from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 11/24/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> b) Creating a category for them makes it look like they are allowed,
> which will probably just increase their usage.

I'm going to object to the logic here. You're suggesting that by
creating a category, people will simultaneously think they're allowed
(and hence upload more of them), while not putting them in that
category, because they know they're not allowed? That's too weird,
even for Pok?mon fans.

Steve


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
> Fred Bauder wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 2006, at 8:50 PM, Puppy wrote:
>>
>>> So where is the limit, Fred? Attack women on the mailing list, ok.
>>> Call them a cunt, that's ok too. Say all women are idiots, that's
>>> ok. As long as we don't out their personal information? Where is
>>> your line for "bad behavior" drawn, precisely? There has been a
>>> thread for a couple of months about the imbalance of the ratio of
>>> men to women editors for months now, and I am saying attacking
>>> women /because they are women/ is, to put it mildly, off-putting.
>>> Its beyond uncivil. It is, as David Gerard's friend pointed out,
>>> "hopelessly patriarchally biased and useless to harmful."
>> None of that is acceptable.
>>
>
> So what should we do about it?

Where has anyone done those things?  The simple answer is: kick the bad
people out, end of story.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
Puppy wrote:
> I appreciate that, Fred. I am not concerned so much about the lack of
> response to my concerns, as I am about the lack of response to overt
> sexist attacks on this mailing list. I am well aware it is not
> Wikipedia. Most of the people on this list are the same people as on
> Wikipedia. If you call a black man a nigger in the field, you will at
> least /think/ he's a nigger in the house. And don't think the attitude
> doesn't bleed through, because it does.

Can someone send me a link to the archive where these attacks took place?

--Jimbo


list: commons-l

from_name: Florian Straub

subject: [Commons-l] Helper Script

body:
Hi Larry,

> Anyone on en:wp get this to work there yet? I tried:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lar/dellinkNowCommons.js
> (and called from my monobook) but I am not seeing anything extra like a
> delete link when I view an image in
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_with_the_same_name_on_Wikimedia
> _Commons
> (these all have NowCommons templates in them)
>
> If you got this to work, please let me know, I want to crib from you.
> Thanks!

Maybe you should ask Revvar (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Revvar)
directly, since he did it.

Regards,

Flo


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Tian-Jian "Barabbas" Jiang@Gmail

subject: [Wikitech-l] How to enable Template:Languages functionality

references:
<455DFCCA.1020600@gmail.com>
	<455DFD6A.2040609@iis.sinica.edu.tw>	<455E03AB.2070806@gmail.com>
	<ejsqmc$tdq$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
FxParlant wrote:
> It seems to work pretty well now ?
>
> Fran?ois
>
Dear Fran?ois and all,

    I'm very sorry for bothering. The problem seems caused by zh-tw
locale and PHP page cache.
Since my mediawiki is set to zh-tw, the Main_Page, for example, will be
?? by default. When I
use Template:Languages, I'm not sure and cannot reproduce that if it was
not able to generate
translation pages automatically because that {{Languages|??}} seems
not to be equivalent to
{{Languages|Main_Page}}.

    After changing all template tags to English and specifying the
locale explicitly such as
{{Languages|Main_Page|zh-hant}} and clear up PHP page cache, the system
works fine now.

    Thank you for all your patiences.

    Sincerely,
Mike


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jimmy Wales stated for the record:
> Puppy wrote:
>> I appreciate that, Fred. I am not concerned so much about the lack of
>> response to my concerns, as I am about the lack of response to overt
>> sexist attacks on this mailing list. I am well aware it is not
>> Wikipedia. Most of the people on this list are the same people as on
>> Wikipedia. If you call a black man a nigger in the field, you will at
>> least /think/ he's a nigger in the house. And don't think the attitude
>> doesn't bleed through, because it does.
>
> Can someone send me a link to the archive where these attacks took place?
>
> --Jimbo

The attacks were an ill-considered remark from Alphax, and then my
wondering why Alphax was being lynched for what was to me clearly a mere
grumble rather than a truly hateful remark.  But wait!  My questioning
of their lynching revealed that I too am a vicious misogynist!  From
there, the script is playing out as usual -- there is of course no
defense against a charge of misogyny; /any/ response whatsoever (other
than immediate public self-abasement followed by a good long
self-flagellation) proves the charge.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | I was forced to live for days
 sean at epoptic.com | on nothing but food and water.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFaF72/SVOiq2uhHMRAgEiAKDctyR34JwaJu730yaD6iN1a5/o+gCfcDO3
6Q0uAFYbyT90u3QGrytsJqw=
=TRrQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
On Nov 25, 2006, at 7:28 AM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

> Jim Schuler wrote:
>> I find it sad that someone feels the need to have a separate
>> mailing list
>> for women.  Gender bias is an issue that touches all of us and
>> should be
>> discussed openly by *all of us.  *As KC noted, separate but equal
>> is a
>> farce: it is merely separate, not equal, for in the act of
>> separation power
>> is ceded to the majority, a majority that is often boorish and
>> smug in its
>> ignorance.
>>
>> It is also sad that when some of the men here spoke out in defence
>> of women,
>> they were attacked for piling on (the offender had slinked off
>> without so
>> much as an apology)
>
> Do you think I'm proud of what I said? Do you think I actually
> meant it?
> Do you think that continuing to attack me would have helped the
> situation? Do you think that there was any apology I could have give
> that wouldn't have been just brushed off as insincere?

Just say you are sorry and get it over with. Then sin no more. I
think most of us are aware that there is an element of trolling
involved in this thread, but there are also real problems which we
need to deal with effectively.

Fred


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
On Nov 25, 2006, at 7:33 AM, James Hare wrote:

> Separate mailing lists for women? What perfenander.
>
> Guys, we're not going to be improving an encyclopedia/news
> site/dictionary/quote database/species directory/education wiki/
> series of
> textbooks/media repository/primary source library if we keep
> bickering.
>
> Jimmy-Jimmy said it best: kick out the bad people.
>
> Then get back to work.

If truly "bad people" could be identified, sure. But not a remedy
available to deal with those who did not criticize sexist remarks. Or
to deal with someone who obviously knows he is in the wrong, despite
lack of an explicit apology.

Our work here is to discuss issues such as this.

Fred


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Fred Bauder stated for the record:
> On Nov 25, 2006, at 8:19 AM, Sean Barrett wrote:
>
>> The attacks were an ill-considered remark from Alphax, and then my
>> wondering why Alphax was being lynched for what was to me clearly a
>> mere
>> grumble rather than a truly hateful remark.  But wait!  My questioning
>> of their lynching revealed that I too am a vicious misogynist!  From
>> there, the script is playing out as usual -- there is of course no
>> defense against a charge of misogyny; /any/ response whatsoever (other
>> than immediate public self-abasement followed by a good long
>> self-flagellation) proves the charge.
>
> That response is just another way of saying I'm afraid to post
> because I might be attacked.
>
> Fred

You are absolutely right!  That's one thing I can take away from three
years of serving this community -- I'm no longer afraid of being
attacked.  Prior to that experience, this atmosphere of "chant the
correct slogans or be kick-banned" would certainly drive me away.

You will find very few people willing to express any doubt about the
assumptions behind this passion play; those who do will be tarred and
feathered, then run out of town on a rail to the tune of comparisons to
the Nazis.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | I was forced to live for days
 sean at epoptic.com | on nothing but food and water.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFaGbh/SVOiq2uhHMRAqNdAKCENJM7s0/tEb1+8Eh5Nr/5a4yNpgCffCKg
YuwCbjcNTRbcsVKv7xxvh+Q=
=GR50
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Jim Schuler

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
Excellent points.

On 11/24/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
>
> Fred Bauder wrote:
> > On Nov 24, 2006, at 8:39 PM, Puppy wrote:
> >
> >
> >> As to why it would rate a response, I was thinking Fred's assertion
> >> that
> >> "we should be on the lookout
> >> for bias or other bad behavior towards women editors and do what we
> >> can
> >> to mitigate its effects" might actually include discouraging blanket
> >> attacks on women.
> >>
> >
> > It does. But especially to targeting people in the manner of
> > Wikipedia Review.
> >
> > Fred
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> So where is the limit, Fred? Attack women on the mailing list, ok. Call
> them a cunt, that's ok too. Say all women are idiots, that's ok. As long
> as we don't out their personal information? Where is your line for "bad
> behavior" drawn, precisely? There has been a thread for a couple of
> months about the imbalance of the ratio of men to women editors for
> months now, and I am saying attacking women /because they are women/ is,
> to put it mildly, off-putting. Its beyond uncivil. It is, as David
> Gerard's friend pointed out, "hopelessly patriarchally biased and
> useless to harmful."
>
> -kc-
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
Ah, the non-apology apology.  Very good.  Nonetheless, trolling is not a
defense for asininity, no matter how much good faith one is willing to
assume.

On 11/24/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Puppy wrote:
> <snip>
> > How is Guettarda's email "malicious needling", yet Alphax's overt
> > misogyny doesn't even rate a comment?
> >
>
> Trolling rarely rates a comment. I'm sorry that you took me seriously.
>
> --
> Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
> Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
> "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
> Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>

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


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
Puppy wrote:
> I appreciate that, Fred. I am not concerned so much about the lack of
> response to my concerns, as I am about the lack of response to overt
> sexist attacks on this mailing list.
I personally didn't respond because it looked like trolling, and you're
not supposed to feed the trolls. But apparently my attempt at troll
starvation is evidence of misogyny? Bummer...

