The people whose opinion should most matter in determining whether a
comment is sexist are women. Not men, and not non-binary transmasculine
people like myself.
I support and echo Emily and Molly's earlier comments on this thread:
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
– Molly (GorillaWarfare)
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:44 PM, GorillaWarfare <gorillawarfarewikipedia@
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
"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
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)
- Pax aka Funcrunch
On 10/16/17 10:11 AM, Todd Allen wrote:
Is that still going on?
I'm against sexism and all for improving coverage of women on Wikipedia.
I've helped to encourage events toward that end, and they've turned out
pretty well. We now have quite a few more articles, for example, on women
involved as pioneers in outdoor sports and activities because of them.
But I'm unsure how asking the question "Is it wise to offer money in
exchange for creating large numbers of articles without consideration of
quality?" or "Will this effort have the intended result?" is sexist. The
same question would apply if the proposed articles were about Russian
literature or asteroids. It is not sexist to ask the question just because
of what the subject happens to be.
I think that needs to be discussed, not sidetracked by calling people
sexists. If people really were making sexist statements, I'd be all for
shutting that crap down. But I've seen not one such statement in this
On Oct 16, 2017 10:28 AM, "Robert Fernandez" <wikigamal...@gmail.com> wrote:
So those who call out sexism are the real sexists, amirite?
I am fed up with this double standard in the way we talk about these
issues. Some people are allowed to make broad, unsupported, sweeping
generalizations about the motives and actions of others and that's
considered just fine, but if you call them out in even the gentlest tones
it's treated as some horrific personal attack, and censure and apologies
are demanded. We've culturally internalized sexism so much that even the
way we talk about sexism is sexist.
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Vi to <vituzzu.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
But just a note: using the same behavior of phenomena you're trying to
contast is, per se, a clear defeat.
To be more clear, blind -because you obviously don't know *nothing* about
their backgrounds- vilification of other's opinions is, incidentally, one
the of the main instruments of "cultural" sexism.
Pax Ahimsa Gethen | p...@funcrunch.org | http://funcrunch.org | Pronouns:
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com