Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force

Please read the associated Gender gap task force page before posting here. Constructive suggestions for dealing with the gender gap welcome.

Expanding use of the project

While there's always potential for warm and positive, in the interim this task force can and should be used for problem solving the problem of not enough female participation in en.Wikipedia. It's not just a place to link to techno-solutions.

So per the scope statement on the main page, in order to identify gender bias on Wikipedia – whether in articles, discussions, policies or implementation of policies – and to take steps to counter it, as well as to raise awareness of how it can affect editorial and other decisions we should consider:

• linking to various relevant articles/essays/projects within en.wikipedia and wikimedia regarding the topic.
• writing an essay prominently advertised here on the problems women face and solutions to those problems through wiki dispute resolution processes, existing "support" type pages, etc.; writing another essay on how men and women can work together more successfully in community, etc., considering some concepts in this geekfeminism article.
• thinking up policy tweaks and changes, like regarding WP:Civility and WP:Harassment, to make Wikipedia more comfortable for women.
• posting at the very least links to a variety of topical behavior/policy/etc. issues - including relevant ANIs and Arbitrations and noticeboard postings - that directly affect the gender gap and at least discussing them here and/o getting involved on an individual basis if it seems relevant.
• learning what other projects are doing right. (I heard on gender gap email list the Serb women are the most active. I know the ones I've met are very smart and forthright.)
• promoting the various women-related projects to women editors. I was a member of this task force for a year or so, unwatched it in a moment of general frustration, and completely forgot it existed! So it pays to advertise!
• Other ideas?

So there's lots that can be done here without it becoming a touchy feeling consciousness raising group, as much fun as that would be Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

That's brilliant stuff, Carol, thanks for writing it up. I have to go offline shortly, so I can't respond more now, but I will tomorrow. The essay is a really good idea. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's another idea I came up with on Gender gap email list but thought I'd pass by here first, regarding statistically interesting facts we might find on who does/supports AfD's of articles about or related to women: It would be interesting to see if there is a pattern of certain individuals AfDing (and/or coming by to support AfDing) articles because of bias against women. If it's found, a few of us could leave them some nice notes on their talk pages about our findings. :-) (I'm such a nudge!) Thoughts? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Scope

"gender bias" doesn't mean "under participation of women" and, obviously, the project scope doesn't explicitly mention under-participation of women editors anywhere. It will definitely need to be re-worded. I for one completely misunderstood the purpose of the project. Sionk (talk) 11:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The project scope does mention specifically that only 8.5% of WP editors are female. But you bring up a good point about clarity. I think maybe this task force should be renamed to something along the lines of "the gender gap task force". --BoboMeowCat (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

the initial version is pretty clear:[1] - identify gender bias in articles and policies. Given that dozens of reliable sources considered our ghettoization of female biographies to be an indication of exactly such gender bias and indeed that the categorization issue has gotten more sustained press out of any other gender bias issue that I've seen, I think this task force should not be repurposed away from that initial goal - it could have ancillary goals added such as making WP more welcoming for women editors; but I dont think as a task force of countering systemic bias, with an existing editor base, we should throw away that first goal - meaning identify gender bias in articles and policies, and correct it. Categorization into gendered categories is one manifestation of that and I think it should remain as a task covered by this group.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

note early conversation and proposal about this:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Archive_14#Gender_bias_task_force, which imagined creating a place where everyone was welcome and where problematic articles could be identified. I have no problems with expanding the goals of this task force to also address the gender gap, but would oppose renaming it or removing the original goal of identifying and addressing gender bias.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you believe there is any systematic gender bias against men in Wikipedia? jps (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The Meta/Gender Gap/Research section cites several studies on "gender differences" in editing on Wikipedia. (Needs updating and a compare and contrast article; another project we could do here.) Obviously if males predominate number-wise, there will be topic biases and behavior biases towards preferred modes of operating. And if males put up a fight towards those biases being changed in order to make editing more comfortable for women, you have an entrenched and institutionalized bias issue. Therefore the gender gap is a bias issue that this wikiproject should address. It never occurred to me that that it wouldn't be clear that bias leads to the gap. It did occur to me that bias may make some males dig in their heels to resist any challenge from women to change the modus operandi. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

well, given that you are stridently trying to erase 'violence against men' as a concept of study here,Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_24#Category:Violence_against_men and have personally declared study of sexual and gender-based violence against men to be a fringe point of view, in spite of dozens of reliable sources discussing this (see list of sources, if these categories end up being deleted that would be a good indication of bias against men that is not supported by reliable sources but rather by personal dislike of the topic area or a feeling that such a topic area somehow weakens the study of violence against women. I think it's an over correction - Wikipedia is acknowledged to have a gender bias against women, but sometimes we over correct too far in the other direction. Completely Erasing any concept of gender-based violence against men as a cogent and serious area of academic study would be an excellent illustration that the pendulum has swung too far to one side, and I hope corrective action could be taken to address that. More importantly, when a good faith contributor is slurred and demeaned by the likes of you for daring to expand coverage of Wikipedia in this domain which is attested to by significant literature, it creates an unwelcome space for editors of any gender who feel attacked for supporting a view which goes against the view of people like yourself but is nonetheless a part of mainstream academic discourse - I've yet to find any academic papers anywhere that dispute that gender based violence against men exists and you've been unable to produce any literature which supports your views, but a small subset of Wikipedia editors seems to nonetheless believe it's all a fantasy. I don't know if I'd call that systemic but it's there.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