Stan


from_name: Puppy

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Puppy wrote:
>
>> I appreciate that, Fred. I am not concerned so much about the lack of
>> response to my concerns, as I am about the lack of response to overt
>> sexist attacks on this mailing list. I am well aware it is not
>> Wikipedia. Most of the people on this list are the same people as on
>> Wikipedia. If you call a black man a nigger in the field, you will at
>> least /think/ he's a nigger in the house. And don't think the attitude
>> doesn't bleed through, because it does.
>>
>
> Can someone send me a link to the archive where these attacks took place?
>
> --Jimbo
>

If you are speaking about the incident with a lack of response, which
concerned me, it happened on this thread.

When I started posting to this thread, I was taking exception to the
categorization of [[Blowdryer]] as a "woman's topic". I tossed out a few
observations on gender bias. Until I did, I didn't think gender bias on
WP was that bad - but my inbox is proving me wrong. I just received
another email, responding to a post I made to this thread:
<pasted email>
On 11/25/06, Puppy wrote:
 > > When I first started contributing to this thread I received a number of
 > > emails, all from women, all thanking me and encouraging me, yet none of
 > > them posted to the list.

Private email response:
 > That doesn't surprise me at all.
 >
 > Do you think it would be a good idea to have a separate mailing list
 > to discuss the problems of gender bias in Wikipedia (both in terms of
 > the content and the community)?
 > Along the lines of [[LinuxChix]] perhaps?

<end pasted email>

Why didn't this woman, like the others who have been emailing me, post
to this list? I am getting emails from women, all saying how terrific I
am, how glad they are someone is posting these concerns, and now I'm
getting suggestions for a women's mailing list. Why do you think that is?

Alphax wrote "Women arguing on this list reinforces the view of
"woman-as-empty-headed-shallow-person"."

This is clearly an overt sexist attack. Let's put the shoe on the other
foot - what if most of the posts to this list were by men, and a woman
wrote "Men arguing on this list reinforces the view of
"man-as-stupid-testosterone-driven-lout"? But that isn't really a
parallel, because women don't run this society. Try imagining this -
lets change "women and men" to "black and white", using gender issues
rather than race issues from the r/w: You are a black man. You live in a
society where most of the power is wielded by whites. All the bosses
you've ever had have been white. The president has always been white.
There are people who express openly their beliefs that blacks are
substandard. Your religion states you are subservient to whites, and
that is God's plan. Until the 1970s, you did not have autonomy over your
body, under the law. Until the 1980s, you could not even own property in
some states in your name - your white boss owned it, and in fact could
do what he wanted with it under the law (See Kirchberg v. Feenstra,
1981). You can be raped by a white person, and if you take it to court,
it is often worse than the rape - people make racist remarks, say you
"asked for it."  You walk into a room. Almost everyone is white. Someone
makes a racist comment. None of the other people protest, and some
laugh. Do you A) Speak out your convictions strongly and clearly? or B)
give a weak laugh and look for the exit door?

I'm thinking the other women are waiting to see if I'm lynched. That's
why they are emailing me privately, even suggesting a separate mailing
list. *They are intimidated against posting these concerns on this
list.* I personally don't think that "separate but equal" works very
well. I'm speaking up, myself.

What if the black man had seen a different response? What if someone
made a racist comment or joke, and /all/ the white people in the room
had spoken out, telling the bigot they didn't tolerate such behavior?
Told the bigot to apologize, to take his racist comments elsewhere
because they were not welcome? I think the black man would breathe a
little easier... but he'd still be outnumbered. I hear about a
"welcoming attitude" and "we should be on the lookout for bias or other
bad behavior towards women editors and do what we can to mitigate its
effects" yet how many spoke out when Alphax posted his clearly
anti-female post to this list? I'm saying we are in a biased society,
which is reflected in both mens' and womens' attitudes, and if you truly
want to get a more balanced editing pool and make women feel welcome
here, no gender bias, whether subtle or overt, can be ignored. Or we'll
continue to have a few strong women, fewer as we go up the chain of
power, and the imbalance will continue.

-kc-


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
On Nov 25, 2006, at 8:11 AM, niht-hr?fn wrote:

> I'd be interested to know how well-known females are treated compared
> to their well-known male counterparts (I mean admins, etc, those that
> people know are female because they've heard of them), although it
> would seem with the actions of Wikipedia Review, that the answer is
> going to be "less well".

In at least 3 cases they have been targeted by off-wiki sites, but so
have prominent males. There has to be some crack in the armor for
effective targeting, but simply being female and aggressive seems to
serve.

Fred


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Alphax (Wikipedia email) stated for the record:
> Sean Barrett wrote:
> <snip>
>> You will find very few people willing to express any doubt about the
>> assumptions behind this passion play; those who do will be tarred and
>> feathered, then run out of town on a rail to the tune of comparisons to
>> the Nazis.
>>
>
> Shall we get back to Wikipedia: Arbeit macht die freie Enzyklop?die, and
> does Godwin approve?

You may not have caught it, but Godwin kicked in up-thread.  For failing
to damn you sufficiently, I'm Neville Chamberlain, which makes you more
powerful than I thought, and hurts my feelings deeply -- I was hoping
for the part of Uncle Joe.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | I was forced to live for days
 sean at epoptic.com | on nothing but food and water.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFaG/a/SVOiq2uhHMRAvooAJ9ixhkameobjcgCq8QnEv/yXOtc9wCghPLQ
iy5vieGIpfm0nyCM6gUrwiU=
=jUhw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
On Nov 25, 2006, at 8:19 AM, Sean Barrett wrote:

> The attacks were an ill-considered remark from Alphax, and then my
> wondering why Alphax was being lynched for what was to me clearly a
> mere
> grumble rather than a truly hateful remark.  But wait!  My questioning
> of their lynching revealed that I too am a vicious misogynist!  From
> there, the script is playing out as usual -- there is of course no
> defense against a charge of misogyny; /any/ response whatsoever (other
> than immediate public self-abasement followed by a good long
> self-flagellation) proves the charge.

That response is just another way of saying I'm afraid to post
because I might be attacked.

Fred


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Fred Bauder stated for the record:
> On Nov 25, 2006, at 8:53 AM, Sean Barrett wrote:
>
>>  the
>> assumptions behind this passion play
>
> What are the assumptions?

Primarily that:

#1 there can never be any doubt that hateful bigotry is running rampant,
crippling the functioning of our society

#2 anyone who wonders whether the alleged oppression is really as bad as
is claimed is a hateful bigot who must be immediately reeducated if not
exiled from the community

Please remember that we started talking about -- and I'm still talking
about -- Wikipedia, the place where we write articles, not this mailing
list or IRC.  As I think you pointed out, there are different players as
well as different sets of rules for each, making them distinct communities.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | I was forced to live for days
 sean at epoptic.com | on nothing but food and water.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFaHDQ/SVOiq2uhHMRAshYAJ4gkpqlVGEV6RthI/D307YK2reADwCcCqnA
ymr9TEebX0n2uJjaTRR0Ydg=
=J8ha
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
I find it sad that someone feels the need to have a separate mailing list
for women.  Gender bias is an issue that touches all of us and should be
discussed openly by *all of us.  *As KC noted, separate but equal is a
farce: it is merely separate, not equal, for in the act of separation power
is ceded to the majority, a majority that is often boorish and smug in its
ignorance.

It is also sad that when some of the men here spoke out in defence of women,
they were attacked for piling on (the offender had slinked off without so
much as an apology) or are admonished to assume good faith (in the face of
overwhelming evidence indicating that so doing would be akin to swallowing
cyanide because a con man told you it was safe).  That several of us noted
the gender bias and spoke out is a clear indication that a problem exists
here, and needs to be remedied.  Alas, I do not think that that remedy is to
merely boot out the offenders, rather we should confront them with reason.
Obviously, the possibility of changing any one's opinion is slim as gender
bias, like racial, ethnic or religious bias, is deeply ingrained within the
psyche of the offender, and is endemic to our society (both in the real
world and at Wikipedia).  However, it is certainly worth our every effort to
do what we can to break down the the wall of ignorance that isolates and
protects the bigoted and biased.

