body:
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 00:14:32 +0000, David Boothroyd
<david at election.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>  >I should like to clarify the issue in this dispute. The question is
>>  >not whether the blog is a 'source'; it is clearly not a source for
>>  >anything other than what is said on the blog. The issue is whether or
>>  >not to mention it in the article

>>Er, no.  The issue is whether to *link* it in the article.  That is
>>rather different.

>No, not just that. I understand your position to be that the blog is
>worthy of mention in the text but not worthy of a link. However, there
>are other actors in this drama, who are the people who wish to have
>all mention removed. They are the people I was reverting when you
>blocked me for 3RR.

Actually my position is that we should not link to attack blogs.  If a
criticism is noted externally it may be relevant for inclusion, but
since coverage of this in the linked source is a single para in a
local colour story, it's certainly not unambiguously relevant for
inclusion.

Mention of Tim Ireland does not automatically mean we should link his
attack blog.

You will note that the parties who want the whole thing removed appear
to be in abeyance.

It is not necessarily the case that the correct result lies at the
midpoint between include both and remove all, which is where it
currently stands, but it would not be a big surprise to find it was
so.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Ivan Krstić

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikipedia has a problem

body:
George Herbert wrote:
> You do realize that Google has spent the better part of a half billion
> dollars on engineering a completely ground-up distributed system software
> architecture, working with a problem that (unusually among largescale
> enterprise data management) can theoretically be efficiently partitioned?

I mentioned Google because they're a well-known example, but it
certainly isn't the case that one needs to invest an inordinate sum to
be able to reap benefits from scaling out instead of up. Many other
sites with nowhere the engineering talent or financial budget of Google
are doing the same thing. In fact, sites with small budgets that choose
to scale up and succeed are few and far between, to my knowledge.

If you prefer a non-Google example of out over up, look at LiveJournal,
as the evolution of their software and hardware is well-documented and
more transparent than the operation of most comparable sites.

Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> My point was merely that he suggested more powerful hardware, and
> received as a reply, "no, the problem is that we need more powerful
> hardware".

I really wasn't trying to get involved in a polemic about engineering
practices. Jeff seems to believe that buying one powerful appliance is
clearly a better approach than buying six commodity servers, and my
point was that -- for the Wikipedia use case -- that's at best very
unclear, and at worst very wrong.

--
Ivan Krsti? <krstic at solarsail.hcs.harvard.edu> | GPG: 0x147C722D


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikipedia has a problem

body:
On 05/12/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> Why filch?  Call up and order...

I'd like my money tree dispatched via airmail, please.

Rob Church


list: wikien-l

from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] overzealous image deletion?

body:
On 12/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> You mean Wikimedia's?

No.

> Is that based on advice of counsel?

No. No legal counsel would agree to do anything more than view images
on a case by case basis trying to create a general policy that woulde
be legaly safe is unlikely to be posible.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] overzealous image deletion?

body:
On 12/4/06, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
> I've ran into people who read FUC #1 in a way that would mean deleting
> an image of J D Salinger.  They don'tt hink someone like him would pass
> FUC #1.
>

And I've run into rather a lot of people who object to any type of
copyright policy being inforced. I don't think either are relivant to
debate en.wikipedia over FUC#1.

> FUC #1 is a dismal failure.

Only because up until now it has not been inforced.

--
geni


list: foundation-l

from_name: rfrangi at libero.it

subject: [Foundation-l] Introducing a new mailing list

body:
[snip]
>  From the day I heard Angela was on the board because she had big boobs
[snip]

Huh!?! Really? Where does she hide 'em?

But seriously, I would like to understand if opening such a list  will entitle other groups (based on gender, race, political or religious belief, and alikes) who feel Wikipedia has a bias "against" them to ask WMF to open a dedicated list.

Roberto (Snowdog)

------------------------------------------------------
Francesco ha perso ben 45 Kg! Scopri come! Clicca qui
http://click.libero.it/webnation05dic06


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Lars Aronsson

body:
Ilario Valdelli wrote:

> I don't understand the problem...

This is a large part of the problem, isn't it?  To take just one
example, white Americans feel equal and democratic, and pride
themselves of this, but black Americans still feel oppressed.
Very few whites understand the problem in full but even fewer
blacks understand how little the white understand.  How many white
men know what it is like to grow up where none of the presidents
in the history book has your skin color?  How many black know what
it is like, never to have asked that question?  It is so easy to
shun the difference and so hopeless to try to make a change.
Women, of course, are not a "minority" in real numbers, but often
in perceived power.

All of us wikipedians are also a minority of this kind, underdogs
under the vast dominance of traditional printed, commercial
encyclopedias.  Perhaps Britannica, Larousse and Brockhaus feel
that it was sad and unnecessary to take the disruptive step of
setting up Wikipedia, instead of building on their existing base.
They were willing to listen to the young generation, weren't they?
Their experience in quality control and profitmaking should have
been useful, so why on earth didn't the wikipedians apply for jobs
there instead of being unpaid for reverting edit wars?  From their
perspective, our obsession must be plain incomprehensible.  And
yet there is nothing wrong with us, only with their perspective.

Self-identified subgroups will find ways to communicate, whether
it is women, skin colour, or operating system preference, and this
is nothing we should try to stop.  Now the women have formed their
own subgroup within the Wikimedia Foundation.  Hey, that means we
have women here!  Compared to Linux kernel hackers, that's great
progress.  And unlike the United States, the Wikimedia Foundation
does have a female president.  How long will we have to wait
before the black people form a subgroup?  Did they have a meetup
at Wikimania?  (I guess not.  I heard it was an almost exclusively
white event.)  And will we one day see a special interest group
for black female Linux kernel hackers?

Funny, perspective is what Wikipedia is all about, the NPOV.  We
pride ourselves of being able to see beyond our own perspective.

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se


from_name: Oldak Quill

subject: [WikiEN-l] Introducing a new mailing list

body:
On 04/12/06, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> That being said, I don't think it's for us males to demand that the
> womenfolk open up their new clubhouse to us. If it is the right thing
> to do, I do believe that initiative can and will come from the group
> itself.

I don't see what's wrong with the community determining what official
clubhouses there are. I object to this divisive and discriminatory
list as a human being, not as a man. When I contribute, I do not think
of myself as a "male contributor", a "homosexual contributor", or a
"student contributor" and fail to see why any of these aspects should
deny me access to particular areas of discussion.

If the real reason for this list is the level of aggression on this
list, then make the list based upon that aspect. I'm sure there are
many non-female contributors who object to some of the aggression on
this list.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


body:
On 05/12/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> But then, it is very much to the editors who feel very strongly a
> specific need. Whether the need is to discuss gender issues, or whether
> the need is to discuss between girls. Both are fine to me, but show
> different needs.

A strong need among a particular group of contributors should not
always result in their need being fulfilled. If the group is demanding
something that is damaging to the community, it should be rejected out
of hand - at least as an official project.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Justin Cormack

subject: [WikiEN-l] overzealous image deletion?

body:
On 5 Dec 2006, at 01:18, Steve Bennett wrote:

> On 12/5/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo at gmail.com> wrote:
>> That's not what's being enforced here.  If someone is a noted recluse
>> and the only available picture is a fair-use one, then the image
>> passes FUC #1.  On the other hand, if someone makes weekly
>> appearances
>> in front of tens of thousands of people, there's no reason to use a
>> non-free image of him.
>
> If we don't *have* a free image of someone, why should we not use a
> non-free image? This is the bit I don't get. Yes, by all means,
> someone should go out and photograph Mr John C Popular Esquire. But
> until they've done that, why deprive ourselves of the fair use image?
>
> If it's just about motivating someone to go and do it, isn't that a
> separate problem?

Thats no different from saying if we dont have an article on Mr John
C Popular Esquire why dont we just copy the one from the Encyclopaedia
Brittanica until we get around to writing one. Yes it makes us look
better
but it doesnt belong to us. This copyright theft is "justified" as
"fair use"
because we allegedly dont steal too much from one place at a time, eg we
only have pictures of all the Pokemon charcaters, so each one is fair
use.

And if we had copied all the articles from EB and hadnt got sued, so you
think we would be where we are today? People improve things where
there are
gaps, and stolen images are not gaps.

Justinc


from_name: Anthere

body:
rfrangi at libero.it wrote:
> But seriously, I would like to understand if opening such a list  will entitle other groups (based on gender, race, political or religious belief, and alikes) who feel Wikipedia has a bias "against" them to ask WMF to open a dedicated list.

I would prefer a list dedicated to discuss gender bias by careful people
(just kick out the trolls or invite only caring people), to a list
dedicated to discuss anything, from female gender only.

But then, it is very much to the editors who feel very strongly a
specific need. Whether the need is to discuss gender issues, or whether
the need is to discuss between girls. Both are fine to me, but show
different needs.

OH, by the way. During my trip to Florida, I discovered an author I
never had the chance to read before. Am?lie Nothomb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am?lie_Nothomb

I read both Fear and Trembling and M?taphysique des tubes.
I do not know what Fear and Trembling is worth in english language, but
the book is really worth reading for gender issues and cultural
diversity. Rare moment.

Anthere

> Roberto (Snowdog)
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Francesco ha perso ben 45 Kg! Scopri come! Clicca qui
> http://click.libero.it/webnation05dic06


from_name: Bryan Derksen

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> That being said, I don't think it's for us males to demand that the
> womenfolk open up their new clubhouse to us. If it is the right thing
> to do, I do believe that initiative can and will come from the group
> itself.

