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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:47, 8 October 2014

Shortcut

WT:GGTF

Welcome to the GGTF: the gender gap task force. Please sign up if you'd like to help.
The talk page is for friendly discussion about anything related to closing Wikipedia's gender gap, including asking for help with articles, AfDs, and so on.
Add new posts to the end or click here to start a new topic.
Sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~).

Disruption

If someone is being disruptive, please follow one of the usual procedures (my preferred procedure is to ignore disruption, thus making it non-disruptive, but there is a host of WP options available). I am not enjoying having these threads disrupted by gender-specific posturing, particularly the thread above which started with a thoughtful comment from Anne Delong, which is worthy of serious discussion. Buried in the ensuing thread, which will probably never achieve anything, are a number of other issues worthy of discussion, which are lost in the green ink.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

@Rich Farmbrough: Did you mean to put this section lower in the page? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wrote it on 2 September. I just changed my sig to allow it to be archived. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC).

Request for Arbitration on this Task force

As per recent discussions, I have opened a Request for Arbitration: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration

Please add comments in the Arbitration Request. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't provided a detailed explanation of the issues. Would one or more of the participants please provide, in their statement to the ArbCom, what issues they think should be addressed? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not close this now? The issue is three people disrupting the project despite numerous complaints. If those people actually work more collaboratively, there won't be a problem any more. You haven't even given them a chance to do so. Why not just withdraw this as ill formed and premature? Otherwise I'll have to waste an hour coming up with 500 words explaining why it is and so will others. Please just close it. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be 500 words. It has to be no more than 500 words. I'm not closing the request, which was suggested among other people by the founder. I will try to add something. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we ratchet this down, CM? Your complaint was rejected. It's not helpful to repeat your failed accusations while simultaneously denying that they should be adjudicated at Arbcom. Why not just get back to work here? SPECIFICO talk 21:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty clear I want this closed down/declined, in case anyone's confused, and stated it here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Carolmooredc. I was hoping to take a few days off from this project and take care of other things! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your statement. Please consider striking your renewed allegation in this thread of your failed complaint. Enjoy your vacation. SPECIFICO talk 22:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, you are not helping to deescalate the situation here. CMDC did not file at ArbCom, someone else did. CMDC appears to not want to go down that road. Reality is that you have been part of the problem by behaving in a tendentious and WP:BAITing manner. However, more trips to the drama boards are not, at present, part of the solution. Everyone taking a nice deep breath and dropping the stick would do. Montanabw^(talk) 22:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carol, on the one hand you claim you want to shut this down, then in the very next sentence you start your accusations all over again. You can't have it both ways. Stop the passive aggressive nonsense. If Arbcom takes this, I doubt it will go well for you.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons with mental disorders are not going to be very constructive here. —Neotarf (talk) 03:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the article, low and behold Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) revision IV describes passive-aggressive personality disorder. I think the reverter might have misread the "mental disorder" as being a criticism of me as opposed to a criticism of the inappropriate use of the term passive-aggressive. Note that the initiator brought up the issues and fleshing them out was appropriate. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another constructive post. I'd again like to ask you to strike your accusations above. That would be powerful evidence to Arbcom in support of your pleading that the proposed case is not needed and should be rejected. SPECIFICO talk 19:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The case is likely to be rejected based on what I have seen so far, both WP:ANI and arbcom are saying this is a matter for editors here to work out. Nobody here can have it all each side is going to have to give some here and admit they are not 100% right on their views. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE It seems the arbitrators have had a change of heart and the case looks like it is going to be accepted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case accepted

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Claire list

SPECIFICO mentioned this list, the articles are:

A very narrow selection of women, but of course creating or improving them is no bad thing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC).

I started Stephanie Schriock. Awhile back I ran across the set of Notable American Women, 1607-1950 (1971, 3 vols.) and randomly created entries on a few women listed in there. Its not hard to come up with candidates, separate and apart from recruiting editors interested in creating them.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. I started Tammy Tibbetts. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC).

Here is a list from Glamour (magazine)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC).

