.
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>> --
>>> > >>>> ~Keegan
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>> This is my personal email address. Everything sent from this email
>>> > >>> address
>>> > >>>> is in a personal capacity.
>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________
>>> > >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>> > >>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>> > >>>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>> > >>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> > >>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
>>> ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>> > ,
>>> > >>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsu
>>> bscribe>
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> --
>>> > >>> GN.
>>> > >>> Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.or
>>> g/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
>>> > >>> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
>>> > >>> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
>>> > >>> _______________________________________________
>>> > >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>>> > >>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>>> > >>> i/Wikimedia-l
>>> > >>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> > >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
>>> ilman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> > >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsu
>>> bscribe>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
>>> ilman/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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> GN.
>>> Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
>>> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
>>> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>>> i/Wikimedia-l
>>> New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to