Continuing the analogy, the women-only clubhouse (mailing list) in
question is built on community land (WikiMedia Foundation servers). I
think it's entirely reasonable for members of that community to be
objecting to this.

WikiMedia Foundation shouldn't be supporting a mailing list founded on a
fundamental principle of gender discrimination. Wikichix already has a
separate host for their wiki, why can't they host their own mailing list
there too?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061205/10bdb0ad/attachment.pgp


from_name: Tim Starling

body:
Oldak Quill wrote:
> Such a list seems to encourage a sense of difference where there isn't
> one. It will also discourage some women from contributing to the
> general discussion ("why post in two places when I can post here?").

This view, and several others like it, are discussed in depth in the
FLOSSPOLS gender report:

http://flosspols.org/deliverables/FLOSSPOLS-D16-Gender_Integrated_Report_of_Findings.pdf

On page 20:

"Some people - both men and women - interpret the mere mention of gender as
somehow 'reiterating' the 'artificial' differences between the sexes [...] "

"However, our study also found that the attitude of some of the male F/LOSS
participants towards women creates an atmosphere which can be described at
least as not women-friendly.
"Whereas most hackers see themselves as neither sexist nor hostile towards
women there is a clear distinction on how women and men perceive and
experience interaction within the F/LOSS community."

They present survey results showing that women perceive a bias in open
source communities whereas men do not. They go on to discuss why this is.
Most of their findings are framed in a way specific to open source software,
but they could easily be extended to this forum. The primary issue of
relevance to mailing lists and communication is flaming. Men are much more
tolerant of it than women. Says Susan Herring in "Gender and Power in Online
Communication":

http://rkcsi.indiana.edu/archive/CSI/WP/WP01-05B.html

"Politeness is one common means through which gender is cued in asynchronous
CMC. Women are more likely to thank, appreciate and apologize, and to be
upset by violations of politeness: they more often challenge offenders who
violate online rules of conduct (Smith et al., 1997), and predominantly
female groups may have more, and more strictly enforced, posting rules
designed to ensure the maintenance of a civil environment (Hall, 1996;
Herring, 1996a). In contrast, men generally appear to be less concerned with
politeness; they issue bald face-threatening acts such as unmitigated
criticisms and insults, violate online rules of conduct, tolerate or even
enjoy 'flaming', and tend to be more concerned about threats to freedom of
expression than with attending to others' social "face" (Herring, 1994,
1996a, 1999)."

CMC is computer-mediated communication, "asynchronous" CMC refers to
newsgroups, mailing lists, etc. as opposed to instant messaging.

Knowing all this, an optimistic man may try to change everyone's mind on the
importance of good behaviour and civility, and to create a forum where both
men and women can participate comfortably. Wikipedia itself was started with
such ideals in mind (e.g. "WikiLove"). But my experience has led me to be
more jaded.

I support Wikichix, in the hopes that it may become a platform for women to
discuss the implicit bias against them in male-dominated wikis, in a forum
where they won't be subjected to instant incredulity and attack, as they
have been in this thread. I hope that they will be able to formulate and
promote guidelines for non-discrimination, for application at mixed wikis
such as Wikipedia. In the meantime, while they're waiting for these
guidelines to be accepted by the community at large, Wikichix may be able to
expound the problem and discuss coping strategies, so that they can more
confidently participate in the present-day wiki culture.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] Attack blogs in WP:LIVING articles

body:
On 12/4/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 18:50:21 -0500, "The Cunctator"
> <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> You really think attack blogs should be linked to articles on living
> >> individuals on the grounds that readers can make up their own minds?
> >> Wow.
>
> >Is that "Wow" facetious? I hope so.
>
> Not especially, no.  If one is George W. Bush, and an attack blog is
> in the top 50 sites on Alexa, I'd expect it to be linked, but this is
> a trivial story from the election, almost entirely unrelated to the
> MP's performance of her duties and of strictly limited significance in
> her life as a whole.  Constituent opposes candidate?  Interesting
> during the election, maybe interesting as a sidenote.  Constituent
> opposes candidate, read all the garbage here?  Not really the kind of
> thing we should aspire to have in biographies, surely?

You didn't write "You really think trivially related sites should be
linked to articles on living people on the grounds that readers can
make up their own minds?"

And I wasn't responding to that, since that's not what you wrote.

So I'm not sure where you got the impetus to write your response to my question.


list: commons-l

from_name: Yuval Y

subject: [Commons-l] Blind move

body:
 The problem is that he's "using
Pywikipediabot<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Using_the_python_wikipediabot>to
upload many files to commons". I wrote him (in english, though) not to
use this bot.
We have Polski speakers administrators in commons, I guess we can explain
him that he sould understand what *exactly *he's doing.

Best regards, Yuval Y
user:Yuval Y

On 12/5/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 05/12/06, Artur Fija?kowski <wiki.warx at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I see, that someone (user:LeonardoG) is making great job moving images
> > from pt.wiki to Commons...
> >
> >
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=LeonardoG
> >
> >
> > Yeah  ... great, but:
> >
> > * He doesn't categorise it
> > * He doesn't put them into galleries
> > * He doesn't change stupid filenames to normal (eg. DSC_XXXXXX.JPG)
> > * He moves copyvios from pt.wiki (I've found book cover, DVD screen,
> > CD Audio with cover, Hagrid's figurine, image of character from
> > SouthPark ...)
> >
> > So it's not great at all...
> >
> > So my question is:
> >
> > what to do with such users ?
>
> If they have already done significant damage, write them a strongly
> worded personal note as a last warning asking them to stop.
> If they continue to upload without responding, block them (short block
> to get their attention).
> Request that they understand our rules and clean up their existing
> mess before doing any more uploads.
> Once the block expires, if they ignore this and continue to upload,
> block them again (this time a bit longer).
>
>
> Continue until stream of copyvios ceases (user learns, or gives up due
> to lengths of blocks).
>
> We should feel confident in blocking users who (maybe inadvertently)
> cause disruption like this.
>
> regards,
> Brianna
> user:pfctdayelise
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20061205/50cdb99d/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] overzealous image deletion?

body:
On 12/5/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been assuming that the policy about not applying "fair use" for
> these photographs was entirely of Wikipedia's design, and is not
> really related to copyright law. You're suggesting that we're actually
> breaking copyright law if we do use "fair use" for promotional
> photographs instead of going out and taking a new photo. Does anyone
> know either way?
>

It depends.

Questions of what the law says can only really be answered on a case
by case basis and generealy need to be quite carefuly defined (for
example a trivial answer to you question is that it would be illegal
but that is because you failed to specify the legal system you were
tlaking about).

> Can you steal a promotional image which some B grade hollywood star
> desperately wants everyone to use at any opportunity?

Certainly the most obvious case would be one in which the hollywood
star did not own the copyright to the photo.

> I certainly
> agree with you about people filling gaps - I've taken quite a few
> "gap-filler" photos myself - but taking good photos of celebrities is
> pretty hard. Here's an example:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jerry_Seinfeld_%281997%29.jpg
>
> We're not even sure that this *is* a free image, and this is at the
> better end of the scale of the free celebrity photos we have. And do
> you think Seinfeld, his publicist, us, or anyone is really happy that
> we have a crappy photo of him rather than a professionally executed
> publicity shot?

The publicist is free to release a photo under a lisence we can use.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] overzealous image deletion?

body:
On 12/5/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Whatever legal system the rest of en Wikipedia operates under -
> presumably US law.
>

Assumeing you mean what legal system wikipedai puts the most effort
into following then yes that would be US law when it comes to
copyright.

> We're talking about publicity shots aren't we?

You didn't state that in your example.

> As in, photos that are
> provided to the media so they can write puff pieces about
> them...presumably the publicist owns the copyright, and presumably it
> is legal for the media to use them this way. So presumably also legal
> for Wikipedia to use them as the lead image for relevant articles. But
> possibly not legal for downstream Wikipedia content reusers...
>

Also may not be legal to edit the images which pesents problems. Would
need to see the exact terms of the release though.

> The interesting issue though is that we probably have permission to
> use these types of images without resorting to "fair use", but we
> actually prohibit ourselves from using that kind of image: we accept
> free images, we accept fair use...but not "permission granted for
> Wikipedia". It's a strange one.
>

Very stong fair use cases could potentialy be the equiverlent of free.

> I guess "we can use" is a self-imposed limitation that doesn't have
> much to do with the law.

It has a fair bit to do with the law since the problems verious
restictions (or strangely the lack of them) can cause are part of the
reason we try to avoid them.

--
geni


from_name: Puppy

body:
It seems to me the answer is to open the list to all genders, as has
already been pointed out. Its like Cleanup vs. Delete.

The Cunctator wrote:
> On 12/4/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The Cunctator wrote:
>>
>>> This should not be one the Wikmedia servers. Just start a googlegroup.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Why not?
>>
>
>
>
> Because:
> * The list is restricted based on the discriminatory preference of gender
> * A goal of the list is to provide an outside forum for advocating change in
> Wikimedia/Wikipedia
> * Having Wikimedia resources be used to support the list implies endorsement
> of its standards and goals
> * Having Wikimedia resources be used to support the list means that
> Wikimedia can apply pressure on/control over the users of the list
>
> Or, in more classical Cunctator language, it's a bad idea. So do it on your
> own dime.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>


from_name: Laurence Parry

subject: [WikiEN-l] Handling unreferenced but likely-valid material

body:
> > That's going to be my last reply, as it seems to me that basically
> > you do not agree with the verifiability policy.
>
>I don't think anyone actually follows the policy (in its strict
>interpretation), so I'm not alone. I do believe we should have a
>workable policy, and what I'm advocating comes pretty close to what is
>actually followed in practice: harmful material must be verifiable,
>otherwise warn readers about unverifiable material.