[Insert] Obiwankenobi wrote "well, given that you are stridently trying to erase 'violence against men'..." Please identify who "you" is since it's not me. I'm not familiar enough with what the related-Wiki issues are to opine. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The objection to that category does not appear related to systemic bias. If I remember correctly, that category was nominated for deletion by a male editor, on the ground that the category was being misused to promote men's rights propaganda. However, whether or not that is a fair assessment of the category is currently being debated at length elsewhere and honestly seems off-topic here. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Carol I was talking about jps, not you. a number of academy and scholarly studies have noted the systemic undercoverage of gender-based violence against men both as a topic of advocacy and as a topic of investment/funding/programming, etc. So, people outside of wikiland believe that there is systemic bias that mitigates against taking gender-based violence against men seriously - happily people have been studying this so there are plenty of reliable sources. unfortunately some here at wikipedia think it's not worthy of our consideration.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree the task force should make clear that everyone is welcome to participate and discuss issues related to systemic bias on Wikipedia, as it relates to gender. However, unfortunately, it seems some misunderstand what systemic bias is, causing them to misunderstand the task force. That's why the name change of "gender gap task force" was suggested, because apparently, the "Countering systemic bias" part is not making this clear enough. If you read the section on systemic bias linked above, you'll see systemic bias is related to the demographics of the contributors, so while it's completely true that there can be bias against male editors/male issues, systemic bias on Wikipedia is about the gender gap. Currently, only approximately 10% of edits are being made by female editors, leading to systemic bias against female editors/women's issues on Wikipedia. Please note that I said systemic bias, not bias in general. Also please note that systemic bias could very well be a male gender issue in other venues (such as male students in predominately female nursing program), but on Wikipedia the under-represented demographic is female editors. To avoid having to continually go through such a lengthy explanation, I think a name change would be very helpful. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Bobo, I think the original goals of the group were clearly laid out in the initial edits and announcements by SlimVirgin. that some want to now change those goals doesn't mean we "misunderstand the task force" - I've been here since the beginning, and you just showed up, so please don't tell me what it's for.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Obiwankenobi, "systemic bias" was always part of the title. All I'm asking is you familiarize yourself with meaning of systemic bias and please not turn this into a huge off topic debate regarding some other sort of bias, which may or may not be affecting the vote for the "violence against men" category. That is currently being debated at great length elsewhere on Wikipedia, and while I agree it may be related to a bias issue of some sort, it's not a systemic bias issue (ie bias specifically related to the gender demographics of the participants). Also, if you check the list for this task force, I actually joined this task force prior to your joining, but that's not even really relevant. Please stop making this personal and criticizing my participation. I've already requested this above when it was getting out of hand and I linked to WP:Civil.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

At least we need to make this point perfectly clear in the lead and scope sections of the project; scope mentions gender gap but doesn't make the connection or state that part of the purpose is to close the gap.

FYI, I do think articles about violence against men are relevant. I'd like to see extensive content on the statistic that more males are raped by other males in the US military than females are raped; or that older males through history have supported war as a way to get rid of a certain percentage of young males who might revolt against their rule (or in polygamous societies, try to get some of their wives). On the other hand, evidently there are concerns by males about POV pushing on the topic, but others seem to have it all well in hand and I don't have the energy to investigate it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Carol. To everyone here, your input at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_24#Category:Violence_against_men would be most welcome, as it seems to be an issue of gender bias, just pointing the other way this time.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Responding to Obi's response to my insert. There still is a big difference between the biases that lead wikipedia to become 90% male and keep it that way as compared to bias against a narrow topic area, like violence against males. The point is if there is a real problem I'm not going to lobby against it. But it feels like the latter issue is being promoted by those who don't want the project to deal with the larger bias against women editing problem. Dealing with such arguments certainly has used up energy that I might otherwise have had to look at the category for discussion thread. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

systemic bias on Wikipedia is about the gender gap. Really? So the reason that Brittanica has more biographies of men than women is due to... fewer female wikipedia editors? Wikipedia as a tertiary source reflects the biases of the broader society, there are lots of write-ups about this. Certainly undercoverage and unwelcoming environment might exacerbate systemic bias against women's topics here and there's a symbiotic relationship, but asserting that gender bias = gender gap is a terrible oversimplification and misses out on the real point - since we are driven by reliable sources, we simply have fewer reliable sources about female X, and since we have notability standards, there are fewer female X who pass those notability standards. That doesn't have to do anything with editor population and much more with systemic bias against women's achievements in the broader society at large. Like other forms of systemic bias - e.g. western centrism, northern-centrism, white-european centrism, etc, the corrective action is not simply getting greater diversity of the editor population - there are also policy changes needed, notability and reliable source standards that could be updated, other sorts of outreach efforts, etc. Simplifying it down to "fix the gender gap" is missing a very big part of the story.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this the "Countering systemic bias" project or the "Countering all this business about systematic bias" project? Is it really necessary for us to have to debate ad nauseum everyone who doubts that bias has any impact on wikipedia editing?

I do see it would help to have an essay describing the effects of not having enough women, with talking points in the scope article, for those who aren't already convinced bias is minimal and the efforts to bring in more women are useless, at best, and who knows what at worst. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Carol, you may have misunderstood my points. I don't think efforts to bring in more women are useless, and I do think such efforts fit within the scope of this task force. I just think there are OTHER important things as well, that this group has focused on previously and should continue to study.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This project was set up to address the gender gap on Wikipedia, i.e. systemic gender bias, which is clearly about women. It's disturbing that that is being questioned! Also, this discussion is turning the page into the opposite of a safe space, so Obi please reconsider what you're doing. A lot of people watching this will not want to become involved when they see it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