Article rescue

I had an admin restore Eunice Anderson to my sandbox. If anyone can find sources to rescue this BLP, I would be grateful for your help,Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 00:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little tweak for ya. Hope ya don't mind :) GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent a few hours looking for more sources, but am drawing a blank. does anyone here have acess to research databases?Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 17:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

The scope paragraph contains this statement:

Sue Gardner, former executive director of the Foundation, aimed to increase female enrollment to 25 percent by 2015, and to expand the number of female administrators to 25 percent and eventually 50 percent

The link supports the phrase " aimed to increase female enrollment to 25 percent by 2015" but I saw nothing at that site to support the admin comment. Did I miss it? Did she say it elsewhere, in which case another reference is needed. Does the number 50% refer to editors or admins or both? If a source can be found, I'm fine leaving it, but if not, the statement should be trimmed to her actual statement.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find the admin part either in that article, so I've removed it until someone finds a source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was quick. I note that Jimbo mentions that the initiatives have completely failed, and that the Foundation is doubling down. It would be useful to have some links to the new initiatives. I didn't see them on the page. My guess is that they are on Meta somewhere, and I'll go look, but if someone knows where they are, I think they should be included in the list of resources.--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do see a link to the meta page on Gender gap, but I'm not seeing anything that sounds like Jimbo's doubling down comment. --S Philbrick (Talk) 16:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely deaf and so cannot check this but the original source for "doubling down", according to the history, was this. I'm not even sure what "doubling down" means: trying twice as hard? - Sitush (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the interview, he does say we're "doubling down our efforts." Yes, "doubling down" has come to mean something like twice as hard, in the corporate-speak of the last decade. It was originally a gambling term about doubling a bet on a good hand. It is now similar to saying someone will "redouble their efforts." It both cases is rarely means "double" of anything will actually be done.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think my comment yesterday got eaten by internet connection problems. Anyway, someone did stick that number in there after it had been removed from previous versions of descriptions of the BBC interview. I don't have the energy to find who or why. So as always we just have to be vigilant for things that get slipped in. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I see now that my wording was a bit unclear. I wasn't challenging whether doubling down belonged in the quote. It does. However if the WMF has actually "doubled down" (increased activity materially) I'd like to see the initiatives they are starting or strengthening. I looked around and didn't find anything that sounded like a new recent initiative. I may have missed it.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of anything either. I did remove the sentence for that reason, but it was restored and I don't want to keep removing it. But I think unless we make clear what it refers to, people are going to keep wondering. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I put it back up as a positive statement of intent. Wikimedia blog is the place for constant updates on various projects that impact editor recruitment and retention; the emphasis regarding women may not always be mentioned. Also, Wales has put out on his Talk Page a few proposals regarding a more civil atmosphere that would impact retention of female editors, even if not specifically gender gap oriented. I've mentioned some before. When get a chance will list some for those who don't want to check archives.

Since this is not an article, we can use Wikimedia sources regarding such projects that we think will help recruit and keep women editors. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redaction of 17 odd comments?

reasonable question asked and answered, but unrelated to the Gender Gap issues, so closing