The trouble with current policies is that, every so often, individuals or
groups go on rampages, putting whole topics and topic groups that are useful
to some but not particularly verifiable through the "reliable" sources up
for deletion. Those interested in the article can't defend it properly
because the policies, as written, side with those asking for it to be
deleted, even if that's not the way in which they're "meant to be
interpreted," and even if the articles are entirely true and nobody's
arguing with their accuracy. Net result, fewer articles.

Of course, many of the articles deleted in such cases deserve it. This is
not an argument for poorly written stubs. Still, I'm sure regular AfD
patrollers can think of plenty of situations where they really want to have
an excuse not to delete an article, but just can't argue with the people
saying that, by the rules, it should be deleted. This is not a good
situation to be in. People should not have to look for verifiability excuses
to prevent deletion. They should be able to say with a clear conscience,
"No, I think this information is useful, and accurate, and it should stay in
our encyclopedia."

---
Laurence "GreenReaper" Parry
http://greenreaper.co.uk/ - http://wikifur.com/

_________________________________________________________________
It's Hotmail's 10th Birthday! Come and play Pass the Parcel
http://www.msnpasstheparcel.com


body:
Now *that* would be a Good Idea, if we could keep the trolls off it. I
argued against a women's list from the beginning, as I feel it would
widen the gap. LinuxChix was incredibly helpful (and probably still is)
to a number of women, though, and I think /especially/ because the list
is not closed to men. The list belongs to the women, so they feel safe -
and men who join the list find out very quickly what women consider
bias, because (it being "their turf") they don't hesitate to tell men
when they are being offensive. It surprises a lot of men what women find
offensive, and why - so it has educated a lot of men, too, who initially
were highly dismissive and refused to believe there was bias. Several of
the posts on this list would have received a good deal of attention had
they been made on LinuxChix - here some of them were barely noticed,
others not at all. The women's list here might serve the same purpose,
were it open to men as well.
-puppy

Oldak Quill wrote:
> On 04/12/06, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> That being said, I don't think it's for us males to demand that the
>> womenfolk open up their new clubhouse to us. If it is the right thing
>> to do, I do believe that initiative can and will come from the group
>> itself.
>>
>
> I don't see what's wrong with the community determining what official
> clubhouses there are. I object to this divisive and discriminatory
> list as a human being, not as a man. When I contribute, I do not think
> of myself as a "male contributor", a "homosexual contributor", or a
> "student contributor" and fail to see why any of these aspects should
> deny me access to particular areas of discussion.
>
> If the real reason for this list is the level of aggression on this
> list, then make the list based upon that aspect. I'm sure there are
> many non-female contributors who object to some of the aggression on
> this list.
>
>


from_name: Birgitte SB

subject: [Foundation-l] [Wikichix-l] Moderating an open list

body:
--- Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2006/12/5, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com>:
> >
> > From others, one of who "hopes we'll look back on
> this and not believe
> > how bad it was"
> > --
> > No need for women-only channels? The problem may
> be worse than you
> > realised...
> >
> > Below are some of the responses to the
> announcement of wikichix's
> > founding.
>
>
> These comments show that there's people who don't
> think a women-only channel
> is necessary. Somehow I don't see how that is a
> proof that it *is*
> necessary....
>
>
> --
> Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
> ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
> _______________________________________________
>

These comments show exactly why women find it taboo to
discuss women's issues in a community such as this.

Birgitte SB

____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Handling unreferenced but likely-valid 	material

body:
On 12/1/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:

>> Claims that are
>> almost certainly true but uncited should be left in and have a
>> citation
>> supplied---this is what the {{fact}} tag is for.

Precisely.

What troubles me are the editors who object to usage of the {{fact}}
tag.


from_name: Jim Schuler

subject: [WikiEN-l] Nazi userboxes

body:
On 12/5/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
>
> On 30/11/06, Rory Stolzenberg <rory096 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The userboxes aren't templates, so they don't fall under T1. The US has
> > nearly total protection of free speech, so espousing beliefs, even
> Naziism,
> > isn't illegal.
>
> As far as I am aware, neither Wikipedia nor the Wikimedia Foundation
> are the United States.
>
>
> --
> Earle Martin
>            http://downlode.org/
> http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/

Are you speaking "virtually" as in "it's on the 'net", or physically?"  Last
I saw, Wiki was a Private Foundation und the Internal Revenue Code of the
US, filing its tax forms (990's) from Florida.

--
> Jim
> http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/


body:
On Dec 5, 2006, at 1:20 AM, wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org wrote:
> From: Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net>
>
>> On 12/1/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
>>> The verifiability policy has never been a hardline policy, but a
>>> guideline and something to aim towards.  When it was first adopted,
>>> nobody thought it meant that we should summarily delete the 80%+
>>> of the
>>> encyclopedia that at the time was unsourced.  Instead what it
>>> meant was
>>> that we should begin going through and adding sources to it.
>
> What if a person picks a random article from the 80% of the
> encyclopedia
> that isn't sourced and says "I'm going to delete this unless
> someone else
> sources it"?

If "ifs" and "ans" were pots and pans we'd have no need of tinkers.

If it happened to an article I cared about and was knowledgeable
about, I'd add some sources.

If someone did it rapidly and wholesale to articles in what appeared
to be a biased way, I'd call WP:POINT on them.

I don't think 80% of our articles are _utterly_ unsourced, by the
way. Let's do a quick reality check. I'm going to hit the "random
article" button ten times:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_asynchronous_receiver/transmitter
    Good example of an utterly unsourced article that shouldn't be
deleted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Moss
    Good external link to a bio. Badly sourced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewer%
27s_Dictionary_of_Irish_Phrase_and_Fable
    Stub article. Does an ISBN number count as a source? I think so,
because it can be used to
    locate further information. Badly sourced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half_Dead_and_Dynamite
    Pop culture article. Three OK external links. Badly sourced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitri_Markov
    An athlete. Good external link to "IAAF profile for Dmitri
Markov." Badly sourced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Ferragamo
    Seven-or-eight-paragraph article on an athlete. Utterly unsourced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_McClen
    An athlete. Are you sure the random article button works? Two
good external links. Badly sourced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dusky_Thrush
    Good print source. Good external link. No inline sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pok?mon_Dash
    Three OK web "references." One OK external link (Nintendo's
official Pok?mon Dash game profile).
    One fansite external link. One inadequately-cited print reference
("Instruction manual for Pok?mon Dash").
    Weakly sourced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tiller
    Controversial abortion doctor. Eleven inline citations to
reasonably good news sources.

So, there you have it.

Nothing like "80%" of our articles are unsourced. The vast majority
of them might be called feebly sourced (no inline citations, what
citations there are are mostly web links.

So, in answer to the hypothetical, if anyone tried to delete the
entire article on the basis of its being "unsourced," I'd strongly
object in the case of nine of the ten. In the case of the UART
article, I believe I could scare up a couple of sources in about ten
minutes and that's probably what I'd do.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nazi userboxes

body:
On 12/5/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
>
> On 05/12/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > As far as I am aware, neither Wikipedia nor the Wikimedia Foundation
> > > are the United States.
> >
> > True, Wikipedia can have rules in addition to the law. However, what
> > are discrimination laws like in the US? Could banning Nazis get the
> > Foundation into legal difficulties?
>
> Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, or even an American. That said, it
> appears to me that Wikipedia is a privately-operated members' club,
> and is entitled to specify what is allowed not to be said or done on
> its premises, much as the Britney Spears Fan Club is entitled to kick
> out people who insist that Christina Aguilera is cooler. Neither is a
> violation of US law.
>
>
> --
> Earle Martin
>            http://downlode.org/
> http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/

Might depend on tax law.  If I remember correctly (it's been 15 years since
I dealt with this), 501(c) and 501(c)(3) tax-exempt and private foundations
can run afoul of the IRS if there is a clear indication of active
discrimination.  In this case, I don't see any evidence of an active policy
of discrimination -- the issue at hand focuses around the banning of a
troll.

--
Jim
http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/


body:
Reverse discrimination would be (for example) if women admins were
promoted on a basis of lower community support, in order to achieve a
more balanced ratio - a process often referred to as affirmative action,
and strongly supported by many. Providing women, who feel very much
attacked and unwelcome, a safe place to discuss this issue, where they
can receive support from other women, reality-checks, and advice on how
to handle it, all without the fear that some man will dismiss their
valid concerns as irrelevant or nonsense (which can be devastating to an
already hurt woman), is helping to make this family of projects more
women-friendly. This is not discrimination. Unless you consider allowing
women to feel safe is discrimination.

One puppy's opinion.