My point is simple. Systemic gender bias exists, and this task force was set up to "The aim of the task force is to identify gender bias on Wikipedia – whether in articles, discussions, policies or implementation of policies – and to take steps to counter it, as well as to raise awareness of how it can affect editorial and other decisions." Part of the scope of that project includes bridging the gender gap, but assertions that that is the sole goal of this task force are misrepresenting the stated goals. i think we should have a real open discussion about how to address this gender bias. I have focused on categorization, and ways to make it easier to deghettoize categories. One thing we could do, for example, is ensure in the GA and FA criteria that articles aren't ghettoized. Those rules would apply to male and female editors, and the result would be we wouldn't have Maya Angelou being pasted all over the front page when her categories are ghettoized (true story - it was even covered in the media). That's one example of things this project could do beyond increasing the # of female editors, which I have no problem with and welcome, by the way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The gender gap isn't part of the scope. It is the scope: systemic gender bias. The word systemic is the key word. Also, you're turning another thread into one about categories. That's a minority interest, so it really needs its own subpage/subsection of the project, but we should at least keep the recent category posts on this page together. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Allow me, then, to respectfully disagree Slim. If you are suggesting that gender gap in female editors is equivalent to systemic gender bias in wikipedia's coverage of, say, biographies of women, and that the two are one and the same - and that therefore fixing one would fix the other - can you point to anything suggesting this to be the case? I'm not saying it won't make a difference - it will - but addressing systemic gender bias, against either gender, will require more than just changing the # of editors of the female persuasion. This essay Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#The_nature_of_Wikipedia.27s_bias covers some of the other causes of systemic bias - all of which can lead to an undercoverage of issues related to women, or women's biographies, etc. Coverage in sources is one of the biggies. Since categories are used for navigation amongst articles, they have also taken on an incredibly political dimension, a dimension you can see in arguments to delete the "Violence against men" category which is seen as a threat to "Violence against women". The political dimension of categorization was also clear during the Category-Gate mess, where the fact that wikipedians had neglected to properly categorize certain biographies was seen as a sign of unbridled sexism (even if the reality was more complex). When I first joined this project (sorry to rain on your parade Bobo, but even if I signed my name recently, I've been a participant since the beginning), I added the category instructions and list of categories I'd identified as problematic, and I worked with other editors here on those categories. SlimVirgin at the time said "Thanks for posting that, and this is a good place for it". My reasoning was, since the category problem was so strongly identified in the media, this project was the logical place to work on the solution. Unfortunately, in spite of all of the energy (and outrage) during category-gate, not very many editors have stepped up to actually do the hard work of deghettoization, etc, but I still think until we get category intersection that it's important as a content area under the auspices of this project - since the issues that lead to ghettoization of biographies through categories are not driven by individual sexism, or even actually by reliable sources, but by the very structure of our category system, a misunderstanding of how non-diffusing categories work, and confusion by editors over how to fix this. Thus it is systemic in that it (a) generally tends to bias against women/minorities - not on purpose, but just because they actually are the ones who have the "special" categories in the first place! and (b) is embedded in the structure of how categories work here, and how they're interpreted by the outside world. What I propose is that we could create a separate talk page hierarchy to deal with categorization issues, but keep the instructions and a link to that discussion board on the main page and retain categories as part of the scope of this project under "content" or "articles" + "policies", etc..--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. The WikiProject here was created in response to the gender gap on Wikipedia. That is to say, the fact that the vast majority of editors were male (more than 90%), something that led to a gender bias against women in editing. Now we have a male editor trying to re-purpose the group because editors of both genders tried to delete a category about "Violence against men", a topic that is actually very under-researched (I guarantee, if you tried to find articles on "Violence against women", you would find many hundreds in the place of a dozen or so listed, as well as a few books). Furthermore, this is the editor who largely inspired the category deletion in the first place by misusing it to push an agenda, including repeatedly adding it to the article for a Feminist text [2] [3][4], and WikiHounding anybody who dares to remove an article from the category (you can probably find that in the edit history of any article within it or in its history). The recent stewardship of PUA articles [5] [6], the Sarah Brown naming dispute [7] and your claims that the Isla Vista shootings were misandrist [8] really don't help matters. From this, it looks like you are pushing a personal agenda on a single issue, not trying to change website wide issues of gender bias. You have to realise how bad this looks Obi, especially after numerous editors have displayed concerns with your actions, this WikiProject was created to identify gender bias based on the gender gap [9]. If people are disagreeing with you on this subject, it is statistically very likely that they are largely themselves male, and indeed, reading the thread this seems to be the case. This is due to your viewpoint being unpopular, not misandry. I'm going to go back on my previous stance as good faith and try to convince myself that you are wildly naive rather than actively sexist and have no idea exactly how things like this come across but you should probably take some time to really think about how your actions appear to others. You can't use Wikipedia to change the way that gender issues are treated in critical theory --80.193.191.143 (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Not trying to use wikipedia to change the world 80. Just defending that categorization of biographies is valid under this project. I've been working on the deghettoization issue for a while now, and it's important to me, and it has nothing to do with VAM. Note Slim's quote: "Thanks for posting that, and this is a good place for it". I've only brought up the VAM category dispute since someone asked me whether systemic bias against males might exist, and I pointed to that as a potential example of same. We don't have to discuss it further here. I do find it incredibly ironic that on a message board about systemic gender bias, that you suggest that we should eliminate entirely from wikipedia a topic category about one gender because it's actually very under-researched compared to a similar topic for another gender. Nice reversal! Why don't we try that here, i.e. "We should not have articles about women chemists, because the contributions of male chemists have at least 100x the sourcing." It has become kafkaesque...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I was linked here and thought I'd share my opinion. In the context of your other edits I still find this quite sketchy --80.193.191.143 (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's actually a pretty good sign. If you think I'm actively pushing a POV on one side, and then you see me actively pushing to retain deghettoization of female biographies on the other side as a topic of value and interest, it confuses the hell out of people. Bobo was confused and began to think that maybe deghettoization might be a bad idea after all - since Obi was supporting it!! Whose side is Obi on?? click here for an answer.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