On 11/25/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
>
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
> > Puppy wrote:
> >
> >> I appreciate that, Fred. I am not concerned so much about the lack of
> >> response to my concerns, as I am about the lack of response to overt
> >> sexist attacks on this mailing list. I am well aware it is not
> >> Wikipedia. Most of the people on this list are the same people as on
> >> Wikipedia. If you call a black man a nigger in the field, you will at
> >> least /think/ he's a nigger in the house. And don't think the attitude
> >> doesn't bleed through, because it does.
> >>
> >
> > Can someone send me a link to the archive where these attacks took
> place?
> >
> > --Jimbo
> >
>
> If you are speaking about the incident with a lack of response, which
> concerned me, it happened on this thread.
>
> When I started posting to this thread, I was taking exception to the
> categorization of [[Blowdryer]] as a "woman's topic". I tossed out a few
> observations on gender bias. Until I did, I didn't think gender bias on
> WP was that bad - but my inbox is proving me wrong. I just received
> another email, responding to a post I made to this thread:
> <pasted email>
> On 11/25/06, Puppy wrote:
> > > When I first started contributing to this thread I received a number
> of
> > > emails, all from women, all thanking me and encouraging me, yet none
> of
> > > them posted to the list.
>
> Private email response:
> > That doesn't surprise me at all.
> >
> > Do you think it would be a good idea to have a separate mailing list
> > to discuss the problems of gender bias in Wikipedia (both in terms of
> > the content and the community)?
> > Along the lines of [[LinuxChix]] perhaps?
>
> <end pasted email>
>
> Why didn't this woman, like the others who have been emailing me, post
> to this list? I am getting emails from women, all saying how terrific I
> am, how glad they are someone is posting these concerns, and now I'm
> getting suggestions for a women's mailing list. Why do you think that is?
>
> Alphax wrote "Women arguing on this list reinforces the view of
> "woman-as-empty-headed-shallow-person"."
>
> This is clearly an overt sexist attack. Let's put the shoe on the other
> foot - what if most of the posts to this list were by men, and a woman
> wrote "Men arguing on this list reinforces the view of
> "man-as-stupid-testosterone-driven-lout"? But that isn't really a
> parallel, because women don't run this society. Try imagining this -
> lets change "women and men" to "black and white", using gender issues
> rather than race issues from the r/w: You are a black man. You live in a
> society where most of the power is wielded by whites. All the bosses
> you've ever had have been white. The president has always been white.
> There are people who express openly their beliefs that blacks are
> substandard. Your religion states you are subservient to whites, and
> that is God's plan. Until the 1970s, you did not have autonomy over your
> body, under the law. Until the 1980s, you could not even own property in
> some states in your name - your white boss owned it, and in fact could
> do what he wanted with it under the law (See Kirchberg v. Feenstra,
> 1981). You can be raped by a white person, and if you take it to court,
> it is often worse than the rape - people make racist remarks, say you
> "asked for it."  You walk into a room. Almost everyone is white. Someone
> makes a racist comment. None of the other people protest, and some
> laugh. Do you A) Speak out your convictions strongly and clearly? or B)
> give a weak laugh and look for the exit door?
>
> I'm thinking the other women are waiting to see if I'm lynched. That's
> why they are emailing me privately, even suggesting a separate mailing
> list. *They are intimidated against posting these concerns on this
> list.* I personally don't think that "separate but equal" works very
> well. I'm speaking up, myself.
>
> What if the black man had seen a different response? What if someone
> made a racist comment or joke, and /all/ the white people in the room
> had spoken out, telling the bigot they didn't tolerate such behavior?
> Told the bigot to apologize, to take his racist comments elsewhere
> because they were not welcome? I think the black man would breathe a
> little easier... but he'd still be outnumbered. I hear about a
> "welcoming attitude" and "we should be on the lookout for bias or other
> bad behavior towards women editors and do what we can to mitigate its
> effects" yet how many spoke out when Alphax posted his clearly
> anti-female post to this list? I'm saying we are in a biased society,
> which is reflected in both mens' and womens' attitudes, and if you truly
> want to get a more balanced editing pool and make women feel welcome
> here, no gender bias, whether subtle or overt, can be ignored. Or we'll
> continue to have a few strong women, fewer as we go up the chain of
> power, and the imbalance will continue.
>
> -kc-
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
Puppy wrote:
> Gender bias is not my soapbox; this thread was not started by me, I have
> merely provided some anecdotal and statistical information. I believe we
> are currently in the examining and discussing phase rather than the
> solutions segment. I see as a more fundamental issue that women are less
> well represented in the editing pool, and wonder why that might be. If
> the editing pool were less unbalanced, perhaps our article coverage
> would be also.
If you're not sure that WP has systemic bias wrt gender, why would you
believe that more women editors will make a difference? I'm not being
flip here - so far we've had the general attitude that credentials are
secondary, that a college student can follow the same rules and get the
same treatment as a Nobel laureate. Now I'm in the camp that wants more
subject-matter experts in WP, but I have a very pragmatic reason - my
observation is that experts usually write much better and faster on
their subject than amateurs, and so it's just a more efficient way to
grow the encyclopedia; an expert can put together a feature-quality
article in a couple sittings, while the mass of amateurs takes months to
get to the same place (of course there are plenty of exceptions). The
hazard of asserting that women editors have something similarly
distinctive to bring to WP, by virtue of gender alone, is that one is
playing right into the stereotype of "women's topics" or "female
viewpoints", and risks creating a sort of "pink collar" ghetto in WP
that new female editors would be subtly (or not-so-subtly) steered towards.

> Then again, perhaps the women who are interested in
> editing Wikipedia are less interested in "women's topics" than in other
> subjects.
That's certainly been my experience. Often I'm surprised to discover
that the gender of an editor is the opposite of what I had surmised
based on choice of topics and editing style (so much for stereotypes!).
Of course, short of a medical exam, results to be mailed to the
Foundation, I'm not sure how one proves gender of an editor anyway... :-)
> I do note that [[Can opener]] is a stub, but look at [[P-38
> can opener]], the military can opener. Not a great article but longer
> than the parent article. Of course, any Pokemon character article would
> blow both of these away.
>
The ironic thing is that female editors (often teen-aged) are huge
contributors to Pokemon articles. Would they become interested in [[can
opener]] all of a sudden? Seems implausible to me - people are
interested in what they're interested in.

Stan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
On Nov 25, 2006, at 8:53 AM, Sean Barrett wrote:

>  the
> assumptions behind this passion play

What are the assumptions?

Fred


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Puppy stated for the record:
> Sean Barrett wrote:
>> #1 there can never be any doubt that hateful bigotry is running rampant,
>> crippling the functioning of our society
>>
>> #2 anyone who wonders whether the alleged oppression is really as bad as
>> is claimed is a hateful bigot who must be immediately reeducated if not
>> exiled from the community
>>
>> Please remember that we started talking about -- and I'm still talking
>> about -- Wikipedia, the place where we write articles, not this mailing
>> list or IRC.  As I think you pointed out, there are different players as
>> well as different sets of rules for each, making them distinct communities.
>>
>> - --
>>  Sean Barrett     | I was forced to live for days
>>  sean at epoptic.com | on nothing but food and water.
>>
>
> regarding #1: I assumed the precise opposite until this thread.
> regarding #2: Bit dramatic, aren't you? Try rephrasing with less sturm
> und drang.
> Regarding both: Who are you saying made those assumptions?
>
> -kc-

I find it difficult to hold a conversation with someone who thinks I am
mocking them when I am not.  It tends to make "the climate ... hostile
to speaking up," as someone just said.  To be clear: I am not mocking
you.  I am trying to write from a moderate position, neither bigoted nor
overly concerned about Wikipedia being crippled by bigotry.  However,
I'm being rather clearly told that a moderate position is unacceptable.

#1: This thread is indeed very bad.  This mailing list can be, but is
not always, very bad.  IRC is so bad I don't bother logging on, which is
bad for an Arbiter because quite a lot of significant activity occurs
there.  I do not think that Wikipedia-the-place-where-we-write-articles
is bad.  If you have evidence to the contrary, point me at it, and I
will block the bad guys and bring the ArbComm case against them myself.
 We are commissioned to protect the article-writing community, and I
think we've done a not-bad job for the past three years.  Any bigotry in
Wikipedia-the-place-where-we-write-articles is only there because the
ArbComm has not been made aware of it.

#2: Okay, perhaps over-dramatic, but this just in: "telling Alphax to
put his head in a bucket 100 times, and take it out 99, is treating him
too kind."  Banning has been mentioned several times up-thread, which
seems a bit much to me.  Rhetoric-escalation runs rampant, and of that
particular crime I am as guilty as anyone.

QUESTION: So can we make my comment #2 unquestionably over-dramatic?  Is
there any way to bring the emotional intensity of this thread down?  I
would like more information on the problems people have when trying to
contribute to Wikipedia-the-place-where-we-write-articles.  I signed up
to support that community, lo these many moons ago.  I'm still on duty,
at least for another few weeks.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | I was forced to live for days
 sean at epoptic.com | on nothing but food and water.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFaHyw/SVOiq2uhHMRAh2OAKDkWeV7EyZRjte4CE5YZq0EBPQlyACgv80d
+kj+3nIpCDTGbHMfZYn/fpI=
=HFWd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: James Hare

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
Separate mailing lists for women? What perfenander.

Guys, we're not going to be improving an encyclopedia/news
site/dictionary/quote database/species directory/education wiki/series of
textbooks/media repository/primary source library if we keep bickering.

Jimmy-Jimmy said it best: kick out the bad people.

Then get back to work.