Bryan Derksen wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>> That being said, I don't think it's for us males to demand that the
>> womenfolk open up their new clubhouse to us. If it is the right thing
>> to do, I do believe that initiative can and will come from the group
>> itself.
>>
>
> Continuing the analogy, the women-only clubhouse (mailing list) in
> question is built on community land (WikiMedia Foundation servers). I
> think it's entirely reasonable for members of that community to be
> objecting to this.
>
> WikiMedia Foundation shouldn't be supporting a mailing list founded on a
> fundamental principle of gender discrimination. Wikichix already has a
> separate host for their wiki, why can't they host their own mailing list
> there too?
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Nazi userboxes

body:
On 12/5/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
>
> On 05/12/06, Jim Schuler <jim62sch at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/5/06, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
> > > As far as I am aware, neither Wikipedia nor the Wikimedia Foundation
> > > are the United States.
> >
> > Are you speaking "virtually" as in "it's on the 'net", or
> physically?"  Last
> > I saw, Wiki was a Private Foundation und the Internal Revenue Code of
> the
> > US, filing its tax forms (990's) from Florida.
>
> If you read my statement more carefully, you will notice that I did
> not say "are *in* the United States".
>
> (ObOldTimerGrouch: "Wiki" has long been the proper name of the
> WikiWikiWeb, not Wikipedia.)
>
> --
> Earle Martin
>            http://downlode.org/
> http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/

My bad, I mentally inserted the "in". You're correct in that respect --
Wikipedia is *not* the US.  However, by filing its tax returns from Florida,
it is subject to the laws of the US, although for internet policies, any
other country can place its own restrictions/regulations on Wikipedia as a
"virtual" entity.

I guess all of us non-old-timers (under two years or so?) are guilty then --
pretty much all of us refer to it as Wiki.

--
> Jim
> http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/


body:
--- Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> --- Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Why the aggressive resistance against an
> additional resource for
> > women? Why is the idea so threatening?...how is an
> additional channel
> > segregational?
>
> Um, well, for me and at least some other posters,
> the only problem with
> WikiChix is that the additional channel *is*
> segregational -- female-only.
> Other than that, I support it entirely.
>
> > Credit where credit's due: thanks for your
> considered and thoughtful
> > responses goes to GerardM, Yann, Birgette SB,
> Anthere, Lars, Michael
> > Snow, and Tim Starling.
>
> So these all the people that agreed with you? And,
> by thinly-veiled
> implication, any other response was ill-considered
> and unthoughtful?
>
> > help call attention to and discourage sexist
> attitudes
> > and assumptions expressed in Wikimedia wherever
> you find them. If you
> > find yourself hesitating to reply publicly because
> you don't want to
> > "feed the trolls", consider sending the author a
> private reply. We can
> > use peer pressure to let "bad apples" know that
> their attitudes are
> > not shared or welcome. But also consider what
> message will be
> > understood by list lurkers, by not replying at
> all.
>
> I'll bear it in mind. One potential product of
> WikiChix that I would like to
> read is a list of suggestions as to how WikiBlokes
> can act, or not act, in
> order to make Wikipedia more female-friendly.
>
> -- Matt
>

Here is maybe a misunderstanding.  I can not tell you
how should act differently.  I cannot even articulate
why my sister would *never* participate on-wiki.  I
instrinsically know she would not.  I can't say why.
Honestly I have not given it much thought before.
However I am not going to discuss my half-formed ideas
on a taboo subject with people who are dismissive of
the idea that such discussion is even worthwhile.
With people who doubt that there is actually an issue
at all about women not participating.

Birgitte SB

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Request to mailing list Wikichix-l rejected

body:
Guettarda wrote:
>
> But the list was organised to avoid a specific problem
> - women feeling uncomfortable posting to this male-dominated list where
> explicitly sexist statements (even if they weren't meant seriously) are
> left
> unchallenged by a large number of people.
>
So "don't feed the trolls" is not universal advice?

Could somebody provide a list of topics on which it is safe to flame the
trolls, please, because I'm sure there are plenty who'd be happy to oblige.
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Fwd%3A-Request-to-mailing-list-Wikichix-l-rejected-tf2761775.html#a7700484
Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


body:
I would have preferred that not be done precipitously, without allowing
time for discussion. This is what, a two-day-old list, and a few men
have bitched about reverse discrimination, so oh too bad, let's toss the
women off the island??? "Peace of the community???' Bullshit. Several
men have supported the idea of a closed list. At least one woman (me)
has suggested opening the list. What about the peace of mind of women
contributors, to have a safe place to discuss issues? Oh, that's a
"women's topic" so its irrelevant? No. I don't think so. Its a pity this
was not discussed in any greater detail, rather than being (like so many
of the concerns which *led* to this list) being summarily dismissed. I
also find it telling that the /women's/ concerns were ridiculed and
dismissed as invalid, yet the /men's/ concerns led to almost immediate
action. How sadly typical.

Angela wrote:
> I'm not willing to fight about so I'll move the list to Wikia, but
> it's quite upsetting that despite the clear need for this list,
> Wikimedia are not willing to support it. Perhaps the old Wikimedia
> WikiChix list can be made into an open but moderated one.
>
> Angela.
>
> On 12/5/06, florencedevouard <anthere at anthere.org> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> It seems best for the peace of the community that the Wikichix-l list is
>> not hosted on Wikimedia servers.
>> Could you move it to another place please Angela ? A Yahoo Group maybe ?
>>
>> Please receive my apologies.
>>
>> Ant
> _______________________________________________
> Wikichix-l mailing list
> Wikichix-l at wikia.com
> http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikichix-l
>


from_name: Jens Frank

subject: [Wikitech-l] Europe down

body:
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 09:02:11PM -0800, Brion Vibber wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Brion Vibber wrote:
> > There appear to be some major problems upstream from our European
> > proxies in Amsterdam; about 15 minutes downtime there so far. Mark's
> > switching DNS for Europe to the Florida servers in case the problem
> > continues.
> >
> > Note that our Bugzilla installation is also hosted on the European
> > servers, so it'll remain offline as well until Amsterdam's back up.
>
> Looks like things are back online; servers seem to have survived, so
> it's just the network that was out.
>
> Haven't fiddled with DNS yet.

Changed DNS back to default settings. Traffic in Amsterdam is slowly
growing.

Regards,

	jens


from_name: david at election.demon.co.uk

body:
Guy Chapman asks The Cunctator:
>
>What do you think should be the circumstances under which we link an
>attack blog from an article on a living individual?

I would answer this question as follows: Only if the blog has been
referred to by mainstream publication, and is mentioned in the text.

The situation would be different where (as in the case of people like
Noam Chomsky) there exists a separate article devoted to criticism.
WP:BLP still applies to such an article, but more extensive linking
would be appropriate. In such a case I would judge the value of the
link by the contents of the blog.

david at election.demon.co.uk - Ta fys aym.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .


body:
As did I. However, strong points have been made in favor of a women's
only list, and reinforced by the unbelievable hostility and trolling
which this whole issue has received on the en and foundation lists. No
wonder some women want a safe place where they are not subjected to such
overt hostility and dismissiveness! Surely it would be a plus for the
community were we to provide such a safe haven. We may have a stronger
chance of retaining women contributors, and possibly even manage to clue
the insensitive jerks who post "boobs" jokes about how that kind of
thing makes most women want to run far, far away. I have already posted
on the en list my thoughts concerning perceived reverse discrimination.

Oldak Quill wrote:
> On 05/12/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm not willing to fight about so I'll move the list to Wikia, but
>> it's quite upsetting that despite the clear need for this list,
>> Wikimedia are not willing to support it. Perhaps the old Wikimedia
>> WikiChix list can be made into an open but moderated one.
>>
>
> I don't want to speak for anyone else, but many of the objectors (me
> included) seemed to support an open-to-all moderated list on the
> Wikimedia servers.
>
>


from_name: Matthew Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Discrimination on Wikipedia

body:
On 12/5/06, Gregory Kohs <thekohser at gmail.com> wrote:
> Alphax makes the common mistake of confusing the "submission" with the
> "submitter".  All public relations workers are not welcome to edit in
> Wikipedia, regardless of the quality of their writing, or even whether
> independent non-paid editors in good standing have personally vetted the
> content before it's posted.

Missing one important proviso: public relations workers are quite
welcome to edit wikipedia in a personal capacity.  What has been
prohibited is editing Wikipedia on behalf of a paying client.

-Matt


from_name: Rich Holton

subject: [WikiEN-l] First fair use criterium

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> Public buildings is a clear case, but I think the main problem lies with
> pictures of people.
> Unless you want to commit a felony and stalk them, it's pretty much
> impossible to get non-fair use images for small time actors who don't visit
> premieres or award ceremonies.
>
> Mgm
>

I admit that I've never tried myself, but it seems to me that most of
these people would be eager to release a free photo. Does actual
experience prove otherwise? Or has there really not been much of an
attempt made?

-Rich


body:
Charles R. Matthews writes:
>
>Some tension between your two points, here. Milton, we assume, commented
>on the blog, i.e. she reacted to its existence.

Would it not be more accurate to say she reacted to its contents? For
instance I don't suppose she would have reacted, or the blog would have
been noticed, if its criticism was limited to (e.g.) her dress sense.

>There might be some cause to include the blog in the article if her
>reaction had been extreme (e.g. legal measures). But if it is being
>argued that her reaction was in any sense over-reaction, then indeed
>including the blog in the Milton article is a negative comment ("MP
>lashes back at blogger shock", in tabloid terms); and so the BLP
>guideline is relevant.

Hmm. Quite difficult, that one, since WP:NPOV applies. The article does
report Milton as having refused to discuss the blog contents and having
described Tim Ireland dismissively. Is that an over-reaction? Almost
certainly not. Does that engage WP:BLP? Probably not, although even if
it did, the sources are adequate to keep it. The report from Sandra
Howard, which might be considered an over-reaction and probably does
engage WP:BLP, isn't included. However, the fact that it is not
included in the article doesn't mean we dismiss it from our thoughts
when assessing the noteworthiness of the blog.