What bald-faced hooey. Obi has made the "this category is under-researched" argument countless times, especially when the category is related to women. He did not find it a Kafkaesque argument when he repeatedly made it. I can not see how this project would benefit from him continuing to disrupting it. From my experience, I've only seen Obi use categorization rules where it would increase the effects of systemic bias. This seems like a scorched earth policy with regard to minimizing bias. Basically "if we eliminate material about women, then we can't be accused of saying anything discriminatory in that material". I think User:Liz might have an opinion on whether Obi is an effective champion against systemic bias.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. I have never made that argument in comparison to a male-centered category - e.g. "Male chemists has tons of research, but not women chemists, therefore we should keep male chemists but delete women chemists" - you're misrepresenting and making a false equivalency. At the same time, I've also populated/deghettoized lots of categories full of women. So, again, which side am I on? If I wanted to diminish women's contributions, why would I spend hours deghettoizing their categories (and thus highlighting their contributions, and ensuring they aren't ghettoized?). When I have nominated categories for deletion, it is because their structure was likely to lead to systemic ghettoization. But maybe EQ you'd rather turn this discussion into an RFC on me?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Never? You make it often to eliminate women-related categories, regardless of whether there's a specific male-related category. You keep pointing to all the "work" you've done, when most of that work has been to further eliminate the word "Women" from the project. Your approach seems to be to burn down a house when people complain it's unpainted, then crow about how much work you did to reduce unpainted houses. Mass elimination of navigation to women's history is not anti-systemic-bias work. Maybe there's something fatally wrong with your approach to categorization, as I can't see someone who has nominated the following for deletion/merging into non-existence, as being somehow dedicated to overcoming systemic bias. Category:Women in space, Category:Woman bishops, Category:Women in literature, Category:Women textile artists, Category:Women textile artists by nationality, Category:Indigenous women, Category:Wikipedia categories named after women, Category:First Nations women, Category:Women from Ontario, Category:Women from Brampton, Category:Women from British Columbia, Category:Women by province or territory in Canada, Category:Women from Quebec, Category:Women from Karachi, Category:Canadian women by province or territory in Canada, Category:Women who committed suicide, Category:Microsoft women, Category:Yahoo! women, Category:Women by organization, Category:Internet woman personalities, Category:Women designers, Category:Woman innovators, Category:Women collectors, Category:Women with nautical occupations, sports or hobbies, Category:Woman librarians, Category:Woman animal breeders, Category:Women in food and agriculture occupations, Category:Women in international development, Category:Women in health professions, Category:Woman medical examiners, Category:Indigenous women, Category:Maritime woman writers, Category:Women in the games industry, Category:Woman entertainers, Category:Women in the food industry, Category:Woman bartenders, Category:Women researchers, Category:Women bioethicists, Category:Canadian women newspaper editors, Category:Woman natural philosophers, etc. and so on, and others. I understand that you want to be a part of influencing the advice given by this project, but it seems unlikely you would use that advice for anything more than erasing more women's categories. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This seems rather off-topic EQ. I actually posted here a long list of discussions of categories I had nominated for deletion, over a year ago, and there was no uproar or controversy, and there has been little controversy about most of those nominated above. I've also nominated and !voted to delete a number of "men" categories, as well as other subsets (e.g. LGBT X or Catholic Y, etc). You can disagree with some of those, that's fine, it's an editing dispute, my goal has been to reduce ghettoization, which is sometimes through fixing the category structure and recategorizing things (I spent a number of hours making sure "Princesses" and "duchesses" were not subsets but rather siblings of "Princes" and "Dukes", as one example; sometimes it's through deghettoizing (per the algorithm provided above), and sometimes it's through deleting such categories that structurally are just more likely to ghettoize going forward and are in violation of our guidance on same. If you give me a male-category that violates those same rules I will be the first one to put it on the chopping block, and have in the past done exactly that. Anyway, I feel like you're putting me on trial, which isn't needed here and is rather off topic, so why don't you take your grievances against me elsewhere. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Pointing out that you delete LGBT categories as evidence that you're not just deleting women's categories? There are no words... __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I sympathize with you. It might be confusing, since I don't fit into the box you'd love to put me in. I've probably proposed a few LGBT categories for deletion, I admit it (ask Bearcat, he's nominated tons for the chopping block!). I've also created some! And populated several!! And defended others at CFD! And deghettoized a number of them! I've even created from scratch a few bios of LGBT people... And restructured several categories so they were less likely to ghettoize! I even recently spent a great number of hours, quite recently, arguing with someone who wanted to change the categorization guidelines to a version which would have, in my opinion, resulted in thousands of LGBT people potentially being removed from the LGBT tree, and was actually blocked for 36 hours for my troubles. I argued fervently (along with LGBT people) that Jodie Foster should not be tagged as a lesbian, but finally agreed that it was ok to tag her as LGBT, and argued to enforce this consensus. Who's ****** side am I on after all? Do I love LGBT categories or hate them? ARGGGH it's so hard to tell. Oh, right. I'm not at all comparing myself to this man, but I love this quote: "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes." (Walt, of course).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not really off-topic, Obi. My concern about hosting the category advice on this page is that it doesn't seem to have consensus, and it does seem to lead to categories about women disappearing. So I think we shouldn't display it as though the Gender bias task force recommends it until there's consensus. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

[insert] Hear. Hear! As have become more informed on the topic, I withdraw any suggestion it should be hosted here. The larger project is the place to discuss and approve it and only if passed by a group of non-involved experts on the topic. Update: see Ghettoization about removing women categories?? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Slim, let's start a new section just to talk about the category stuff, this is getting too confusing. re: deletion of categories about women, that is completely orthogonal to the advice about how to deghettoize categories, fwiw, and none of the instructions I provided suggest taking that course of action, do they?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Obi, please don't keep quoting me from over a year ago when I thanked you for an edit. That was before I was familiar with the categorization controversy. (Even ignoring that, something being helpful on a page in 2013 doesn't mean we're never allowed to remove it.)

Again, there is no systemic gender bias against men on Wikipedia, not in terms of editorial practices, number of editors, coverage, policies, nothing. Efforts to hijack this page along those lines would be disturbing. The task force didn't take off, but I'd like to see whether we can change that. To do that, we need a fresh start along the lines Carol suggested above, so I hope we can try to focus on her excellent suggestions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

no systemic gender bias against men on Wikipedia, not in terms of editorial practices, number of editors, coverage, policies, nothing. . I'm not suggesting hijacking the page, and I agree with the overall priority on addressing the gender bias against women. I'm just suggesting we all remain open to the fact that gender does not mean "women". I'm sorry for quoting you Slim, but until you started deleting things, I had no idea you had problems with it... Anyway, it's water under the bridge.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