On 11/25/06, Jim Schuler <jim62sch at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I find it sad that someone feels the need to have a separate mailing list
> for women.  Gender bias is an issue that touches all of us and should be
> discussed openly by *all of us.  *As KC noted, separate but equal is a
> farce: it is merely separate, not equal, for in the act of separation
> power
> is ceded to the majority, a majority that is often boorish and smug in its
> ignorance.
>
> It is also sad that when some of the men here spoke out in defence of
> women,
> they were attacked for piling on (the offender had slinked off without so
> much as an apology) or are admonished to assume good faith (in the face of
> overwhelming evidence indicating that so doing would be akin to swallowing
> cyanide because a con man told you it was safe).  That several of us noted
> the gender bias and spoke out is a clear indication that a problem exists
> here, and needs to be remedied.  Alas, I do not think that that remedy is
> to
> merely boot out the offenders, rather we should confront them with reason.
> Obviously, the possibility of changing any one's opinion is slim as gender
> bias, like racial, ethnic or religious bias, is deeply ingrained within
> the
> psyche of the offender, and is endemic to our society (both in the real
> world and at Wikipedia).  However, it is certainly worth our every effort
> to
> do what we can to break down the the wall of ignorance that isolates and
> protects the bigoted and biased.
>
> On 11/25/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
> >
> > Jimmy Wales wrote:
> > > Puppy wrote:
> > >
> > >> I appreciate that, Fred. I am not concerned so much about the lack of
> > >> response to my concerns, as I am about the lack of response to overt
> > >> sexist attacks on this mailing list. I am well aware it is not
> > >> Wikipedia. Most of the people on this list are the same people as on
> > >> Wikipedia. If you call a black man a nigger in the field, you will at
> > >> least /think/ he's a nigger in the house. And don't think the
> attitude
> > >> doesn't bleed through, because it does.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Can someone send me a link to the archive where these attacks took
> > place?
> > >
> > > --Jimbo
> > >
> >
> > If you are speaking about the incident with a lack of response, which
> > concerned me, it happened on this thread.
> >
> > When I started posting to this thread, I was taking exception to the
> > categorization of [[Blowdryer]] as a "woman's topic". I tossed out a few
> > observations on gender bias. Until I did, I didn't think gender bias on
> > WP was that bad - but my inbox is proving me wrong. I just received
> > another email, responding to a post I made to this thread:
> > <pasted email>
> > On 11/25/06, Puppy wrote:
> > > > When I first started contributing to this thread I received a number
> > of
> > > > emails, all from women, all thanking me and encouraging me, yet none
> > of
> > > > them posted to the list.
> >
> > Private email response:
> > > That doesn't surprise me at all.
> > >
> > > Do you think it would be a good idea to have a separate mailing list
> > > to discuss the problems of gender bias in Wikipedia (both in terms of
> > > the content and the community)?
> > > Along the lines of [[LinuxChix]] perhaps?
> >
> > <end pasted email>
> >
> > Why didn't this woman, like the others who have been emailing me, post
> > to this list? I am getting emails from women, all saying how terrific I
> > am, how glad they are someone is posting these concerns, and now I'm
> > getting suggestions for a women's mailing list. Why do you think that
> is?
> >
> > Alphax wrote "Women arguing on this list reinforces the view of
> > "woman-as-empty-headed-shallow-person"."
> >
> > This is clearly an overt sexist attack. Let's put the shoe on the other
> > foot - what if most of the posts to this list were by men, and a woman
> > wrote "Men arguing on this list reinforces the view of
> > "man-as-stupid-testosterone-driven-lout"? But that isn't really a
> > parallel, because women don't run this society. Try imagining this -
> > lets change "women and men" to "black and white", using gender issues
> > rather than race issues from the r/w: You are a black man. You live in a
> > society where most of the power is wielded by whites. All the bosses
> > you've ever had have been white. The president has always been white.
> > There are people who express openly their beliefs that blacks are
> > substandard. Your religion states you are subservient to whites, and
> > that is God's plan. Until the 1970s, you did not have autonomy over your
> > body, under the law. Until the 1980s, you could not even own property in
> > some states in your name - your white boss owned it, and in fact could
> > do what he wanted with it under the law (See Kirchberg v. Feenstra,
> > 1981). You can be raped by a white person, and if you take it to court,
> > it is often worse than the rape - people make racist remarks, say you
> > "asked for it."  You walk into a room. Almost everyone is white. Someone
> > makes a racist comment. None of the other people protest, and some
> > laugh. Do you A) Speak out your convictions strongly and clearly? or B)
> > give a weak laugh and look for the exit door?
> >
> > I'm thinking the other women are waiting to see if I'm lynched. That's
> > why they are emailing me privately, even suggesting a separate mailing
> > list. *They are intimidated against posting these concerns on this
> > list.* I personally don't think that "separate but equal" works very
> > well. I'm speaking up, myself.
> >
> > What if the black man had seen a different response? What if someone
> > made a racist comment or joke, and /all/ the white people in the room
> > had spoken out, telling the bigot they didn't tolerate such behavior?
> > Told the bigot to apologize, to take his racist comments elsewhere
> > because they were not welcome? I think the black man would breathe a
> > little easier... but he'd still be outnumbered. I hear about a
> > "welcoming attitude" and "we should be on the lookout for bias or other
> > bad behavior towards women editors and do what we can to mitigate its
> > effects" yet how many spoke out when Alphax posted his clearly
> > anti-female post to this list? I'm saying we are in a biased society,
> > which is reflected in both mens' and womens' attitudes, and if you truly
> > want to get a more balanced editing pool and make women feel welcome
> > here, no gender bias, whether subtle or overt, can be ignored. Or we'll
> > continue to have a few strong women, fewer as we go up the chain of
> > power, and the imbalance will continue.
> >
> > -kc-
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jim
> http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
> Jim Schuler wrote:
>
>> I find it sad that someone feels the need to have a separate mailing list
>> for women.  Gender bias is an issue that touches all of us and should be
>> discussed openly by *all of us.  *As KC noted, separate but equal is a
>> farce: it is merely separate, not equal, for in the act of separation power
>> is ceded to the majority, a majority that is often boorish and smug in its
>> ignorance.
>>
>> It is also sad that when some of the men here spoke out in defence of women,
>> they were attacked for piling on (the offender had slinked off without so
>> much as an apology)
>>
>
> Do you think I'm proud of what I said? Do you think I actually meant it?
> Do you think that continuing to attack me would have helped the
> situation? Do you think that there was any apology I could have give
> that wouldn't have been just brushed off as insincere?
>
>
Speaking strictly for myself, I would have accepted a simple "That was
inappropriate. I apologize."

So far as I can tell, you (Alphax) and I are dialogueing with no
continuing recriminations or incivility, and I have no wish to pursue
the incident any further, with the exception that the general lack of
response to the remark has become a secondary, yet larger, issue.

-kc-


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
Puppy wrote:
> Women are emailing me telling me how intimidated they feel - they don't
> want to post their concerns to this list because they also feel
> intimidated here. That I would have never known had I not replied.
>
Women feeling intimidated by public mailing lists, and complaining about
it in private email, has been going on steadily since I first got on the
net nearly 25 years ago. It's an interesting phenomenon for the
sociologists - if you look at the subscriber list, you'll see that there
are plenty of male lurkers, but of course they don't give their reasons
for not speaking up. Once in a great while I've met one of these male
lurkers in person, and a couple (almost shamefacedly) admitted to
feeling intimidated by the risks of public posting. In any case, this is
not unique to WP mailing lists, and as far as I know it's never been
satisfactorily resolved for public lists - having a women-only or
approved-members-only list is the usual tactic, but then it's not really
a public list anymore. Any other ideas that have been tried?

Stan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jim Schuler stated for the record:
> Sean is merely mocking himself with his allegedly witty posts.  He has no
> doubt also opened the eyes of a few people who might previously have thought
> highly of him, even if only because of his position on Wiki.  Sad really.

More of point #2: any questioning of the assumptions renders the
questioner irredeemably worthless as a human being.

I really wish I were being over-dramatic.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | I was forced to live for days
 sean at epoptic.com | on nothing but food and water.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFaIAR/SVOiq2uhHMRAppkAKDLFglLg/JETjfA0UuicaU0ENjWIQCZAXp5
gxYuw1EhCiQ5+6N8cRveiWE=
=Tsyb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
Actually, "I'm sorry I said that" would have worked nicely.  "I'm sorry that
you took me seriously" places the onus on the offended, not the offender.
In any case, the issue is much larger than you alone, it is at least as much
about the responses of those who leapt to the defense of something that is
indefensible.  As for "attacking" you, it was you who began the assault,
even if you did not mean it, and I and others who took issue with you
comments have every right to point out the foolhardiness of those comments.

On 11/25/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jim Schuler wrote:
> > I find it sad that someone feels the need to have a separate mailing
> list
> > for women.  Gender bias is an issue that touches all of us and should be
> > discussed openly by *all of us.  *As KC noted, separate but equal is a
> > farce: it is merely separate, not equal, for in the act of separation
> power
> > is ceded to the majority, a majority that is often boorish and smug in
> its
> > ignorance.
> >
> > It is also sad that when some of the men here spoke out in defence of
> women,
> > they were attacked for piling on (the offender had slinked off without
> so
> > much as an apology)
>
> Do you think I'm proud of what I said? Do you think I actually meant it?
> Do you think that continuing to attack me would have helped the
> situation? Do you think that there was any apology I could have give
> that wouldn't have been just brushed off as insincere?
>
> --
> Alphax
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
The sweep it under the rug defence?  No, that will not do.