>This only makes for Milton's notability if politicians rarely do this.

I do not see the relevance. As I pointed out before, the issue is not
Milton's notability (she's automatically notable as an MP) but whether
a critical blog is noteworthy. That depends on whether the criticism
is targeted at the reason she is notable, or at some other aspect, and
here it is unquestionably targeted at her political activity.

>I really think, outside the rather airless atmosphere of Westminster
>politics, this gets the big 'so what?'.

I think we're discussing the blue-rinsed atmosphere of Guildford politics.
Does "so what?" apply to the blog or the debate over the blog, though?

david at election.demon.co.uk - Ta fys aym

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .


body:
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/011864.html

Gatto Nero wrote:
> 2006/12/5, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com>:
>
>> As did I. However, strong points have been made in favor of a women's
>> only list, and reinforced by the unbelievable hostility and trolling
>> which this whole issue has received on the en and foundation lists.
>>
>
> Trolling? On foundation-l?
> Could you show some examples?
>
> Gatto Nero / Claudio
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>


body:
--- Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2006/12/5, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com>:
> >
> > From what I read below, we are in agreement - yet
> many women feel it
> > would be beneficial to have somewhere to discuss
> bias where they do not
> > have to worry about immediately being attacked for
> even bringing up the
> > bias issue. That is not, as yet, here.
> >
>
> I don't see any indication that people get attacked
> for bringing up the
> issue. I don't see much attacking going on, although
> the discussion isn't as
> civil as it should be either - from both sides. But
> if you see everyone who
> has doubts about the extent of sexism in Wikipedia
> as attacking you for
> bringing it forward, you are indeed too
> thin-skinned. Why not see those as
> requests for information instead?
>
> You know what's attacking? Attacking is what I did
> to my furniture about an
> hour ago :-(
>
> --
> Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
> ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
>

A person says they are worried about being attacked
for bringing up an issue and the response is that
don't know what it means to be "attacked".  That only
physical attacks count.  That "worring about being
attacked" (i.e. feeling intimidated) means she is
"thin-skined".  Seriously fuck off.

Birgitte SB

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


body:
Anthere wrote:
> I knew this subject will end up a huge troll, I knew it....
>
>
> Puppy wrote:
>
>> I would have preferred that not be done precipitously, without allowing
>> time for discussion. This is what, a two-day-old list, and a few men
>> have bitched about reverse discrimination, so oh too bad, let's toss the
>> women off the island??? "Peace of the community???' Bullshit. Several
>> men have supported the idea of a closed list. At least one woman (me)
>> has suggested opening the list. What about the peace of mind of women
>> contributors, to have a safe place to discuss issues? Oh, that's a
>> "women's topic" so its irrelevant?
>>
> `
> For the record, I do not appreciate the implication of your email saying
> that because the choice is made not to host the list on Wikimedia
> servers for the peace of our community, that necessarily implies that
> the women concerns are irrelevant. Since I originally agreed for the
> opening of that list, and later asked Angela to move it somewhere else,
> I tend to take your comment very personnally. I understand you are
> upset, but I still do not appreciate that.
>
> So, we have two options. Either a closed list. Or a heavily moderated list.
>
> I am not very happy with a closed list, restricted to women. I am not
> very supportive of positive discrimination. Men and women are different,
> with different concerns, different sensibilities, different interest,
> different approaches to things. I have never been of the opinion we
> should try to be "equal" in everything. I do not think we can be. We are
> complementing each other. Two parts of a complete piece. We overlap. But
> we will never be equal. Trying to push things toward an artificial
> equality will not change that. We need input of both parts and imho, to
> realise both parts are necessary in the debate. In this, I think the
> list should not be restricted to women.
>
> When the proposal was made to open and heavily moderate the list, Angela
> comment was quite straight. Very heavy moderation is a good idea. Now,
> who does it ? Being myself the (very light) moderator of about half a
> dozen lists, I echo her question. Who will take in charge the heavy
> moderation ? If you really want women to be safe, you need to approve
> requests for joining, which means in many cases, you need to know the
> people. First trap. Either you accept anonymous membership by default
> and hope all will go well, or you accept only those you know. Which
> again is discrimination.
> If you want the women to feel real secure, you need to moderate posts
> *before* they are posted. Second trap. Are you willing to check all
> emails before they are posted ?
> If you are the moderator, how do you judge which comments should be
> removed and which one kept ? if I wanted to feel *safe*, I would
> probably delete several emails on this list from the past days, and at
> least a dozen from wikien on the discussion 2 weeks ago. Do you feel
> ready to do so for a list on wikimedia servers ? Because as soon as you
> get the job, you'll have people complaining that you removed this
> message and not that one. And then, in the name of democratie and
> equality, you'll find yourself voting on whether to remove a message. or
> not.
>
> I have a memory of such an event on the french wiki pump, maybe a year
> ago. A clueless visitor had left a honest question. And one of our admin
> left a very sexist comment/answer there; I was deeply shocked. Very
> deeply, in particular because the visitor... was just a visitor.
> I removed the comment. It was immediately restored and I was stormed for
> several days for having removed the comment. Which was considered
> censorship. Are you ready to face screams and accusations of censorship
> for having removed a sexist comment on a wiki ? Are you ready to face
> screams and accusation of censorship for removing a message containing a
> sexist comment on the list ?
>
> Dunno about you, but me, no more. I choose my fights. I prefer working
> as best as possible in the Foundation to show that women can perfectly
> do that. That as long as our specific needs are acknowledged and taken
> into account (which goes from not bugging us too much when we have our
> periods, to paying nanny costs of a volunteer mom), we can do just as
> best, if not better.
> Wikipedia is plagued by sexism, but at least, it has shown it is an
> environment where we have a chance to grow and show our own strengths.
>
> If you really want that list on wikimedia servers, here is what I
> recommand you do
> 1) make it an open list for men and women
> 2) get the agreement from Eloquence and Jimbo
> 3) take care of the moderation yourself, do not expect Angela to do it :-)
>
> If you do that yourself, you are a winner.
>
> anthere
>
>
> No. I don't think so. Its a pity this
>
>> was not discussed in any greater detail, rather than being (like so many
>> of the concerns which *led* to this list) being summarily dismissed. I
>> also find it telling that the /women's/ concerns were ridiculed and
>> dismissed as invalid, yet the /men's/ concerns led to almost immediate
>> action. How sadly typical.
>>
>>
<snip>
I apologize for being unclear. I meant that the posts which protested
the list were largely dismissing any concerns as irrelevant. Secondly, I
fail to see how you, who are clearly trying to do the best you can in a
divisive situation, were personally hurt by anything I said. I apologize
both for whatever I said which was at fault, and for failing to read my
own posts clearly enough to be able to recognize the offending content.
Thirdly, are you saying I was trolling?
-kc-


body:
 From others, one of who "hopes we'll look back on this and not believe
how bad it was"
--
No need for women-only channels? The problem may be worse than you
realised...

Below are some of the responses to the announcement of wikichix's founding.

==wikiEN-l==
[http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-December/057595.html
wikiEN-l], December 2006:

''Such a list seems to encourage a sense of difference where there isn't
one.''
[http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-December/057605.html]

''I wasn't even aware such bias existed apart from the occasional help
or refdesk request addressed as "Dear Sirs". Can you give any examples
of sexism or bias on WP or the mailing list?''
[http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-December/057608.html]

''This statement implicitly assumes that there _is_ sexism,
discrimination and bias present in the Wikipedia community. That's
begging the question. I've never seen it, and considering it's a rare
thing when  I actually know what the gender of another editor is I have
trouble figuring out how it would even be practical.''
[http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-December/057637.html]

''I don't like this idea at all. It's the first case of sexism I've seen
on Wikipedia. Discriminating against men is not a solution to
discrimination against women (which as far as I can tell, doesn't exist
anyway).''
[http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-December/057615.html]

==foundation-l==
[http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/011863.html
foundation-l], December 2006:

''I don't understand the problem...
''If female editors has problems to participate in discussion I think
that this is a general problem which sould be solved in another way.
''I could agree with you if female editors are slower than male
contributors to write and they need a dedicated list for this reason!''
[http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/011870.html]

''Since women have the ability to contribute here the same as men, I
really don't see why this is needed. Surely the scepticism being shown
to this idea from many men is proof positive of the fact that no-one is
being opressed. How ironic to have women in this day and age proposing
their own seperate mailing list from men, since so many feminists fought
so hard for gender equality. This looks to me like a step backward.''
[http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/011892.html]

''Seperate but equal doesn't wash any more, get with the new millennium.
If people have things to say, they can say them here. And I can't for
the life of me imagine how anyone who feels "intimidated" on a Wikimedia
mailing list survives day-to-day life of interaction with real live
human beings. Some people are too sensitive, methinks.''
[http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/011882.html]

''But seriously, I would like to understand if opening such a list  will
entitle other groups (based on  gender, race, political or religious
belief, and alikes) who feel Wikipedia has a bias "against" them to ask
WMF to open a dedicated list.''
[http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/011890.html]

Gatto Nero wrote:
> 2006/12/5, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com>:
>
>> http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/011864.html
>>
>
> Having a worried opinion is a trolling?
>
> If you're used to label as troll everyone who has an opinion different
> than yours, then it's useless to continue this discussion.
>
> Gatto Nero / Claudio
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>


body:
You are truly clueless if you think what I'm calling "trolling" is a
difference of opinion.