We're open to it, it's just very unlikely. I haven't really seen any evidence that it does exist, the one example that you made is quantifiably not gender bias against men, and if true it would suggest that a large percentage of male editors are misandrist, something that, of course, is possible, but not especially likely considering just how stacked the gender percentages are towards men --80.193.191.143 (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Obiwankenobi, please review WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This has been explained to you multiple times already, systemic gender bias on Wikipedia is bias against women. This is because of the definition of systemic bias (which is based on the demographics of the contributors) and because currently about 90% of wiki editors are male. Again, this isn't about bias in general, but rather systemic bias --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I heard you. I don't have to agree, but I heard you, and I will drop this. My final thought is this: this world is never going to move forward so long as we perpetuate binary thinking - e.g. gender bias can only go one way, etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Obiwankenobi, you're still responding as if you haven't heard. No one is saying "gender bias can only go one way". No one. We're saying the way systemic bias goes on Wikipedia, is against female editors. Again, this is because systemic bias refers to a specific form of bias. A bias that results when one group is over-represented as contributors (here that's male editors) while another group is under-represented (here that's female editors). --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I am stating, which maybe you haven't heard, that the scope of this project, and the descriptions OF systemic bias on wikipedia w.r.t. gender have not ONLY to do with our editor base but ALSO with our content - ultimately content is the only thing that matters, it's what we're here for. I don't think there is systemic bias against male editors, but the recent example is to me an example of bias against male issues that has caused an incredibly violent response from a certain subset of editors here and created an unwelcoming environment. Such a bias can come about from the way issues are framed in the literature, and as has been pointed out, that same literature has pointed out this bias. As a very simple example, search on wikipedia for killed including women. How often do we write here "Today in Kenya, a village was attacked, and 100 people were killed, including 20 children and 6 men." That would be shocking if we saw it. Now, is this sort of framing wikipedia's fault? No, that is how such events are covered, and we are just cribbing. But, is it an example of systemic bias translated from sources INTO our coverage of such murderous actions here? Absolutely. A neutral encyclopedia would say "Today, 100 people were killed including 30 men, 35 women, and 35 children." It's just a small example, and again I'm not proposing that this project shift directions. I'm just again pointing out that gender != women.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, so much for your assurance only a few comments up where you wrote, "I heard you, and I will drop this". For the last time (hopefully), please refer to the title of this wiki project. This is a wiki project for Countering systemic bias on Wikipedia. With respect to gender, the systemic bias on Wikipedia is against female editors, because they make up only about 10% of the editors here. If you are interested in something else, and you appear to be, perhaps you could channel your energy into starting a separate wiki project that suits your interest area.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

A complaint I have voiced a number of times is that there is this arbitration - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology - that allows discretionary sanctions for problematic editing in transgender editing problems, but none for women-related ones. I really am fed up with wasting time on Wikipedia with people who don't hear it. (This is first time on a Wikiproject; usually it's BLPs.) So I do hope that Obi has heard it and will let people get on with it without being disruptive. Fruitful collaboration can be so much fun. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

You could ask for an Amendment to the sexology case (or another case, e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute) asking for discretionary sanctions be applied to a broader category of topics. It's not necessary to start a whole new case, I'd imagine. There's probably some sympathetic arbitrators to that as well. jps (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Per my proposal below, a good airing of a number of examples on WP:ANI with a request for community sanctions would be a great way for ANI-watching editors to start getting used to the idea we're serious. Nothing to rush into, but something to keep in the back of our minds. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure. However, I think WP:AN would be a more appropriate venue since it isn't likely to be a single "incident" but more of a pattern. jps (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Looking at instructions on WP:AN you must mean "request for bans" be it from pages, topics, etc. Learn something every day. It would be nice to never have to contemplate going there at all on any topic anywhere... sigh... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Though the front text of WP:AN reads rather officiously, in practice the commentators on that noticeboard are often a bit less histrionic than the commentators on WP:ANI, in my experience. jps (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Another place where somewhat more explicit language would help. ie "to request article, topic or site ban of an editor" instead of just "ban". Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Great suggestions Carolmooredc and jps and seems increasingly needed in light of continued WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior of one editor, Obiwankenobi. Notice he opened a vote to "keep categories in scope of project" when no one has suggested removing categories from the scope, but rather many have objected to his specific approach to categorization. This "I didn't hear that" conduct is getting exhausting. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not at all clear anymore Bobo, which is why I opened that section so we could really get a sense of where people lie. Some have seemingly suggested that categorization should be removed entirely from the scope; if you recall, those were the original set of deletes that you and Slim and jps edit-warred out of existence, and now they've been edit-warred out of existence again. I've tried to compromise but it now seems some believe it should just be entirely out of scope, so I started that section as a good-faith effort to really capture where people are.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for strategies to address the gender gap

We had some great suggestions above from Carolmooredc such as:

:*linking to various relevant articles/essays/projects within en.wikipedia and wikimedia regarding the topic.

• writing an essay prominently advertised here on the problems women face and solutions to those problems through wiki dispute resolution processes, existing "support" type pages, etc.; writing another essay on how men and women can work together more successfully in community, etc., considering some concepts in this geekfeminism article.
• thinking up policy tweaks and changes, like regarding WP:Civility and WP:Harassment, to make Wikipedia more comfortable for women.
• posting at the very least links to a variety of topical behavior/policy/etc. issues - including relevant ANIs and Arbitrations and noticeboard postings - that directly affect the gender gap and at least discussing them here and/o getting involved on an individual basis if it seems relevant.
• learning what other projects are doing right. (I heard on gender gap email list the Serb women are the most active. I know the ones I've met are very smart and forthright.)
• promoting the various women-related projects to women editors. I was a member of this task force for a year or so, unwatched it in a moment of general frustration, and completely forgot it existed! So it pays to advertise!

Since we are thinking about sub-pages, I'd like to add the suggestion of:

• creating a sub-page for discussion of specific issues and/or specific concerns that seem related to the gender gap. Sort of discussion forum for specific instances which seem related to the gap. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'd add to my list, gathering evidence of systemic actions vs. women editors that might lead to a) Community sanctions; and if not effective b) arbitration with discretionary sanctions. (Collection done in a wiki-proper way, off wiki if necessary.) Perhaps just the knowledge this project (or members thereof) was gathering such info might be helpful. If issues continued and various evidences from talk page/noticeboard/other sources reached a critical mass, then some women with immediate concerns could be complainant(s) with their specific issues, and project members could add diffs of the various collected evidences and their requestions for Community Sanctions for such behaviors. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
• Today I recommended women read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn how to deal with conflict issues. Then just reread it and saw that it definitely needs work explaining processes better for new editors and women, who may be less willing to use them if they are not very clear. Also there needs to be some reference to the existance of Community and Arbitration sanctions and how to bring up the fact they exist and, if necessary, tag someone's talk page about it to get their attention. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Women and Wikipedia Study - Request for interviews, focus groups, etc.