I just noticed a number of comments from about 6 threads and 9 individuals were redacted on the 17th and 18th September - we cant see the content at all.
Wikipedia:Revision_deletion says these redactions can happen for: non-public personal information, Removal of potentially libelous information, Removal of copyright infringement, Hiding of blatant attack names on automated lists and logs, Removal of vandalism. I don't remember anything all that nasty happening in those, including the archiving of a thread.
Even if there was one individual's complaint about one or two posts, that would not call for removal of more than a dozen irrelevant posts would it?? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is odd, hopefully whoever did this can provide an explanation.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately that's how the tool currently works (see Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Limitations and issues). The contents of the other posts are kept, but the individual diffs in the history are no longer accessible to non-admins. isaacl (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever seen editors SEED posts with unacceptable material in order to get a lot of surrounding material removed in order to avoid sanction for it? (Later note: Or any other dodgy motivations.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The surrounding material is not removed (and has not, as far as I can tell, in this case; the archived thread is still archived, and I recognize a few other edits as still being there). The diffs are not available to non-admins, but admins can still see them, so authorship can still be determined. isaacl (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see that one thing I thought was the problem - answer to "blue sky" question above - is still there. So you mean even though you can't find the diff the material is there? Can you get a diff from arbitrator if you need it? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first redacted edit in the sequence of redacted edits should be the one corresponding to the removed content, as far as I know. You can ask Salvio giuliano, the admin who performed the action, more about it. Obviously providing the diff for the removed content would defeat the purpose of redacting it, though any admin should be able to give you any other diff. isaacl (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Obviously it's the useable diffs people might need in some situation. Happily probably not this one :-) So many policy/technical tidbits one has to learn.... Hmm, what if it's your own diff and you want to know what you did wrong for future reference? Guess you ask the admin and see if he'll tell you. Unless you kept a copy already. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carol, if you have questions, the best thing is to ask Salvio on his talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking around, the answers to my personal questions became clear right after last post. But given it took 8 years for me to find out why there would be so many lines through so many edit summaries, and to discover that everything but the redacted part (even if it's just one word) remain, I guess people around just a few months or years will be happy to see yet one more mystery solved. Someday you'll be able to ask the website a question and you won't have to go to 3 policy pages and one or more talk pages to get an answer. It will just spit it out! A girl can dream. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you substitute "admin who performed an action that I have questions about" for "website", you should be able to get a response. isaacl (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I still need to ask. User_talk:Salvio_giuliano#RevDelete_of_17_comments_on_Gender_gap_task_force. --GRuban (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force#If anyone wants some real issues to look at and search for your user name, you'll see that your comment is still present. isaacl (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who requested the removal. For obvious reasons, I won't identify what was removed. That sounds mysterious, but it isn't a big deal, an honest error, I believe. However, because of the way wiki-software works, you cannot simply remove one post, as each subsequent diff will also contain the material, so each diff, up until the post has been removed must be suppressed as well. (I am not an oversighhter, but I do revdel in many cases, usually related to copyright. I wondered if oversighters have a magic tool to do something different, but I now conclude they do not, and it works the same way as revdel.). You are free to ask Salvio, but I am certain Salvio cannot say much. He cannot even say who asked for it, but I can. The removal involved only a single sentence, although, as explained, it may look like much more.--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this sort of confusion will be avoidable someday, when WP:Flow is implemented. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Not much that I can add to what has already been explained, but, yes, unfortunately, when there arises the need for an admin or an oversighter to redact something, all revisions containing the information in question need to be hidden, even if this means revdeleting or suppressing many "innocent" edits. It's how the system works. In this case, to remove one word (the real name of an editor), I had to suppress 17 revisions; however, I only redacted one word, the content of all other edits is still there.

As a side note to SPhilbrick, suppression works pretty much the same as revdeletion: we use the same extension, but there is one more checkbox we can tick. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the confirmation.--S Philbrick (Talk) 17:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another actual discussion/dispute

This is another issue that may be of interest to this project: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Vivian_James.jpg I see no need to also contact the Men's Rights pages, they are already there, Just FYI. Montanabw^(talk) 23:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Game plan

Friends, Montana has given us food for thought in the list of links above. And we have 53 sign-ups, which is an achievement in itself. Which brings us to the need to marshal this task force in some kind of longer-term prioritised plan. Should it be expressed in a table? Or a sub-page comprising organisational sections?

May I suggest that we toss around an initial plan, produce a pilot table or whatever that allows people to sign up to sub-groups who might collaborate, or might operate as individual editors, to accomplish a task? Perhaps we should also consider a system of prioritisation and gradings, such as those used by many wikiprojects.

And of course we'll encounter the issue of editors' not having much discretionary time; but identifying modest, containable tasks could attract more lifters of all sorts of predilections—there's basic surveying and assessment of articles and topics (and the absence of these); there's copy-editing; there's stub creation; there's even interwiki liaison; plus plus.

Then we might be in a position to:

Notify on talkpages everyone who's signed up to the task force overleaf to visit and consider participation in more narrow-themed tasks.
Approach external people and organisations in the hope of gaining information from them, and if the starts lined up, even one or two to join us. (For example, the poor treatment of female mathematicians on en.WP has already been raised at an international council of academics—not that they'd be willing to come in and do the hard yards, I think, but their students might? There's also a website compendium of female mathematicians, "owned" by someone and not freely licensed, that holds a small glimmer of a chance of cooperation, I suppose.)
Organise for individuals or small groups of Wikimedians to apply for IEG or PEG grants (both of them schemes that thirst for impact in terms of diversity).

What do people think? Tony (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, do you mean to create task forces off of the task force? I'm a bit confused. And by the way, it's "women" mathematicians if used in a generic sense, otherwise, it's "men-women" and "male-female" but never "men-female" OK? ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 04:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Montana, I wasn't aware of having counterposed female with men; thanks for clarifying the generic sense of "women". I wasn't advocating the creation of different task forces, but simply setting out some options for activities. Tony (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I think this is a great idea. We lack direction and coherence, so anything you can suggest to move us forward would be wonderful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer male-female because of the age-exclusionary nature of "men-women". In sports it is often a different matter, because things are categorised as men-women and/or boys-girls, and clearly in some areas only adults will be included (presidents of the US need to be over 35 for instance). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC).