Gatto Nero wrote:
> 2006/12/5, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com>:
>
>> http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-December/011864.html
>>
>
> Having a worried opinion is a trolling?
>
> If you're used to label as troll everyone who has an opinion different
> than yours, then it's useless to continue this discussion.
>
> Gatto Nero / Claudio
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>


from_name: Ken Arromdee

subject: [WikiEN-l] Handling unreferenced but likely-valid  material

body:
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
> > What if a person picks a random article from the 80% of the
> > encyclopedia
> > that isn't sourced and says "I'm going to delete this unless
> > someone else
> > sources it"?
>
> If "ifs" and "ans" were pots and pans we'd have no need of tinkers.
>
> If it happened to an article I cared about and was knowledgeable
> about, I'd add some sources.
>
> If someone did it rapidly and wholesale to articles in what appeared
> to be a biased way, I'd call WP:POINT on them.

What about [[Video game crash of 1983]]?


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] First fair use criterium

body:
Rich Holton wrote:
> MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>
>> Public buildings is a clear case, but I think the main problem lies with
>> pictures of people.
>> Unless you want to commit a felony and stalk them, it's pretty much
>> impossible to get non-fair use images for small time actors who don't visit
>> premieres or award ceremonies.
>>
>> Mgm
>>
>>
>
>
> I admit that I've never tried myself, but it seems to me that most of
> these people would be eager to release a free photo. Does actual
> experience prove otherwise? Or has there really not been much of an
> attempt made?
>
In fact I can't think of any examples where a small-time actor was
contacted and said "no". The usual problem is to explain that we want a
"free license" not just "permission" - very few people understand the
distinction, and going by some of the answers to our boilerplate
letters, they didn't read the letter that closely...

The Free Software Foundation solves this for their software by making
every would-be contributor physically sign two pages of legalese - along
with a VP of the contributor's employer if it's a computer-related
company - and keeping all those in a file cabinet. This all seemed like
a ridiculous procedure until free software started putting proprietary
companies out of business, now it's a key bulwark against legal attack
by the remaining companies.

Stan


body:
Anthere wrote:
> Puppy wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>> I apologize for being unclear. I meant that the posts which protested
>> the list were largely dismissing any concerns as irrelevant. Secondly, I
>> fail to see how you, who are clearly trying to do the best you can in a
>> divisive situation, were personally hurt by anything I said.
>>
>
> I was the one who agreed for the list to be open. But also the one who
> asked for it to be moved somewhere else. So, practically speaking, I
> "tossed the women from the island".
>
I didn't view it that way. I viewed it that in an astonishingly short
time, in spite of strong supportive statements from a number of men, the
list was removed due to pressure from men who either did not see the
problem, or did not see (and would not keep an open mind to the idea)
that this proposed solution could be beneficial. You may have been the
agent, but you were not the precipitor.
>
> Speaking of moderation. I am receiving the chix list from wikia, but my
> posts there are apparently moderated (I can prove my gender if
> necessary). I am sorry that I depress Brianna.
>
> It is a daily amazement to me that people can spend so many mails over a
> chick issue, and not even one comment on fundraising or budget. Sorry
> kc, just not the same priorities.
>
>
Speaking only for myself, until the thread on en, I didn't think there
was a terribly serious problem - my eyes are opened now. I joined the
foundation list specifically to address this issue here. While I share
your concern about budgets, it is clear this is a powerful and divisive
issue and perhaps that attracts more attention than a crucial, yet
uncontroversial, issue.
-kc-


body:
Gatto Nero wrote:
> 2006/12/5, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com>:
>
>> You are truly clueless if you think what I'm calling "trolling" is a
>> difference of opinion.
>>
>
> That's what I liked to know: what is that you define "trolling"?
> Because you linked my first intervention in this issue, when I was
> just expressing some doubts about the utility this kind of ML could
> have for fighting gender bias.
> It could be interesting to know *how* you have read my intervention,
> what you have read in it.
>
>
I read the following:
--
 >Oh. My. God. Which will be the next one? WikiNigger? WikiFaggot?
--
as ridiculing the idea, comparing a list for women (not WikiBitches, not
WikiWhores, not WikiCunts, not some derogatory term) with your
intentionally offensive terms for blacks and gays. This has the result
of implying that women who perceive the need for this list are "less
than" - as calling a black person a "nigger" implies he or she is "less
than" and so underlines the bias and bigotry. This is trolling. The "Oh.
My. God." is clearly expressing contempt for the idea. This is trolling.
A clearly reasoned statement, such as Bryan Tong Minh's post:
--
 >The fact that there is a slight male bias on the projects is caused by
the fact that there are simply more male contributers. I think however
that the problem will not be solved by introducing a new list that is
more womenfriendly. If there are problems, segregration will only
enlarge the effect. If there are any problems that people feel
discriminated on a list, the solution is to remove the discrimination,
not the discriminated persons! If women are equal to men, which I think
they are, they should go into discussion rather then flee it. If men are
equal to women, which I think most of us are, then we should accept that
discussion, and make the projects a nice place for everybody.
--
is a disagreement without being trolling. Do you see the difference? Or
am I being unclear?

-kc-


body:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
> This is all semantic quibbling. The basic situation is simply this;
> Wikimedia has a mailing list for the discussion of editing Wikipedia,
> and I am not permitted to join this mailing list because I happen to be
> male (a "condition" that has no affect whatsoever on my editing, and
> which is only known because years back I decided to use my real name
> instead of some uninformative pseudonym).
>
> That is discrimination. Whether it's "reverse" of not is of no concern
> to me, the effect is exactly the same.
>
Yawn. Sorry, you're not Rosa Parks. Do you barge into women's restrooms
and start declaiming about reverse discrimination there too?

If wikichix-l members develop a consensus decision about something that
actually affects WP, they'll have to present it more widely sooner or
later, which will give you plenty of opportunity to savage it.

Stan


from_name: Guettarda

body:
On 12/5/06, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
>
> > Subscription request
> > has been rejected by the list moderator.  The moderator gave the
> > following reason for rejecting your request:
>
> > "Hi Cunctator. We're only accepting women at this time. I suggest you
> > comment on the existing Wikimedia lists instead. This presence of this
> > list isn't meant to prevent men commening - which you can still do on
> > wikien-l etc."
>
> Maybe we should have a mailing list just for men, too! And a mailing list
> for British people where no Americans are allowed! Or a mailing list
> just for atheists where no Christians would be accepted!

Has a need for British-only or atheist-only lists been identified?  I
haven't noticed ay such discussion on this list.  If such an issue has been
identified and discussed, then it's worth considering.  If it's just based
on the fact that people feel excluded - sure, I don't like being excluded
from things either.  But the list was organised to avoid a specific problem
- women feeling uncomfortable posting to this male-dominated list where
explicitly sexist statements (even if they weren't meant seriously) are left
unchallenged by a large number of people.


body:
--- Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2006/12/5, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>:
>
> > A person says they are worried about being
> attacked
> > for bringing up an issue and the response is that
> > don't know what it means to be "attacked".  That
> only
> >
> physical attacks count.  That "worring about being
> > attacked" (i.e. feeling intimidated) means she is
> > "thin-skined".  Seriously fuck off.
> >
>
> That last remark was made jokingly. Unfortunately
> that's not how it has been
> read, I apologize for that. However, I DO think that
> feeling attacked by the
> discussion that has been taking place does mean one
> is too thin-skinned. And
> yes, I'm too thin-skinned too then. But I think it's
> bad to complain about
> attacking in a thread where one has done at least as
> much attacking as the
> others.
>
>
> --
> Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
> ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
>

Please forgive me for losing my cool before.

Let me try to spell this out in different terms
because people are not getting:

Someone may be worried about how their posts will be
recieved

Someone may feel intimidated.

Someone may worry female-specific concerns are
dismissed without being given serious consideration.

Someone may feel unwelcome.

It is inappropriate to respond to these ideas by
saying she should changes her feelings or lessen her
concerns and grow a thicker skin.

Any women who are posting here have learned how to
handle these sorts of response long ago.  The question
here is this: Do we wish Wikimedia to include the
women who are not currently participating?  Because
these inapppropriate responses have and will continue
to drive off women who have not learned how to handle
this.  These inappropriate responses lead the women
who do remain here to self-censor and minmize coming
across as female.  I am participating here and that
will not change.  The question is if you guys want my
sister to participate in Wikimedia, or if you remain
happy with significantly more men than women
contributing to the projects.  Because as long as you
guys continue to believe such responses are
appropriate rather than inappropriate nothing will
really happen except I may occasionaly get pissed off.

Birgitte SB

____________________________________________________________________________________
Cheap talk?
Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
http://voice.yahoo.com


body:
On 12/5/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Bogdan Giusca wrote:
> >> Subscription request
> >> has been rejected by the list moderator.  The moderator gave the
> >> following reason for rejecting your request:
> >
> >> "Hi Cunctator. We're only accepting women at this time. I suggest you
> >> comment on the existing Wikimedia lists instead. This presence of this
> >> list isn't meant to prevent men commening - which you can still do on
> >> wikien-l etc."
> >
> > Maybe we should have a mailing list just for men, too! And a mailing
> list
> > for British people where no Americans are allowed! Or a mailing list
> > just for atheists where no Christians would be accepted!
> >
>
> ... a mailing list for homosexual African-Americans from planets other
> than earth?