Hi. I've been working on an interview-based research project about women and Wikipedia since January (initial project proposal) and recently received a WMF Individual Engagement Grant to continue the work (IEG proposal). If you're willing to participate in an interview or will be at Wikimania and would like to chat and/or take part in a focus group, please let me know. Also, if you'd just like to share your thoughts and opinions via email, I'd love to hear them.--Mssemantics (talk) 05:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Priorities

There's a lot of energy being put into this talk page at the moment. Why aren't we directing that energy towards campaigning for category intersections? I know that won't solve existing problematic categories, but trying to fix those will never, ever be anything more than a sticking plaster on the real problem. — Scott • talk 13:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Why doesn't that happen in WP:categories for discussion or Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality with a link here for those who are interested? I just realized that the goal was elimination of women categories, not populating them, so am particularly annoyed by the whole thing right now. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

If interested you can join the discussions I started a while back Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection. If you want to test a prototype developed by Magnus Manske (with minor assistance from yours truly), check User:Obiwankenobi#Category_intersection_prototype_version_2. Any and all feedback welcome. There is also wikidata which could be promising, but it could also be a ways off - I'm not sure. But yes, I do agree Scott that category intersection will make this problem go away, as we will no longer have the need to have Category:Women novelists, it will just be Category:Women + Category:Novelists. It's a non-trivial amount of work, however. I had proposed embedding Manske's javascript into the regular javascript that everyone has, so you don't need to do anything special, and then you can have such category intersections. I also piloted a simpler version at Category:Singaporean poets, but it calls out to an external tool and the interface isn't amazing, but it could be done today with no additional programming needed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 01 July 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender bias task force → Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force – I'm wondering whether we should change the name of the project to Gender gap task force. That's what I had in mind when I set it up; I believe I included the word bias in the title only to maintain the bias theme from the parent project, but that was probably a mistake. Changing the name would avoid confusion in future about scope. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Added RM tag --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support - This is part of WP:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Systemic bias is a specific form of bias, which arises as a result on the demographics of the participants. On Wikipedia, only approximately 10% of editors are female, so systemic bias on WP affects female editors/women's issues, and is a direct result of the gender gap; however, there has been some confusion on this issue, and a desire to bring in bias issues affecting male editors, due to task force name not being clear enough, so hopefully changing name to "gender gap task force" will alleviate confusion. While male bias issues are also important, they are not a systemic bias issues on WP so really should be addressed elsewhere. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Support - [updated version] there's no need for a subpage on gender bias to discuss that there is a problem both with a content gap and a participation by women gap; there is a need for a subpage to work on doing something about closing the gender bias gaps in wikipedia. And it will be clearer to the media the Wikipedia is serious, since some people have expressed concern about how wikipedia appears to the media in this area. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Defer discussion to new requested move., that way it will be discussed for the period of time and consensus weighed on by an admin. These discussions also don't show up at WP:RM if they're not tagged, so it would be exclusively people who watch this specific page, not the project page. Tutelary (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I see it at Wikipedia:Requested_moves right now. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment Bias is a much more specific word with a clear meaning in this context, although the incidence and significance of any biases merits further specific description. "Gap" on the other hand seems like a metaphor or figure of speech and is apt to be understood differently by different editors. SPECIFICO talk 23:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• The meaning of bias in this context unfortunately isn't clear, because it has been taken to include bias against men on Wikipedia. I didn't foresee that someone would try to use it that way, so creating it with the word bias in the title was clearly an error. It was always intended as a gender gap project. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• oppose This is a reduction in the potential scope of this project without a very good reason. Wadewitz put it rather well in her essay, where she says "Wikipedia’s systemic sexism lessens its legitimacy as a producer and organizer of knowledge, therefore it is the responsibility of every Wikipedian to combat that sexism." (my emph) - she cautions that simply closing the gender gap won't necessarily address gender bias.

Collapsing for space
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Gender bias in our content (which is ultimately what we care about, since we're here for our readers) can manifest itself in many different ways, and has many different causes. Wikipedia:Systemic_bias covers many of the causes of such systemic bias, and while the gender of editors is crucial (and certainly closing the gender gap is germane to this project, and could even be a key role), there are other topics relevant to gender bias that would no longer fit under the auspices of simply closing the gender gap, such as sources and systemic bias in coverage of issues relevant to gender. A core goal of this project should be CONTENT, not just recruitment - and content can be written by all editors, not just female ones. The parent project says: "This project aims to control and (possibly) eliminate the cultural perspective gaps made by the systemic bias, consciously focusing upon subjects and points of view neglected by the encyclopedia as a whole." - so as a task force of said project focused on gender issues, we should continue to focus on undercoverage of issues RELATED to gender, and not just on issues related to the gender of our editors, nor just on issues related to the FEMALE gender. Slim points out that a bold editor (myself) had the audacity to suggest that it was possible there was bias against men here - although I didn't say this, I did suggest there may be systemic bias against MALE issues, as well as issues affecting other genders - not mainly due to the editor population (which is mostly male) - but even moreso due to the content we rely on, which sometimes may mitigate against balanced coverage of certain issues of interest to men (even if, simultaneously, we have an abundance of content that is also of interest to some men, like articles on video games or models). I may not have believed this a week ago until the vicious attack on Violence against men as a topic category started where any editors who dared support the category were called MRA shills or misogynists, even though many reliable sources discusses this as an issue, although in less abundance than the way Violence against women is covered. Other evidence of systemic bias that manifests itself in content can be seen very simply in coverage of "Men + country" articles. Do we have Men in Kenya to complement Women in Kenya or Men in Africa (informed by RS such as [10]) to complement Women in Africa? In fact, no "Men" in "place" articles exist as far as I know - in spite of scholarship over the past 30 years that studies "men" in "place". There is a whole category tree of Category:Women by continent that is full of articles that take a gender perspective on ONE gender that is unmatched by articles about the male gender, to say nothing of other genders and gender expressions such as trans*, two-spirit, etc. and those genders' intersections with a particular time or place. Another example comes from categories, where Category:Men_by_occupation has 23 subcategories, while Category:Women by occupation has 104. The reasons for this are varied, and equality would not be expected due to our rules around such categories, but it is nonetheless a strong difference in coverage that probably does not reflect the current state of scholarship that looks at the intersection of men, women, and work. As another example of the way such bias manifests, this search [11] of wikipedia content shows a number of instances of "X people killed including X women and X children" - here "men" are never named, just assumed to be the default dead, while if women die it is called out specially - this represents a systemic problem (albeit minor) in the way our sources cover things like mass murder, and that bias is a form of systemic gender bias. I'm giving these examples, and not the much more numerous examples of systemic bias against women's issues, because those have been well covered elsewhere. I'm just suggesting, the true story is always more complex than we think - there are no binary truths in this grey grey world of ours. Thus, our majority male population has not shown an interest in covering these topics, for whatever reason. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that "male" oriented topics should become a core focus of this project, the gender bias against female is still strongest IMHO and most in need of addressing, but I am suggesting that "gender bias" refers to much more than just "bias against the female gender" - bias can go both ways, one is not exclusive of the other, and we have ample evidence that wikipedians, for whatever reason, can exhibit biases against coverage of "male" issues as well as of transgender issues and agender issues and many other manifestations of gender, and that bias is systemic, in that it isn't the result of individual editor's opinions but rather may be their societal milieu, education, and how certain issues are covered - or undercovered -more broadly by reliable sources. Additionally, due to the particular population of editors, even if it's 90% male, they as a group nonetheless represent a specific set of views on gender, gender roles, etc that influences how they think about both women and men - we know we have a majority of editors from the Global North, and gender roles and attitudes differ widely across the world, so even with 90% "Northern" males, issues around gender are not homogenous and there could be systemic bias as a result of that editor population that mitigates against fair coverage of gender issues in other places on the globe. Therefore, if we change the scope of this project to just look at gender gap i.e. more female editors, we're missing out on a LOT of other sources of potential systemic gender bias, from both our contributors and our content. Wadewitz proposes that we need not recruit only more women, but more feminists - which could be male! - but I would take her one further, and say we need to recruit more people with differing views than those held by people here, no matter what their gender. Thus, I think we should keep as Gender bias, I think Slim should trust her initial instincts, and I of course welcome the addition of more work around closing the gender gap which is an important part - but not the only part - of addressing systemic gender bias more generally here.