Generally male/female refers to sex and man/woman/boy/girl refers to gender identity. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spin off the GGTF into a new WikiProject?

We've 54 members in the GGTF, and there is a proposal to create multiple, defined tasks for the GGTF. I think that this task force would work better as a new WikiProject, not under WikiProject Countering systemic bias. It used to be that the task force was about gender bias, but now it's been changed into a gender gap task force. This implies that the reason to get rid of the gender gap is to counter systemic bias, which may be a primary reason for getting rid of the gender gap, but I'm sure many people here have alternative reasons for trying to counter the gender gap. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 13:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here because this is part of CSB. What is your alternative reason? --GRuban (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Later insert: I've become more aware since posting the below that Grognard/User:chess has had a bit of interest in the Men's Right Movement, though whether it is just interest or support is not clear from the dozen odd diffs I saw in his/her contributions. I'm wondering if there is any relation to this proposed change? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carolmooredc: Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 21:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of the relation has been addressed here before: SlimVirgin’s question on “If MRM people are causing a problem here, this page is ipso facto covered by the sanctions” plus continuing discussion and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force&diff=615215802&oldid=615177554 Bbb23 writes: “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.” So this is not a new concern. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope not. Putting this ~~under the soul-sucking dominion of WP:AE~~ would be the surest way to kill broad participation. —Neotarf (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC) No, wait, MRM is under community sanctions, not ArbCom. —Neotarf (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Way back in June-July Arbitration sounded like a good thing to a couple editors, but since then it has become clear it's just one more nail in the coffin of this project. That's what I fear this move would be. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see what connects arbitration, men's rights and calling the task force a wikiproject. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This archived thread on a past Men's rights disruption, continuing disruptions and possible solutions discusses possible Arbitration as a solution (see last three posts especially). So if a men's rights person was proposing something, without technically invoking community sanctions by discussing men's rights, one might be a little concerned about the reasons. But if no one else thinks it's a possible problem, I'll relax. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If User:Carolmooredc believes that I am somehow disrupting the project, I would suggest that she takes it up with me or creates a section on this talk page. In response to her saying that this move is the doings of an MRA trying to kill "this project" (italics mine), I would like to point to Wikipedia:Comment on the content, not the contributor again, as you have not provided any evidence that any perceived viewpoint of mine would somehow affect the content of this proposal or of any of my actions or comments related to the GGTF or any topic that may be covered under community sanctions. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 22:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier to just ask for someone's point of view and get a positive reply that it's not an issue than to feel one must go through a bunch of diffs and their full context, which can clarify certain comments. But never mind if you don't want to discuss it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind moving it to WikiProject Gender Gap. I started it under the systemic bias wikiproject only to give it a home (which is why it first had "bias" in the title, and is one of their "task forces"). But as it grows, a separate wikiproject might be more appropriate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have several concerns. Having one active project under Counter Systemic ~~Violence~~ [Bias] helps support the others. Having a lone project might make it harder to find if it goes dormant and might make it easier to target as "against Wikipedia policies" if it becomes its own project and people keep harping on non-issues like "2 men to revert a woman" proposal, "political activity", "rabble rousers", etc. Just like a Stand Alone Wikiproject, this one can easily create a few more tabs and pages. At this point there isn't even a proposed need for separate pages, except for a resources page will I'll come back to in a few weeks (i.e., one less "kitchen sinky" than my big one). Then there is dealing with practical bureaucratic concerns on redirects, changing various links already in place throughout, etc. etc. So I would not be so quick to jump upon the idea. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with @SlimVirgin:. Split this off. Systemic bias (not "violence") is a content issue; gender gap is a participation issue. This page is just a dramafest and useless to helping solve either issue. Montanabw^(talk) 18:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting distinction I hadn't considered. I have felt that the gender gap issue did not neatly belong in the systematic bias wiki project but for other reasons. The gender gap issue seems to me to be a big enough issue that it could stand alone as a project. Obviously that project could have links to other relevant projects such as the systematic bias project to help ensure that it doesn't become orphaned but I see value in establishing it as its own project.