Now that the article has been deleted I think there is a real need for some
tool (such as a list) to deal with this sort of discrimination!


body:
I did not select those examples. Others did. I merely post them here for
consideration of the concept that there may indeed be subtle gender bias
- including an overall denial that there /is/ any bias - without
endorsement or comment - nor did I state that any of the examples given
were trolling.

Matt R wrote:
> --- Puppy <puppy at KillerChihuahua.com> wrote:
>
>>  From others, one of who "hopes we'll look back on this and not believe
>> how bad it was"
>> --
>> No need for women-only channels? The problem may be worse than you
>> realised...
>>
>> Below are some of the responses to the announcement of wikichix's founding.
>>
>
> kc, it's entirely not clear, but from the immediate context of the thread it
> seems you're saying that all those responses you quoted are examples of
> trolling. Disagreement or failure to see a problem isn't trolling.
>
> If the WikiChix are going to have an impact on Wikipedia at large, one of the
> things they're going to have to do is talk to men about it at some point. And
> in doing that, they're going to have to be willing to give evidence to those
> who can't see a problem and otherwise respectfully interact with people who
> disagree.
>
> -- Matt
>
> Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
> Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 05/12/06, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:

> Honestly, I think I am being discriminated against in this community because
> my patience for endless bickering is thin.

And we have a winner!

The big problem with Wikipedia is that working with people you
consider completely worthless idiots is not optional. And they think
you're an idiot too.

- d.


body:
Andre Engels wrote:
> 2006/12/5, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com>:
>
>> From others, one of who "hopes we'll look back on this and not believe
>> how bad it was"
>> --
>> No need for women-only channels? The problem may be worse than you
>> realised...
>>
>> Below are some of the responses to the announcement of wikichix's
>> founding.
>>
>
>
> These comments show that there's people who don't think a women-only channel
> is necessary. Somehow I don't see how that is a proof that it *is*
> necessary....
>
>
>
Had they all been actually discussing how to address gender bias in what
they felt were more constructive ways, I would be more inclined to agree
with you. As the examples given did not do so, but instead *invalidated*
the problem itself, and you are enforcing the perception of the women
who feel this list is necessary in order to /discuss/ bias rather than
/prove to a man's satisfaction that they feel discriminated against/, I
cannot possibly support your assertion. That said, I am still firmly on
the fence about this issue. I am not, however, dismissing it out-of-hand
because men don't see that it might help, or that there is a problem to
be addressed.

* Dismissal:
#''Such a list seems to encourage a sense of difference where there
isn't one.''
#''This statement implicitly assumes that there _is_ sexism,
discrimination and bias present in the Wikipedia community. That's
begging the question. I've never seen it, and considering it's a rare
thing when  I actually know what the gender of another editor is I have
trouble figuring out how it would even be practical.''
#''I don't like this idea at all. It's the first case of sexism I've
seen on Wikipedia. Discriminating against men is not a solution to
discrimination against women (which as far as I can tell, doesn't exist
anyway).''
# This one adds that men's opinions on how women are treated is "proof"
that the women are wrong: ''Since women have the ability to contribute
here the same as men, I really don't see why this is needed. Surely the
scepticism being shown to this idea from many men is proof positive of
the fact that no-one is being opressed. How ironic to have women in this
day and age proposing their own seperate mailing list from men, since so
many feminists fought so hard for gender equality. This looks to me like
a step backward.''

*Clueless, even after examples have been posted:
# 'I wasn't even aware such bias existed apart from the occasional help
or refdesk request addressed as "Dear Sirs". Can you give any examples
of sexism or bias on WP or the mailing list?''

Clueless and dismissive, along with a judgment (if you are injured, it
is because you are too sensitive, not because anyone is hurtful):
# ''Seperate but equal doesn't wash any more, get with the new
millennium. If people have things to say, they can say them here. And I
can't for the life of me imagine how anyone who feels "intimidated" on a
Wikimedia mailing list survives day-to-day life of interaction with real
live human beings. Some people are too sensitive, methinks.''

*I don't even know how to describe this one.
# ''I don't understand the problem...
''If female editors has problems to participate in discussion I think
that this is a general problem which sould be solved in another way.
''I could agree with you if female editors are slower than male
contributors to write and they need a dedicated list for this reason!''

-kc-


body:
On 05/12/06, Lars Aronsson <lars at aronsson.se> wrote:

> A moderator (kitchen cleaner?) could throw the offender off the
> list, but this is an open list.  This could be the strongest
> argument for keeping the wikichix list closed (membership
> moderated).

It'll be a troll magnet *this big*.

- d.


body:
Gatto Nero wrote:
> 2006/12/5, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com>:
>
>
>> I read the following:
>>
>
> (I hope you've read the context, too)
>
>
>> --
>>  >Oh. My. God. Which will be the next one? WikiNigger? WikiFaggot?
>> --
>> as ridiculing the idea, comparing a list for women (not WikiBitches, not
>> WikiWhores, not WikiCunts, not some derogatory term) with your
>> intentionally offensive terms for blacks and gays.
>>
>
> With this real phrase, I was not ridiculing the idea - even if (as
> said) I don't think this idea is really useful to fight bias - but I
> was ridiculing the name choosen.
> And this because, in my very very very personal opinion, call a woman
> "chick" is offensive of her intelligence. As offensive as calling a
> black people "Nigger" or a gay "faggot" (and again: I'm gay, just to
> explain the context).
> It could be an italian way to see this word, but if I'd call "Chix" -
> or one of the italian corrispective - a friend of mine (and I have
> plenty of female friends), as minimum I'd receive a slap in the face.
> As minimum (a more reality adherent image is me receiving a kick in my
> balls).
>
>
>> This has the result
>> of implying that women who perceive the need for this list are "less
>> than" - as calling a black person a "nigger" implies he or she is "less
>> than" and so underlines the bias and bigotry.
>>
>
> Eh? I've read this phrase twice and more, but I'm not sure of what
> you're saying, maybe cause of language difficulties (I'm italian...
> maybe - if you want - you could try to explain it in a wider way,
> privately too).
> If you're thinking that I'm implying that women are "less than"
> anything, you're totally wrong. I just think that women who perceive
> the need for a new ML are bad-adressing their effort: they should want
> rather *more politeness and respect for women* in THIS mailing list.
>
>
>> This is trolling.
>>
>
> I can't get why. Rather a misunderstanding?
>
>
>> The "Oh.
>> My. God." is clearly expressing contempt for the idea.
>>
>
> "Contempt"? Astonishment, rather. And worry.
> Because, just as I've said before in this answer, I find (*I*, me
> underline) more offensive this list.
>
>
>> This is trolling.
>>
>
> As said, this is an opinion. If express an opinion is trolling, then
> maybe you're not considering some cultural differences which could be
> adressed to different lifestyle, different countries of living,  etc
> (It's difficult to express what I'm trying to say now in english, for
> me)
>
>
>> A clearly reasoned statement, such as Bryan Tong Minh's post:
>> --
>>
> [CUT]
>
>> --
>> is a disagreement without being trolling. Do you see the difference? Or
>> am I being unclear?
>>
>
> No, you've been clear. But I don't think you're totally right (again:
> an opinion).
> ______________________
>
As one who has argued against the list from the beginning, I obviously
share some concerns with you. I think we've had several
misunderstandings in this sub-thread, which I'm not sure is worth
pursuing - I am willing to toss concerns about any perceived trolling
you have done out the window if you're willing to let slide any
misunderstandings I have had about your intents. Fair enough?
-kc-


body:
On 12/5/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Guettarda wrote:
> >
> > But the list was organised to avoid a specific problem
> > - women feeling uncomfortable posting to this male-dominated list where
> > explicitly sexist statements (even if they weren't meant seriously) are
> > left
> > unchallenged by a large number of people.
> >
> So "don't feed the trolls" is not universal advice?
>
> Could somebody provide a list of topics on which it is safe to flame the
> trolls, please, because I'm sure there are plenty who'd be happy to
> oblige.
> --
> Phil

At the time it looked like misogyny, not trolling.  Tolerance of things like
that is probably one of the things that make some women unwilling to post to
this list.  You can't judge things on the basis of who says it.  The fact
that I respect Alphax's opinion (in general) and think that he's often one
of the more sensible people posting to this list is all the more reason to
call him on the statement he made.

"Don't feed the trolls" is a meaningless cliche, especially in this
context.  "Silence is consent" is far more applicable.

Ian


from_name: Carlos

subject: [Foundation-l] New Spanish mailing list?

body:
Hi. At Spanish Wikipedia we want to open a new mailing list, a Spanish
equivalent of daily-article-l.

(See http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/daily-article-l)

The idea is to have only one sender and many receivers. The frequency
won't be daily (we don't rotate our main page featured article that
often) but bi-weekly.

Personally I think it's an excellent idea. It will disseminate knowledge
and attract contributors.

I would like to know if there is any opposition, and, if not, where can
we arrange for that mailing list to be created.

Thanks for your time.
--


from_name: The Cunctator

body:
Wikichix should not be on the wikimedia servers.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: wikichix-l-bounces at wikimedia.org <wikichix-l-bounces at wikimedia.org>
Date: Dec 5, 2006 5:59 AM
Subject: Request to mailing list Wikichix-l rejected
To: cunctator at gmail.com

Your request to the Wikichix-l mailing list

    Subscription request

has been rejected by the list moderator.  The moderator gave the
following reason for rejecting your request:

"Hi Cunctator. We're only accepting women at this time. I suggest you
comment on the existing Wikimedia lists instead. This presence of this
list isn't meant to prevent men commening - which you can still do on
wikien-l etc."