I was mistaken about the scope of this project, and I'm sorry.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Wiki means being able to fix mistakes. jps (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Obiwankenobi. Correcting "bias" is a core principle of Wikipedia, neutral point of view. "Gap" is a subjective evaluation and might reflect either the world itself or our description of it. For that reason it's not a useful measure for a standard or goal. SPECIFICO talk 01:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support. The "gap" is a plain fact—Wikipedia has a low ratio of women compared to the general population—but "bias" is accusatory. We are not here to accuse but to do whatever is needed to fill the gap. Binksternet (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support The concern of this wikiproject is that there is a gap—possible causes of that gap are not relevant in the title. Johnuniq (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Having the word 'bias' in the task force is redundant, since it is already in the WikiProject's name. I believe the intention of this task force was originally meant to address the gender gap and the effects that the gap has on the project. gobonobo ^{+ c} 11:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support, per nominator. --GRuban (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Support, although it would seem to reduce the scope of bias targeted, this makes sense from practical not theoretic standpoint. Maximilianklein (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A note

I want to apologize to the editors here for being overly aggressive in my engagement on this talk page, I pushed my points too hard and should have listened more and spoken less. I have placed a more complete statement here, so as to not spam this page further.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

To do list item: discretionary sanctions

Previously, carolmooredc and jps mentioned looking into the possibility of getting this project and related pages covered by discretionary sanctions. I think we should try to move forward with that. I think it might have been jps who said we could maybe get an amendment to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology or an amendment to another related case. I’m not very knowledgeable regarding arbitration, what exactly do we need to do to pursue this? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The appropriate page is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. However, I would ask User:Bbb23 or another administrator who is covering Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation what their opinion about such an option would be, especially in light of this conversation. The support or at least the benign indifference of the enforcement class will be a major factor as to whether the arbitrators would be willing to accept a broadening of discretionary sanctions to all MRM+Feminism+Sexism related pages. jps (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I am taking the view that this project and its talk page may be subject to MRM probationary sanctions, depending on the content of a contribution or a discussion. Essentially, in the discussion pointed to on Drmies's talk page, I agree with TParis. Just so it's clear, those are community sanctions, not ArbCom sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, Bbb23, that's good to know. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, do MRM sanctions also apply to other articles not strictly part of the men's rights movement, if the article includes content (or editors are attempting to include content) which appears to be exclusively or predominately supported by the men's rights movement? Specific examples have included past disruption on YesAllWomen and current debate on 2014 Isla Vista Killings regarding placing article in the "violence against men" category. I havn't seen any mainstream reliable sources come to the conclusion the Isla Vista killings were a gender based attack on men, or a hate crime against men, but I have seen this view in men's rights publications, blogs, etc. The issue is currently being discussed, and things seem pretty calm on article currently, but there has been repeated edit warring in past as well as comments such as these [[12]],[[13]] so I was wondering if MRM sanctions apply?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I take the same view on all pages that I do on this one (see above). That said, depending on the circumstances, I might be less inclined to sanction someone if it's not obvious without warning them first. It's hard to give you an absolute answer without a real-life problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Archiving done

It's pretty self-explanatory through the edit summaries: create archive box like main project talk page with topic archive and move categorization link; more complete header per main CSB talk page; draft language can be tweaked; moving all relevant threads to Categorization archive; describe topic better. The one person (beside Obiwankenobi) who expressed an earlier objection changed their mind here since the (extremely) long discussions of the topic are done for now.

There may have been a few comments or discussions relevant to the greater project within what I archived but it's probably better that the people who made them should decide if they should be moved over, incorporated into a new thread with similar comments or whatever. Similarly, even though there's a lot of "categorization" discussion under the "Scope" subsection above, it seemed more relevant to leave it here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Carol. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Couple CBS-related done tasks

Finally getting time/energy to start doing a few things regarding project:

• Added Gender gap task force to main page of WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias. We might want further description on main page after this project is more together.
• Updated intro and article listings at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/open_tasks#Women_and_women.27s_studies. Feel free see if all these bios still need to be listed there.
  

Will add more below as go. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft members user box template/Want task force members category??

Here's a draft one that can be made a page attached to this task force so members easily can insert into their user pages:

This user is a member of the
Gender Gap task force.