On 11/25/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Separate mailing lists for women? What perfenander.
>
> Guys, we're not going to be improving an encyclopedia/news
> site/dictionary/quote database/species directory/education wiki/series of
> textbooks/media repository/primary source library if we keep bickering.
>
> Jimmy-Jimmy said it best: kick out the bad people.
>
> Then get back to work.
>
> On 11/25/06, Jim Schuler <jim62sch at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I find it sad that someone feels the need to have a separate mailing
> list
> > for women.  Gender bias is an issue that touches all of us and should be
> > discussed openly by *all of us.  *As KC noted, separate but equal is a
> > farce: it is merely separate, not equal, for in the act of separation
> > power
> > is ceded to the majority, a majority that is often boorish and smug in
> its
> > ignorance.
> >
> > It is also sad that when some of the men here spoke out in defence of
> > women,
> > they were attacked for piling on (the offender had slinked off without
> so
> > much as an apology) or are admonished to assume good faith (in the face
> of
> > overwhelming evidence indicating that so doing would be akin to
> swallowing
> > cyanide because a con man told you it was safe).  That several of us
> noted
> > the gender bias and spoke out is a clear indication that a problem
> exists
> > here, and needs to be remedied.  Alas, I do not think that that remedy
> is
> > to
> > merely boot out the offenders, rather we should confront them with
> reason.
> > Obviously, the possibility of changing any one's opinion is slim as
> gender
> > bias, like racial, ethnic or religious bias, is deeply ingrained within
> > the
> > psyche of the offender, and is endemic to our society (both in the real
> > world and at Wikipedia).  However, it is certainly worth our every
> effort
> > to
> > do what we can to break down the the wall of ignorance that isolates and
> > protects the bigoted and biased.
> >
> > On 11/25/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Jimmy Wales wrote:
> > > > Puppy wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I appreciate that, Fred. I am not concerned so much about the lack
> of
> > > >> response to my concerns, as I am about the lack of response to
> overt
> > > >> sexist attacks on this mailing list. I am well aware it is not
> > > >> Wikipedia. Most of the people on this list are the same people as
> on
> > > >> Wikipedia. If you call a black man a nigger in the field, you will
> at
> > > >> least /think/ he's a nigger in the house. And don't think the
> > attitude
> > > >> doesn't bleed through, because it does.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Can someone send me a link to the archive where these attacks took
> > > place?
> > > >
> > > > --Jimbo
> > > >
> > >
> > > If you are speaking about the incident with a lack of response, which
> > > concerned me, it happened on this thread.
> > >
> > > When I started posting to this thread, I was taking exception to the
> > > categorization of [[Blowdryer]] as a "woman's topic". I tossed out a
> few
> > > observations on gender bias. Until I did, I didn't think gender bias
> on
> > > WP was that bad - but my inbox is proving me wrong. I just received
> > > another email, responding to a post I made to this thread:
> > > <pasted email>
> > > On 11/25/06, Puppy wrote:
> > > > > When I first started contributing to this thread I received a
> number
> > > of
> > > > > emails, all from women, all thanking me and encouraging me, yet
> none
> > > of
> > > > > them posted to the list.
> > >
> > > Private email response:
> > > > That doesn't surprise me at all.
> > > >
> > > > Do you think it would be a good idea to have a separate mailing list
> > > > to discuss the problems of gender bias in Wikipedia (both in terms
> of
> > > > the content and the community)?
> > > > Along the lines of [[LinuxChix]] perhaps?
> > >
> > > <end pasted email>
> > >
> > > Why didn't this woman, like the others who have been emailing me, post
> > > to this list? I am getting emails from women, all saying how terrific
> I
> > > am, how glad they are someone is posting these concerns, and now I'm
> > > getting suggestions for a women's mailing list. Why do you think that
> > is?
> > >
> > > Alphax wrote "Women arguing on this list reinforces the view of
> > > "woman-as-empty-headed-shallow-person"."
> > >
> > > This is clearly an overt sexist attack. Let's put the shoe on the
> other
> > > foot - what if most of the posts to this list were by men, and a woman
> > > wrote "Men arguing on this list reinforces the view of
> > > "man-as-stupid-testosterone-driven-lout"? But that isn't really a
> > > parallel, because women don't run this society. Try imagining this -
> > > lets change "women and men" to "black and white", using gender issues
> > > rather than race issues from the r/w: You are a black man. You live in
> a
> > > society where most of the power is wielded by whites. All the bosses
> > > you've ever had have been white. The president has always been white.
> > > There are people who express openly their beliefs that blacks are
> > > substandard. Your religion states you are subservient to whites, and
> > > that is God's plan. Until the 1970s, you did not have autonomy over
> your
> > > body, under the law. Until the 1980s, you could not even own property
> in
> > > some states in your name - your white boss owned it, and in fact could
> > > do what he wanted with it under the law (See Kirchberg v. Feenstra,
> > > 1981). You can be raped by a white person, and if you take it to
> court,
> > > it is often worse than the rape - people make racist remarks, say you
> > > "asked for it."  You walk into a room. Almost everyone is white.
> Someone
> > > makes a racist comment. None of the other people protest, and some
> > > laugh. Do you A) Speak out your convictions strongly and clearly? or
> B)
> > > give a weak laugh and look for the exit door?
> > >
> > > I'm thinking the other women are waiting to see if I'm lynched. That's
> > > why they are emailing me privately, even suggesting a separate mailing
> > > list. *They are intimidated against posting these concerns on this
> > > list.* I personally don't think that "separate but equal" works very
> > > well. I'm speaking up, myself.
> > >
> > > What if the black man had seen a different response? What if someone
> > > made a racist comment or joke, and /all/ the white people in the room
> > > had spoken out, telling the bigot they didn't tolerate such behavior?
> > > Told the bigot to apologize, to take his racist comments elsewhere
> > > because they were not welcome? I think the black man would breathe a
> > > little easier... but he'd still be outnumbered. I hear about a
> > > "welcoming attitude" and "we should be on the lookout for bias or
> other
> > > bad behavior towards women editors and do what we can to mitigate its
> > > effects" yet how many spoke out when Alphax posted his clearly
> > > anti-female post to this list? I'm saying we are in a biased society,
> > > which is reflected in both mens' and womens' attitudes, and if you
> truly
> > > want to get a more balanced editing pool and make women feel welcome
> > > here, no gender bias, whether subtle or overt, can be ignored. Or
> we'll
> > > continue to have a few strong women, fewer as we go up the chain of
> > > power, and the imbalance will continue.
> > >
> > > -kc-
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jim
> > http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
James Hare wrote:
> Separate mailing lists for women? What perfenander.
>
> Guys, we're not going to be improving an encyclopedia/news
> site/dictionary/quote database/species directory/education wiki/series of
> textbooks/media repository/primary source library if we keep bickering.
>
> Jimmy-Jimmy said it best: kick out the bad people.
>
> Then get back to work.
That's a bit simplistic, IMHO. "Bad people"? Truly horrific cases, like
the person who vandalized SlimVirgin's user page about a year ago, I
have no problem calling "bad people" and banning. But the overall
atmosphere, the lack of concern, that is not so clear cut. I just
received yet /another/ email from a women, and I replied asking why she
didn't post to this list? and she replied that /she was afraid of being
attacked/ if she did. Now, obviously I don't suffer from the same
intimidation - but it seems I am more an anomaly than I realized. I am
concerned I sound like a rabid feminist, which I'm not - but the volume
of email I am receiving tells me there is an issue. And simply "kicking
out the bad people" won't work. The "bad people" is us.

-kc-


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:
> On Nov 25, 2006, at 7:28 AM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
>
>
>> Jim Schuler wrote:
>>
>>> I find it sad that someone feels the need to have a separate
>>> mailing list
>>> for women.  Gender bias is an issue that touches all of us and
>>> should be
>>> discussed openly by *all of us.  *As KC noted, separate but equal
>>> is a
>>> farce: it is merely separate, not equal, for in the act of
>>> separation power
>>> is ceded to the majority, a majority that is often boorish and
>>> smug in its
>>> ignorance.
>>>
>>> It is also sad that when some of the men here spoke out in defence
>>> of women,
>>> they were attacked for piling on (the offender had slinked off
>>> without so
>>> much as an apology)
>>>
>> Do you think I'm proud of what I said? Do you think I actually
>> meant it?
>> Do you think that continuing to attack me would have helped the
>> situation? Do you think that there was any apology I could have give
>> that wouldn't have been just brushed off as insincere?
>>
>
> Just say you are sorry and get it over with. Then sin no more. I
> think most of us are aware that there is an element of trolling
> involved in this thread, but there are also real problems which we
> need to deal with effectively.
>
> Fred
>
> _
>
Well put. I fear there is some conflation of the comment, the response
(or lack thereof), and the overall situation.
-kc-


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
Indeed: the ignorance of even the few tarnishes the image of the many,
especially when that ignorance is allowed to fester.

On 11/25/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
>
> James Hare wrote:
> > Separate mailing lists for women? What perfenander.
> >
> > Guys, we're not going to be improving an encyclopedia/news
> > site/dictionary/quote database/species directory/education wiki/series
> of
> > textbooks/media repository/primary source library if we keep bickering.
> >
> > Jimmy-Jimmy said it best: kick out the bad people.
> >
> > Then get back to work.
> That's a bit simplistic, IMHO. "Bad people"? Truly horrific cases, like
> the person who vandalized SlimVirgin's user page about a year ago, I
> have no problem calling "bad people" and banning. But the overall
> atmosphere, the lack of concern, that is not so clear cut. I just
> received yet /another/ email from a women, and I replied asking why she
> didn't post to this list? and she replied that /she was afraid of being
> attacked/ if she did. Now, obviously I don't suffer from the same
> intimidation - but it seems I am more an anomaly than I realized. I am
> concerned I sound like a rabid feminist, which I'm not - but the volume
> of email I am receiving tells me there is an issue. And simply "kicking
> out the bad people" won't work. The "bad people" is us.
>
> -kc-
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] 1.5M

body:
On 11/25/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've started a little project in my user page called "Stable-Wikipedia"
> where I'll be listing good versions of articles.

Sure you don't want to contribute to one of the several existing
projects that all have the same goal instead?

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:
> Stan Shebs wrote
>
>
>> The
>> hazard of asserting that women editors have something similarly
>> distinctive to bring to WP, by virtue of gender alone, is that one is
>> playing right into the stereotype of "women's topics" or "female
>> viewpoints", and risks creating a sort of "pink collar" ghetto in WP
>> that new female editors would be subtly (or not-so-subtly) steered towards.
>>
>
> The argument is broken.
>
> Sure, creating the editorial equivalent of traditional newspapers' Women's Pages is not only a generation out of date and patronising, it is nothing anyone with WP experience would want anything to do with.
>
> But WP is a voluntary organisation, first and foremost. Discouraging women in any way is shooting ourselves in the feet, big time. Not just because slant in topic coverage will be harder to correct. But because women are (on average) better quality volunteers. Why else did we elect Angela and Anthere to the Board?
>
I absolutely agree. I'm speaking purely to the systemic bias point,
valiantly trying to stay on-topic for this thread. :-)

My gut feeling on this is that there is some systemic bias in topics of
interest to women, but that it's subtle and going to be hard to write
down as a project a la Africa coverage. As I mentioned earlier, our
right person to write in depth about blowdryers is not the daily user
who has only anecdotal unsourced comments to relate, but the nerd who
collects books on the subject or the retired engineer who used to design
them - but how do you advertise the interest without getting into a big
fight about stereotypes? Nobody gets accused of any -ism for building up
a list of Gabon-related topics.