Any questions or comments should be directed to the list administrator
at:

    wikichix-l-owner at wikimedia.org


body:
It isn't. You are a little out of date here.

The Cunctator wrote:
> Wikichix should not be on the wikimedia servers.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: wikichix-l-bounces at wikimedia.org <wikichix-l-bounces at wikimedia.org>
> Date: Dec 5, 2006 5:59 AM
> Subject: Request to mailing list Wikichix-l rejected
> To: cunctator at gmail.com
>
>
> Your request to the Wikichix-l mailing list
>
>     Subscription request
>
> has been rejected by the list moderator.  The moderator gave the
> following reason for rejecting your request:
>
> "Hi Cunctator. We're only accepting women at this time. I suggest you
> comment on the existing Wikimedia lists instead. This presence of this
> list isn't meant to prevent men commening - which you can still do on
> wikien-l etc."
>
> Any questions or comments should be directed to the list administrator
> at:
>
>     wikichix-l-owner at wikimedia.org
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Hoi,
Women have, like men, the ability to contribute. The way they contribute
is not necessarily the same. When you read the motivation for the
mailing list, you would have read that there is a group of women who
feel ill at ease and as a consequence refrain from contributing to our
projects. The fact that so many men are sceptical about this, shows
either that they have not read the motivation, do not believe the
motivation but what it does not prove at all is that they are right.

It is not ironic that there is a need (for your benefit) perceived need
for women to support each other. If anything, it is more of a reflection
of how our society is. As we grow bigger, we become more of a reflection
of the set way that is our society. It drives people away. People that
have things to contribute that can show that things brought to us as the
NPOV are not so neutral at all even for all the sources provided.

For me personally there are several subjects I will not touch any more
because of experiences I have had with what are to me hard nosed POV
pushers. Some of these subjects like religion, I even studied, but I
found that my brand of knowledge does not wash, my sources do not find
acceptance and consequently I leave these subject to what are to me POV
pushers. Now, I am white, male, European and I am happy and willing to
learn and discuss about the relative merits of any
language/dialect/orthography. The belief (or conceit) that we can find
solutions to most of these issues make me part of the "top dogs" for
this subject. As a consequence, when others have an opinion that is in
opposition to mine, they often will feel unhappy, treated unjustly and
they will find as much as I do that the arguments used by the "others"
are unreasonable. The difference is that apparently their conviction
does not carry the same weight as mine.

The point is, when you are part of the group that is described as
dominant, you are hardly in a position to judge how the other group
experiences what is the norm to you. When it comes to gender equality,
it was only this month that Islamic scholars told their people that
female circumcision is not acceptable. When you are lucky that in your
neck of the woods women are equal and treated equally, it does not
follow that this is true everywhere. It would be better to respect this
need, even if it does not fulfil /your /need and we should be grateful
when more women find their way to fill the niche that is waiting for them.

Thanks,
    GerardM

Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6176340.stm

Corum O' Fallamhain schreef:
> Since women have the ability to contribute here the same as men, I really
> don't see why this is needed. Surely the scepticism being shown to this idea
> from many men is proof positive of the fact that no-one is being opressed.
> How ironic to have women in this day and age proposing their own seperate
> mailing list from men, since so many feminists fought so hard for gender
> equality. This looks to me like a step backward.


from_name: Bryan Derksen

body:
Puppy wrote:
> Reverse discrimination would be (for example) if women admins were
> promoted on a basis of lower community support, in order to achieve a
> more balanced ratio - a process often referred to as affirmative action,
> and strongly supported by many.

This is all semantic quibbling. The basic situation is simply this;
Wikimedia has a mailing list for the discussion of editing Wikipedia,
and I am not permitted to join this mailing list because I happen to be
male (a "condition" that has no affect whatsoever on my editing, and
which is only known because years back I decided to use my real name
instead of some uninformative pseudonym).

That is discrimination. Whether it's "reverse" of not is of no concern
to me, the effect is exactly the same.

> This is not discrimination. Unless you consider allowing
> women to feel safe is discrimination.

And _this_ is pure tripe. Do you really think that my position is that I
don't want women to feel safe? If that's what you're implying here I'm
quite offended and suggest you retract it immediately. I've said nothing
remotely of the sort.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061205/0ded4dd1/attachment.pgp


from_name: Puppy

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
>
> Yes, putting all the women on one list and all the men on another is
> /such/ a good idea. Then it doesn't matter what the men say, they won't
> be offending any women, will they. </sarcasm>
>
>
Point taken; however that isn't the only argument for the list.


body:
Gatto Nero wrote:
>> Fair enough?
>>
>
> Fair enough.
> But could I use what happened as an example, rewriting what I've said
> in a personal mail about this topic?
>
> Try to imagine all our friction in a context where there is a
> women-only-ML. (I'll try to put it simple, damn'd language problems :D
> )
>
> I say something that you perceive as an offense.
> You go to Wikichix-l and start talking about it... and the issue
> become bigger and bigger. The problem is that - talking in a "private"
> list - I've not the possibility to explain myself, or to undestand my
> error. We said: the problem becomes bigger and bigger
> Only then you return to foundation-l. You explain what your problem
> is, but this problem is now amplificated. And solve this issue is more
> complicate, if not impossibile.
>
> This is why I'm worried about Wikichix. We have problem of
> communication... we should be more direct.
>
> Gatto Nero / Claudio
> _______________________________________________
Valid issue, which I will add to my concerns that women will feel even
more "second class" if they are only protected from harassment if on a
women's only list, and that men who think there is no problem will not
have that misconception challenged if they never see or hear about it.

There has been a near-constant dichotomy in this whole discussion (all
threads and lists) wherein some men have been saying both "we don't
reply to sexist comments because we don't feed trolls" and "the answer
is not to have separate lists, but make this one women-friendly". And
those two cannot be aligned. If you want the list to be women-friendly,
then sexist remarks or dismissive statements must be universally
decried, /especially/ by men. A zero-tolerance policy, if you will. The
LinuxChix FAQ makes this point clearly:
http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Encourage-Women-Linux-HOWTO/x168.html section (
3.2 especially. )

-kc-


body:
Oldak Quill schreef:
> On 05/12/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> But then, it is very much to the editors who feel very strongly a
>> specific need. Whether the need is to discuss gender issues, or whether
>> the need is to discuss between girls. Both are fine to me, but show
>> different needs.
>>
>
> A strong need among a particular group of contributors should not
> always result in their need being fulfilled. If the group is demanding
> something that is damaging to the community, it should be rejected out
> of hand - at least as an official project.
Hoi,
You are absolutely right that what is damaging to the community should
not be allowed. What you fail to do is show why and how the community is
damaged. It is far easier to show how our community will be strengthened
by the Wikichicks. Assumptions are the mother of all fuck-ups.

Also, it is not necessary to ask the community for anything. You should
have noticed that these ladies are quite capable organising what is
needed themselves. They do not need me or you to get a mailing list, a
chat channel, their own wiki. I would also suggest that it is not for
the community to agree or endorse. There is a need. What is perceived to
be needed has been organised and we, the community, have been informed.

Thanks,
     GerardM


from_name: ATR

body:
It does not amaze me, does the average Wikipedian really
care about fundraising or the WMF budget? No, as long
as they can post comments about sexy issues most people
are not going to want to get involved with such "grunt"
issues like fundraising or budgeting issues or policy;
that is why most NPOs need to better appreciate
volunteers who are willing to dedicate their time to
essentially work for free for an organization like you
Florence.  That is much more important than arguing
over WMF hosting any issue specific list which may
be very important but not something that should drain
the WMF resources any more than any other association
of Wikipedians that use wiki pages to start some
kind of issue specific group using Wikipedia resources
(such as the Association of Members Advocates or
the Harmonious Editing Club). None of those groups
ever asked for a WMF mailing list, they all use IRC and
various wiki pages to continue their discussions. It would
seem to me that if WMF started allowing subgroup
mailing lists like Wikichiks all kinds of other mailing lists
would by necessity quickly proliferent and it would become
just as big and resource draining as something like
Yahoo Groups.

Alex T Roshuk (en:alex756)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthere" <Anthere9 at yahoo.com>

<..snip..>

| It is a daily amazement to me that people can spend so many mails over a
| chick issue, and not even one comment on fundraising or budget. Sorry
| kc, just not the same priorities.


body:
Andre Engels wrote:
> 2006/12/5, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com>:
>
>
>> Had they all been actually discussing how to address gender bias in what
>> they felt were more constructive ways, I would be more inclined to agree
>> with you.
>>
>
>
> The thread wasn't  about  gender bias in general, it was about the creation
> of the list. Feel free to start a thread about gender bias in general, but
> don't expect it to be discussed in general in reaction to a solution that
> ain't a solution at all.
>
It was about a solution to women not being comfortable on WP due to
bias. Whether that solution is a good one or not was /not/ being
addressed. There has already been a thread about bias in general. that
is where the idea of the list arose.
<snip>
>
> So why are you dismissing it? I think "it doesn't help" is the best ground
> for dismissal I can think of.
>
I didn't dismiss it. That's what "firmly on the fence" means - that I do
not support nor oppose it, and am still considering the concept. And I
have yet to see any reason why it would not help. I have reasons why it
would, and I have seen concerns that it might hurt the project in other
ways, but I have not seen any reason given that it would not help.