Note that more complicated templates like Template:User wikipedia/WikiProject Anti-war also can put the person in a category of members of a Wikiproject or task force. Do we want a task force members category to be created? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Hearing no complaints, put up the User box which has far too long a name. Anyone know how to make it shorter? It's address is: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force/gendergaptaskforce Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft invitation template

We invite you to join Gender Gap task force. There you can coordinate with users who are trying to identify gender bias on Wikipedia (including gender bias in articles, in editor interactions, policies and implementation of policies) and take steps to counter it. If you would like to get involved, just visit the Gender Gap task force. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or other members of the task force.Happy editing, ~~~~

Final html also puts the invite template in . This also will have its own template page so it's easily useable as a template. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Carole, thanks for creating this and the one above. They look great. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to delete categories involving literature by women.

There is a proposal to delete categories involving literature by women, including deleting Literature by African-American women, Literature by Asian-American women, Literature by Native American women, Literature by Hispanic and Latino American women. See discussion here: [link to discussion]. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for Category:Women historians

I hope this won't be considered as canvassing, but Category:Women historians is being discussed for deletion here. This is one of many, many gender-specific categories for women in an occupation where gender would seem to be an irrelevant qualifier in present day. As with almost all of these categories, there is no Category:Male historians. This would appear to be a useful discussion to gauge the community's current feeling on this issue, which I understand is the subject of a longstanding concern. Nigel Pap (talk) 04:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

When there are as many or more women historians with important positions in academia as male, then it may become irrelevant. Right now it remains a factoid of interest; but not something that should get them removed from the category:historians. I think we need a more rational, less agenda-driven (perhaps moderated) discussion of this some point so the task force itself can come up with a policy as a group. Another "To do" item, no doubt. (Note that it would help for us all to study Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality so we'd understand better what is happening now, though I get the impression it is in a disorganized and/or inconsistent fashion.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I understand what you are saying. What generally happens is that women get removed from the main category ("Category:X") and placed in a subcategory ("Category:Women X"). Deleting the "Category Women X" means that those entries will be moved back to the main category. It is the existence of these categories that removes women, not the deletion of them. Nigel Pap (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Nigel Pap, it seems a better solution to the problem you mention would involve explicit instructions/guidelines indicating that women should not be removed from parent category, when placed in the sub-category, rather than outright deletion of valuable women categories.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

How are they valuable? Nigel Pap (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

They are valuable to this wikiproject because one of our goals is to improve articles affected by the systemic bias of so few female editors, and articles relating to women/women's topics seem to be disproportionally affected by this bias. Having such categories helps target articles for review. Such categories are also valuable to readers interested in finding women historians, because considering the general biases in our society, women historians tend to have unique struggles compared to male historians, and in many cases differing perspectives and differing focus of academic study to be more inclusive of women's issues.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not disagree with your assumption that female historians tend to be aware of and focused on women's issues, but that is a generalization that I am not comfortable applying to all female historians. When the discussion is about female engineers or mathematicians, the basis of these categories becomes even more tenuous. If this Wikiproject is using the categories for maintenance, a wikiproject template incorporating a rating would be much more useful. Nigel Pap (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a bit of a distraction. There is also no deep difference in how an American or Polish person would be a mathematician, but we set up separate categories because it helps users find instances of roughly common experiences based on the characteristic. In the case of most women's categories, this is done in areas where there is scholarly interest in how women's experiences in certain fields are roughly but still somehow significantly different than the experiences of most men in the field, regardless of the specific work done. And this situation is also not an all-or-nothing, "all the subjects must have the same characteristics otherwise". To compare, we categorize American historians knowing that the individual entries included are often wildly different beyond sharing a line in their passports.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Nigel Pap (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Obviously a project under categorization is to make sure if women have been removed from a parent and put only in the subcategory, they be put in the main category. On the other hand, I see that Category:Jewish_writers does not have a lot of individuals also in Category:Writer, and I'm sure if that was such a "ghettoization issue", some editors would be having a fit about it.

Clearer principles would help, as mentioned elsewhere. Sometimes a parent category seems to be a catch all for bios no one knew how to or cared to put into subcategories. Other times it seems like a badge of honor and removal to be "ghettoization". The whole thing seems pretty arbitrary, leading to conflict. If there is some principle, let's make it clear. If not, just say that people can be put in both - because some people ARE put in both - and leave it that way if you find it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

My 07/23 changes

I mentioned updating the task force on the gender gap mailing list and decided to stop procrastinating and do it! Yeah!! I don't think anything was too controversial, but do tell. Leaving a couple more debatable ideas to either add or propose for another day, including adding more to "To Do" list as mentioned in couple threads above. Per the revision history page:

• Tightened up formatting of lead because you gotta catch their eye from the top
• Into Participants section added user box and invite others template - so let’s get busy templating our user pages and talk pages of interested users (and reminding others already on the list the Task force exists)
• Changed section title to: “Possible affirmative action program” which hopefully is accurate. (I have some ideas on this do item will save for future thread).
• Started resources section and add Wikimedia.org and Wikipedia links
• Added two Related WikiProjects
• Added to “To do” section on: Improve "Resource", "Policy" and "Help" pages
• Categorization: just noted the existence of thousands of categories with either women or female in them to indicate scope of the issue; don't know if need that, but is of interest and possibly a category issue of greater import than others previously discussed? Hopefully, most debatable thing I did. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Women's corner

Someone has suggested creating a "women's corner," in case anyone here wants to comment. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention#Recruiting and retaining women-- WikiProject:Women's Corner. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Affirmative action program...

What's currently described in the section would obviously require users to identify themselves as women in order to benefit from it, and I think that in itself is an issue that needs to be considered. Even with protection from reversion as a carrot, users may be unwilling to identify themselves as women given the corresponding uptick in harassment. Is visibility of women on WP a goal - more editors known by their fellow editors and readers to be women? Or just a more equal proportion of women editing, pseudonymously or no? IMO, that's a discussion that should be had before suggesting any large-scale implementation of a solution that requires users to identify their gender. In my mind, other steps that don't require such identification, such as WP and the WP community cracking down harder on harassers and stalkers, would nonetheless benefit female editors. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Please consider that some women, and I include myself, would be very uncomfortable with a situation in which their edits were "propped up" by some policy that prevented reversion and thus gave their edits unfair advantage over those of men. I would be embarrassed to edit at all under those circumstances. I suppose I could start over with a gender-free username. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Civility board

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Where and how to request a Civility board, in case anyone wants to join in. There's some talk about the gender gap and civility, particularly in the subsections "If Wikipedia wants more editors" and "A trout for all the sexist pigs who run this site". SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)