Stan


from_name: niht-hræfn

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
On Nov 24, 2006, at 23:22, Fred Bauder wrote:

>
> On Nov 24, 2006, at 9:14 PM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
>
>> Fred Bauder wrote:
>>> On Nov 24, 2006, at 8:50 PM, Puppy wrote:
>>>
>>>> So where is the limit, Fred? Attack women on the mailing list, ok.
>>>> Call them a cunt, that's ok too. Say all women are idiots, that's
>>>> ok. As long as we don't out their personal information? Where is
>>>> your line for "bad behavior" drawn, precisely? There has been a
>>>> thread for a couple of months about the imbalance of the ratio of
>>>> men to women editors for months now, and I am saying attacking
>>>> women /because they are women/ is, to put it mildly, off-putting.
>>>> Its beyond uncivil. It is, as David Gerard's friend pointed out,
>>>> "hopelessly patriarchally biased and useless to harmful."
>>>
>>> None of that is acceptable.
>>>
>>
>> So what should we do about it?
>
> Do better personally and not tolerate such behavior from others.
> However, we cannot, by taking thought on it, cause more women to
> edit. We can only encourage and support.
>
> Fred
>

There are some who would argue that there is no bias against women in
internet contexts because they receive so much more attention and
everyone is all "omg grrls" (They're full of crap, btw). However, I'd
say on Wikipedia, I get more attention when I want something and
little to no attention when I'm saying something.

The attention I do receive in #wikipedia is often what I would
consider sexual harassment (I wholly understand that IRC is not
Wikipedia, but maybe 200 of our editors are there). In #uncyclopedia,
I kickban anyone that I feel isn't respecting me/my gender as they
should. However, there I am level 24, bureaucrat and sysop on wiki
and generally pull more weight. I am afraid to say anything about
feeling harassed on #wikipedia because it seems that I would be told
that they were just joking or I need to lighten up or that's not a
bannable offense. Not that I hate everyone who does it either, and I
don't even know if they know they're doing it, but it's a shame that
it's allowed and overlooked. Although I am part of the problem here
for not speaking up.

On-wiki the problem of gender discrimination is probably not as
pronounced because one often needs to look at the user page and find
the area where the user decides or declines to state their gender.
I'd be interested to know how well-known females are treated compared
to their well-known male counterparts (I mean admins, etc, those that
people know are female because they've heard of them), although it
would seem with the actions of Wikipedia Review, that the answer is
going to be "less well".

Anyhow, it'd seem that to be female and stick around Wikipedia IRC,
one has to have very thick skin. I don't know why females, in my
experience, feel more intimidated to edit Wikipedia or why they
aren't jumping on the editing bandwagon. They certainly /use/ it..

--Keitei, who's just typed more than she'd intended


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Fred Bauder stated for the record:

> Perhaps those assumptions explain the drama, but I would advance
> these assumptions for work:
>
> We have problems, but could do better.
>
> Dialog is productive.

Dialog is indeed productive, and I'll be glad to start there.

Other than the recent unpleasantness on the mailing list, what problems
are you seeing?

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Warning: Dates on calendar
 sean at epoptic.com | are closer than they appear.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFaIeQ/SVOiq2uhHMRAmFoAKCdzuTb/puJ+n7t74g6BsJ5c427rQCbBTep
nHqAlSk5GN4NB8zelXfCySM=
=ITPC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Marco Schuster

subject: [Commons-l] CommonsDelinker

body:
Bence Damokos schrieb:
> hi!
> Could you please give me your username on a wiki, so I can contact you
> privately on use on huwiki?
> Dami
[[:de:User:HardDisk]]
[[:meta:User:HardDisk]]
[[:en:User:HardDisk]]

Regards,
Marco


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Fred Bauder stated for the record:
> On Nov 25, 2006, at 11:12 AM, Sean Barrett wrote:
>
>> Other than the recent unpleasantness on the mailing list, what
>> problems
>> are you seeing?
>
> Biggest problem is off-wiki targeting and stalking. No names, but at
> least 4 prominent women were strongly affected. And I can think of
> two others. Mostly it is framed as trying to access personal
> information, calling employers, etc. Imagining that one demonic woman
> is oppressing.
>
> Fred

Very true, and very much a severe problem.  I'm aware of at least a few
of those you mention.

Do you have any ideas what we as Wikipedians can do that we aren't
already doing?  Law enforcement was notified in at least one case.  I
think that all of the perps are blocked for eternity from both the site
and the mailing list.

(Fred, is your last sentence what you wanted to say?)

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Warning: Dates on calendar
 sean at epoptic.com | are closer than they appear.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFaIph/SVOiq2uhHMRAhNdAKC4Tc/xLzoFfeAaItoAraA4/Zn5ywCgsXXZ
BWTWextN7fGKlZqyZ58knaU=
=ppX9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
On Nov 25, 2006, at 10:26 AM, Sean Barrett wrote:

>  I do not think that Wikipedia-the-place-where-we-write-articles
> is bad.  If you have evidence to the contrary, point me at it, and I
> will block the bad guys and bring the ArbComm case against them
> myself.
>  We are commissioned to protect the article-writing community, and I
> think we've done a not-bad job for the past three years.  Any
> bigotry in
> Wikipedia-the-place-where-we-write-articles is only there because the
> ArbComm has not been made aware of it.

While the Arbcom is prepared to tromp all over overt misogyny, I
think most problems are too subtle to come to our attention in the
form of a case. Or occur off-wiki on other sites. Actually I, and I
think most other arbitrators, routinely work on problems presented by
off-wiki harassment and attempts to ferret out personal information.
This work is informal and often not a part of an actual case.

Fred


from_name: Sean Black

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
This is a rather serious problem, and I regret that more hasn't been
done about it. On the one hand, you /could/ just ban everyone who acts
like this, but I don't think they'd particularly learn. For the most
part, these people just need to mature, and learn to think with their
brains rather than their sex organs. How one would educate these
individuals is another thing entirely, however.

~~Sean

> There are some who would argue that there is no bias against women in
> internet contexts because they receive so much more attention and
> everyone is all "omg grrls" (They're full of crap, btw). However, I'd
> say on Wikipedia, I get more attention when I want something and
> little to no attention when I'm saying something.
>
> The attention I do receive in #wikipedia is often what I would
> consider sexual harassment (I wholly understand that IRC is not
> Wikipedia, but maybe 200 of our editors are there). In #uncyclopedia,
> I kickban anyone that I feel isn't respecting me/my gender as they
> should. However, there I am level 24, bureaucrat and sysop on wiki
> and generally pull more weight. I am afraid to say anything about
> feeling harassed on #wikipedia because it seems that I would be told
> that they were just joking or I need to lighten up or that's not a
> bannable offense. Not that I hate everyone who does it either, and I
> don't even know if they know they're doing it, but it's a shame that
> it's allowed and overlooked. Although I am part of the problem here
> for not speaking up.
>
> On-wiki the problem of gender discrimination is probably not as
> pronounced because one often needs to look at the user page and find
> the area where the user decides or declines to state their gender.
> I'd be interested to know how well-known females are treated compared
> to their well-known male counterparts (I mean admins, etc, those that
> people know are female because they've heard of them), although it
> would seem with the actions of Wikipedia Review, that the answer is
> going to be "less well".
>
> Anyhow, it'd seem that to be female and stick around Wikipedia IRC,
> one has to have very thick skin. I don't know why females, in my
> experience, feel more intimidated to edit Wikipedia or why they
> aren't jumping on the editing bandwagon. They certainly /use/ it..
>
> --Keitei, who's just typed more than she'd intended
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
On Nov 25, 2006, at 9:35 AM, Sean Barrett wrote:

> Fred Bauder stated for the record:
>> On Nov 25, 2006, at 8:53 AM, Sean Barrett wrote:
>>
>>>  the
>>> assumptions behind this passion play
>>
>> What are the assumptions?
>
> Primarily that:
>
> #1 there can never be any doubt that hateful bigotry is running
> rampant,
> crippling the functioning of our society
>
> #2 anyone who wonders whether the alleged oppression is really as
> bad as
> is claimed is a hateful bigot who must be immediately reeducated if
> not
> exiled from the community
>
> Please remember that we started talking about -- and I'm still talking
> about -- Wikipedia, the place where we write articles, not this
> mailing
> list or IRC.  As I think you pointed out, there are different
> players as
> well as different sets of rules for each, making them distinct
> communities.

Perhaps those assumptions explain the drama, but I would advance
these assumptions for work:

We have problems, but could do better.

Dialog is productive.

Fred


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
> The comments were inappropriate, and I'm sorry for making them. The
> response is sadly lacking, and I'm sorry for contributing to an
> atmosphere that discourages appropriate responses. The situation is a
> mess, and I'm sorry for having started it.
>
>

I'm not sorry you made them, although I know it has been uncomfortable
for you - I'm grateful. You made some ill considered remarks, which have
brought attention to a problem. This is a Good Thing.With the exception
of Sean Barrett, whose recent sarcastic tirade addresses no issues
whatsoever, everyone seems to be giving this a serious look now. You are
aware that off hand sexist comments, whether meant jokingly or not, have
impact, so you have learned something too, yes? I learned a great deal -
I did not think there was much of a problem on WP until this thread took
off, and now my inbox is convincing me there is a serious issue. If
nothing else, most of the readers of this list are at least more aware,
and that is something.

Thank you for the apology - accepted with no reserve.

-kc-


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
On Nov 25, 2006, at 10:25 AM, <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:

> Puppy wrote
>
>> Women are emailing me telling me how intimidated they feel - they
>> don't
>> want to post their concerns to this list because they also feel
>> intimidated here.
>
> Membership of this list has historically been open (just as
> Wikipedia has been). Personally I'd like to see a cull. It takes a
> _lot_ to get anyone thrown off. Can we have the bar lowered on
> that, please?
>
> Charles

It is close to worthless nowadays, seldom a productive or worthwhile
discussion. A few people seem to post over and over and say very
little. And that's not even addressing the nasty aspects.

Fred


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Fred Bauder stated for the record:

>> (Fred, is your last sentence ["Imagining that one demonic woman
>> is oppressing."] what you wanted to say?)
>
> That is what they do. They imagine a Wikipedia administrator as some
> sort of spider queen with a host of minions.
>
> Fred

Thanks -- I'm trying to read people's messages extra-carefully, that
just wouldn't parse for me.

Back on the dialog: the truly nasty stalkers are easy to spot, and
there's little debate on how to deal with them (ie, as harshly as
possible as quickly as possible).  Apparently there is also a more
subtle problem.  We've seen the quality-of-article example; can anyone
give me another?

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Warning: Dates on calendar
 sean at epoptic.com | are closer than they appear.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFaJVa/SVOiq2uhHMRAuJlAKDsNwKAY0pC2nIufqM1HX/4EyQ8cwCeKAPQ
VctrFtA7hPEiLmFctjVgCwM=
=Vx2l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
On Nov 25, 2006, at 11:12 AM, Sean Barrett wrote:

> Other than the recent unpleasantness on the mailing list, what
> problems
> are you seeing?

Biggest problem is off-wiki targeting and stalking. No names, but at
least 4 prominent women were strongly affected. And I can think of
two others. Mostly it is framed as trying to access personal
information, calling employers, etc. Imagining that one demonic woman
is oppressing.

Fred


from_name: Larry Pieniazek

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
I hope that it does not come to where contributors to this list feel the
need for a separate list.  I write this with some trepidation, but I beleive
there are differences in all of us. Those differences are things to
celebrate, and not reasons to be separate. They are instead, merely reasons
to try to see things from the perspective of others. We cannot make the
world a pace where all outcomes are equal. We cannot even make the world a
place where all opportunities are exactly equal. What we can, and should do,
is make this list a place where all voices get a reasonable hearing, and
identify things that can be worked on. That is all we can do on this list
and all we should do.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
Stan Shebs wrote:
> Puppy wrote:
>
>> I appreciate that, Fred. I am not concerned so much about the lack of
>> response to my concerns, as I am about the lack of response to overt
>> sexist attacks on this mailing list.
>>
> I personally didn't respond because it looked like trolling, and you're
> not supposed to feed the trolls. But apparently my attempt at troll
> starvation is evidence of misogyny? Bummer...
>
> Stan
>
I almost didn't respond for that very reason, but now I'm glad I did.
Women are emailing me telling me how intimidated they feel - they don't
want to post their concerns to this list because they also feel
intimidated here. That I would have never known had I not replied.
-kc-


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
Sean Barrett wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Fred Bauder stated for the record:
>
>> On Nov 25, 2006, at 8:53 AM, Sean Barrett wrote:
>>
>>
>>>  the
>>> assumptions behind this passion play
>>>
>> What are the assumptions?
>>
>
> Primarily that:
>
> #1 there can never be any doubt that hateful bigotry is running rampant,
> crippling the functioning of our society
>
> #2 anyone who wonders whether the alleged oppression is really as bad as
> is claimed is a hateful bigot who must be immediately reeducated if not
> exiled from the community
>
> Please remember that we started talking about -- and I'm still talking
> about -- Wikipedia, the place where we write articles, not this mailing
> list or IRC.  As I think you pointed out, there are different players as
> well as different sets of rules for each, making them distinct communities.
>
> - --
>  Sean Barrett     | I was forced to live for days
>  sean at epoptic.com | on nothing but food and water.
>

regarding #1: I assumed the precise opposite until this thread.
regarding #2: Bit dramatic, aren't you? Try rephrasing with less sturm
und drang.
Regarding both: Who are you saying made those assumptions?

-kc-


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
On Nov 25, 2006, at 11:24 AM, Sean Barrett wrote:

> Fred Bauder stated for the record:
>> On Nov 25, 2006, at 11:12 AM, Sean Barrett wrote:
>>
>>> Other than the recent unpleasantness on the mailing list, what
>>> problems
>>> are you seeing?
>>
>> Biggest problem is off-wiki targeting and stalking. No names, but at
>> least 4 prominent women were strongly affected. And I can think of
>> two others. Mostly it is framed as trying to access personal
>> information, calling employers, etc. Imagining that one demonic woman
>> is oppressing.
>>
>> Fred
>
> Very true, and very much a severe problem.  I'm aware of at least a
> few
> of those you mention.
>
> Do you have any ideas what we as Wikipedians can do that we aren't
> already doing?  Law enforcement was notified in at least one case.  I
> think that all of the perps are blocked for eternity from both the
> site
> and the mailing list.
>
> (Fred, is your last sentence what you wanted to say?)

That is what they do. They imagine a Wikipedia administrator as some
sort of spider queen with a host of minions.

Fred


from_name: Rob Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: simple example

body:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rob Smith <nobs03 at gmail.com>
Date: Nov 25, 2006 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: simple example
To: nobs03 at gmail.com

On 11/20/06, Dmcdevit <dmcdevit at cox.net> wrote:
> There may have been some earlier discussion I can't see

Discussion during proposed rewrite of  Wikipedia:Verifiability reveals
some of the process abuses (I would encourage reviewing the entire
subsection "Query").

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability&diff=prev&oldid=30392874

Mr. Bauder comments that the ArbCom case was essentially a content dispute,

"Ok, here's the problem. You put stuff on there about Kiko Martinez;
what does Chip Berlet have to do with Kiko Martinez? Fred Bauder
20:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nobs01#Talk:Chip_Berlet

and in in the 2005 Candidate Questions Mr. Bauder again refers to a
content dispute,

"...He lists one man as having been convicted of a crime and being
dead when I sometimes chat with the same man at our local library."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Candidate_statements/Fred_Bauder&diff=prev&oldid=30343697

my rejoinder,

"So I have a published source that says Kiko Martinez blew himself up
in 1970; [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] says he sometimes chat's
"with the same man at our local library", my inclusion is valid as
[[WP:V]], whereas Fred's is uncitable. [[User:Nobs01|nobs]] 21:48, 6
December 2005 (UTC)

"uncitable", i.e. Original Research.

See also for a fuller exposition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Candidate_statements/Fred_Bauder&diff=prev&oldid=30396478#Question_from_nobs

In Summary, the Plaintiffs pursuit of Dispute Resolution lacked merit,
had numerous conflicts of interest and outright policy violations that
brought the matter to Arbitration.  Once in Arbitration, Defendants
Evidence was either disallowed or totally ignored. Ultimately,
Defendant in stupidity and frustration made "personal attacks" on his
own User Page.  Defendants arguement then -- and now -- is that there
was never any basis for pursuing Dispute Resolution.  And Mr. Bauder
now admits, denying me a right to defend myself "was in error".

The question now is, is it reversible error.  I've served my time,
carry no grudges, and only seek some modification to the language,
"The ban may be renewed for additional years by any 3 administrators
after its expiration should personal attacks of the virulence found in
this case continue" given the admitted errors.

Thank you.

Nobs01


body:
On Nov 25, 2006, at 11:54 AM, Rob Smith wrote:

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Rob Smith <nobs03 at gmail.com>
> Date: Nov 25, 2006 11:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: simple example
> To: nobs03 at gmail.com
>
>
> On 11/20/06, Dmcdevit <dmcdevit at cox.net> wrote:
>> There may have been some earlier discussion I can't see
>
>
> Discussion during proposed rewrite of  Wikipedia:Verifiability reveals
> some of the process abuses (I would encourage reviewing the entire
> subsection "Query").
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> title=Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability&diff=prev&oldid=30392874
>
> Mr. Bauder comments that the ArbCom case was essentially a content
> dispute,
>
> "Ok, here's the problem. You put stuff on there about Kiko Martinez;
> what does Chip Berlet have to do with Kiko Martinez? Fred Bauder
> 20:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)"
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nobs01#Talk:Chip_Berlet
>
> and in in the 2005 Candidate Questions Mr. Bauder again refers to a
> content dispute,
>
> "...He lists one man as having been convicted of a crime and being
> dead when I sometimes chat with the same man at our local library."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/
> Candidate_statements/Fred_Bauder&diff=prev&oldid=30343697
>
> my rejoinder,
>
> "So I have a published source that says Kiko Martinez blew himself up
> in 1970; [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] says he sometimes chat's
> "with the same man at our local library", my inclusion is valid as
> [[WP:V]], whereas Fred's is uncitable. [[User:Nobs01|nobs]] 21:48, 6
> December 2005 (UTC)
>
> "uncitable", i.e. Original Research.
>
> See also for a fuller exposition.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/
> Candidate_statements/
> Fred_Bauder&diff=prev&oldid=30396478#Question_from_nobs
>
> In Summary, the Plaintiffs pursuit of Dispute Resolution lacked merit,
> had numerous conflicts of interest and outright policy violations that
> brought the matter to Arbitration.  Once in Arbitration, Defendants
> Evidence was either disallowed or totally ignored. Ultimately,
> Defendant in stupidity and frustration made "personal attacks" on his
> own User Page.  Defendants arguement then -- and now -- is that there
> was never any basis for pursuing Dispute Resolution.  And Mr. Bauder
> now admits, denying me a right to defend myself "was in error".
>
> The question now is, is it reversible error.  I've served my time,
> carry no grudges, and only seek some modification to the language,
> "The ban may be renewed for additional years by any 3 administrators
> after its expiration should personal attacks of the virulence found in
> this case continue" given the admitted errors.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Nobs01

I saw Kiko just the other day. What is this innocent person, living
an ordinary life, doing on Wikipedia with false information about him?

Fred


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

references:
<20061125173812.FNPL17393.aamtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@smtp.ntlworld.com>
	<456885C8.3090107@earthlink.net>
	<45688B94.9000500@KillerChihuahua.com>

body:
On Nov 25, 2006, at 11:29 AM, Puppy wrote:

> so
> many people think I'm male.

Yes, that was my assumption.

Fred


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
Drawing an odd inference there -- if anything was implied it was that
silence is tolerance of misogyny, not misogyny itself.

On 11/25/06, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:

> Puppy wrote:
> > I appreciate that, Fred. I am not concerned so much about the lack of
> > response to my concerns, as I am about the lack of response to overt
> > sexist attacks on this mailing list.
> I personally didn't respond because it looked like trolling, and you're
> not supposed to feed the trolls. But apparently my attempt at troll
> starvation is evidence of misogyny? Bummer...
>
> Stan
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
> Puppy wrote:
>
>> Stan Shebs wrote:
>>
>>> Puppy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I appreciate that, Fred. I am not concerned so much about the lack of
>>>> response to my concerns, as I am about the lack of response to overt
>>>> sexist attacks on this mailing list.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I personally didn't respond because it looked like trolling, and you're
>>> not supposed to feed the trolls. But apparently my attempt at troll
>>> starvation is evidence of misogyny? Bummer...
>>>
>>> Stan
>>>
>>>
>> I almost didn't respond for that very reason, but now I'm glad I did.
>> Women are emailing me telling me how intimidated they feel - they don't
>> want to post their concerns to this list because they also feel
>> intimidated here. That I would have never known had I not replied.
>>
>>
>
> Generally this list is home to not sexism but general stupidity. What
> will it take before people feel safe enough to post here?
>
I don't have a solution. I do, however, now recognize there is a serious
problem. I didn't add anything to the recent threads about trying to
increase female participation in WP because I had no idea why women
would /not/ be editing, standing for admin, standing for arbcom, etc.
Now I know at least one reason, and it is something I can do something
about.

It appears I'm one of those "thick skinned" women Keitei refers to - I
didn't even think there was much of a problem until this started, as
I've said. I have now received multiple emails from different women, all
stating they are intimidated and afraid to post on this list, and
thanking me for talking about this. The mere fact that gender bias is
being discussed seems to be encouraging to them. I think we may need to
adopt a vigilant attitude towards sexist comments, and not ever let them
slide or slip under the radar. If there is a concerted message that
sexist comments are not welcome, gradually the climate should change. As
Larry Pieniazek pointed out, we cannot change the world - but we can
change how we respond to sexism in our little sphere of influence, which
includes all things wp - wp itself, this mailing list, and yes irc. We
have no control over irc, of course, yet if there is concerted response
towards any sexism, it should have an effect. I am speaking here of
personal responsibility, not Wikipedia policy or responsibility. It
behooves us to remember that what may seem like a "shrug it off" comment
to us, to women who are already intimidated, it may be the kiss of death
insofar as their participation in Wikipedia is concerned. Keitei said

 "I am afraid to say anything about
feeling harassed on #wikipedia because it seems that I would be told
that they were just joking or I need to lighten up or that's not a
bannable offense. Not that I hate everyone who does it either, and I
don't even know if they know they're doing it, but it's a shame that
it's allowed and overlooked. Although I am part of the problem here
for not speaking up."

If someone feels the climate is hostile to speaking up, we are not
making this a supportive or even neutral environment to women. Sean
Barrett is apparently mocking any concern, if I understand his emails
correctly. This is not conducive to women feeling free to voice
concerns, and goes beyond "allowed and overlooked" into outright
hostility - if women are already afraid, mocking their concerns is
definitely adding to and exacerbating the problem.

Those are my thoughts currently - does anyone else have any ideas?

-kc-


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
On Nov 25, 2006, at 12:16 PM, Guettarda wrote:

> Actually that doesn't always work.  While the instances of which I
> am aware
> may not be representative, it seems like most (but by no means all)
> of the
> instances where editors have been harrassed at home or work have
> involved
> female editors.  We don't have much by way to tools to protect against
> things like that.

Those of us with checkuser and oversight stand ready to do anything
we can to deal with these situations, including deleting user and
talk pages, and removing personal information using oversight. Best
defense is maintaining anonymity.

Fred


subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
Sean is merely mocking himself with his allegedly witty posts.  He has no
doubt also opened the eyes of a few people who might previously have thought
highly of him, even if only because of his position on Wiki.  Sad really.

On 11/25/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
>
> Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
> > Puppy wrote:
> >
> >> Stan Shebs wrote:
> >>
> >>> Puppy wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I appreciate that, Fred. I am not concerned so much about the lack of
> >>>> response to my concerns, as I am about the lack of response to overt
> >>>> sexist attacks on this mailing list.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> I personally didn't respond because it looked like trolling, and
> you're
> >>> not supposed to feed the trolls. But apparently my attempt at troll
> >>> starvation is evidence of misogyny? Bummer...
> >>>
> >>> Stan
> >>>
> >>>
> >> I almost didn't respond for that very reason, but now I'm glad I did.
> >> Women are emailing me telling me how intimidated they feel - they don't
> >> want to post their concerns to this list because they also feel
> >> intimidated here. That I would have never known had I not replied.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Generally this list is home to not sexism but general stupidity. What
> > will it take before people feel safe enough to post here?
> >
> I don't have a solution. I do, however, now recognize there is a serious
> problem. I didn't add anything to the recent threads about trying to
> increase female participation in WP because I had no idea why women
> would /not/ be editing, standing for admin, standing for arbcom, etc.
> Now I know at least one reason, and it is something I can do something
> about.
>
> It appears I'm one of those "thick skinned" women Keitei refers to - I
> didn't even think there was much of a problem until this started, as
> I've said. I have now received multiple emails from different women, all
> stating they are intimidated and afraid to post on this list, and
> thanking me for talking about this. The mere fact that gender bias is
> being discussed seems to be encouraging to them. I think we may need to
> adopt a vigilant attitude towards sexist comments, and not ever let them
> slide or slip under the radar. If there is a concerted message that
> sexist comments are not welcome, gradually the climate should change. As
> Larry Pieniazek pointed out, we cannot change the world - but we can
> change how we respond to sexism in our little sphere of influence, which
> includes all things wp - wp itself, this mailing list, and yes irc. We
> have no control over irc, of course, yet if there is concerted response
> towards any sexism, it should have an effect. I am speaking here of
> personal responsibility, not Wikipedia policy or responsibility. It
> behooves us to remember that what may seem like a "shrug it off" comment
> to us, to women who are already intimidated, it may be the kiss of death
> insofar as their participation in Wikipedia is concerned. Keitei said
>
> "I am afraid to say anything about
> feeling harassed on #wikipedia because it seems that I would be told
> that they were just joking or I need to lighten up or that's not a
> bannable offense. Not that I hate everyone who does it either, and I
> don't even know if they know they're doing it, but it's a shame that
> it's allowed and overlooked. Although I am part of the problem here
> for not speaking up."
>
> If someone feels the climate is hostile to speaking up, we are not
> making this a supportive or even neutral environment to women. Sean
> Barrett is apparently mocking any concern, if I understand his emails
> correctly. This is not conducive to women feeling free to voice
> concerns, and goes beyond "allowed and overlooked" into outright
> hostility - if women are already afraid, mocking their concerns is
> definitely adding to and exacerbating the problem.
>
> Those are my thoughts currently - does anyone else have any ideas?
>
> -kc-
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

body:
On 11/25/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
> Those are my thoughts currently - does anyone else have any ideas?

End this painful thread, its forking off child threads that my mailer
isn't able to keep together.

>If someone feels the climate is hostile to speaking up, we are not
>making this a supportive or even neutral environment to women.

I honestly thought the OP was trolling and ignored the thread.... So I
was happily ignoring the thread until I saw Kat post .... I saw that
it was even worse than I expected it do be, so I tried to continue to
ignore it... but it's getting rather hard now.

The argument appeared to be of the form of "Look at [[indisputably bad
thing X]]. How can we reduce the harm thing Y is causing.", where the
blanks were filled in with "our bad coverage of subjects which tend to
be more interesting to woman" and "the material biases in our  caused
by the over-representation of men in our decision making".

Bad examples (in my house it's me that uses the hair drier, I'm as
able to write about them as any typical woman, .. it's just that no
one finds hair driers interesting) notwithstanding...

The fallacy here is that no suggestion was ever made that thing Y even
exists, much less is related to bad thing X.

This is the same form of argument we see in posts Gregory Kohs, where
he points out the deletion of some marginally notable corporate stub
and then waves his hands asking us what to do with this corporate
bias.

Why must we start off viewing poor coverage of ballet as some kind of
insidious bias against women?  Because that agrees with someone's
agenda?  ... Why not consider it a part of a larger unevenness of
coverage, and look for solutions which work independently of the root
cause? ... Because a 17 year old doesn't care that our coverage is
biased in favor of pop-culture when compared against subjects
interesting to the blue-hairs?

In any case, the attacking tone this thread has taken.. especially by
those who are claiming to be attacked is especially troublesome.   I
was and am honestly afraid to post my thoughts as a result of it.   I
think you should take a step back and think about that before
replying.