Whether it is moved to a new project or remains here it would also be useful to think about the interplay between this page and the gender gap page on Meta. It isn't clear to me how these two interrelate. Conceptually, one would think that the meta-page would be the main page covering the issue from the perspective of all of Wikimedia while this specific page would concentrate on those aspects especially relevant to the English Wikipedia. However that does not seem to be the way they are organized, which is almost certainly due to the non-hierarchical nature of this enterprise and the fact that some contribute to one or the other while a few try to make sure there is some overlap in material.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's support. User:Carolmooredc is the only one disagreeing. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 00:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I assume that if anyone gets trollish and finds the "higher level" of Wikiproject some sort of Feminazi plot to take over and destroy Wikipedia, you'll be defending that choice to the hilt.

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-wiki already has its own gender gap project. This task force is already essentially its own WikiProject, and making a new one will just be a bureaucratic formality. Being under CSB is a vestige of when countering the gender gap was seen as primarily an objective to remove bias from Wikipedia because everything was written from a male centric viewpoint. Now, it is a moral goal unto itself. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 14:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. We got Chess/Grognard down for a "moral crusade" [later clarification: as critics doubtless will later paint it]. Only other definitive reason give below was regarding systemic bias as a content issue vs. gender gap as a participation issue. (I'm pretty sure it will do both in either place.) For future reference I think it's probable that most of those who signed on to this specific propsoal did so for practical not moral reasons. (Please feel free to explain reasons further.) So any future naysayers can argue with Chess/Grognard on the morality issue. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll

Perhaps we could have quick straw poll to see whether there's support.

Support setting this up as a wikiproject. We have only these two pages at the moment, so we would only have to move the main page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender gap and this to the talk page, plus move archives, and edit some templates and the intro. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ambivalent - I see the concerns people raise about the scope being too broad. I'm leaning toward "keep GGTF to focus on user-related issues and allow other projects like WP:XX to deal with issues of article content and checking for WP:GNL. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No in-principle objection. Tony (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as originator of the idea. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 20:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lightbreather (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Query: is there any value in using both locations? —Neotarf (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean retaining this task force page and setting up a wikiproject, I don't think there would be any value in that – not that I can think of. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, although I would leave a redirect at a minimum, and possibly a placeholder page with a link.--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Per previous comments I feel safer in the "Countering systemic bias" nest. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A multipronged strategy

This comment for some reason disappeared in the recent disruptions. I just wanted to pull it out and highlight it:

The WMF doesn't really know what to do about the gender gap. Me, I'm convinced that a multipronged strategy is needed for several parts of the "pipeline": attracting more women to press the save button for the first time (which Lila T believes is the hardest bit); promoting a culture of social support for newbies (well, all editors, but especially newbies); and organising concerted efforts by editors of both genders to improve our coverage of women and women's topics (sport, anyone; science, anyone?). Each of these strategies can be pursued without dependence on the others, and be either individually or socially supported.
Every time I come into contact with a newbie, I write something encouraging on their page. It bounces back very positively when they haven't already experienced brash rudeness. So it becomes self-therapy, if you like. Does everyone on this page encourage a newbie at least once a week? Some of them might be women. Tony (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to comment on the three points;

1) Attracting women to make the first edit

In the absence of the WMF being able to identify female users, and get any recommendations from actual women about what makes them want or not want to edit, the project is likely to get saddled with something like pink bunnies, not to mention having all the software disasters, like Visual Editor and Media Viewer blamed on potential female editors. Strategies should focus on facts, not on negative stereotypes of women. But where do you go if you want to find research that has already been done on the subject? What about an annotated bibliography, where someone who wants to research a particular question can find these resources grouped under "recruitment strategies", "best practices", or "blogs about editithons" (or whatever) subtitles.

2) Promoting a culture of social support for newbies

As several comments at recent ANIs have noted, there seems to be a project-wide viewpoint that women who do not want to be harassed should not identify themselves as women. So targeting newbies does make sense.

Most, if not all of the women who participate in this project have a primary area of interest, and divide their attention between making edits in their chosen topic area and trying to remove barriers to their participation. Yet there is no way to identify participants by editing area, so the science editors, literature editor, horse editors, etc. can find each other and distinguish themselves from the editors who signed up for the project in order to argue about whether women's participation is a real issue. Perhaps participants could be encouraged somewhere (on the sign-up page?) to indicate how at they might be able to assist other editors, or any areas where they would like assistance.

3) Improving coverage of women and women's topics

People sometimes find themselves with an extra 20 minutes or so that they can use to edit something. What about a place to add to a list of red-linked or stub articles that need work, along with an indication of their topic area. That way someone who likes to edit in science or medicine can quickly pick out something they like to edit and go to it directly.

—Neotarf (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting. My mind remains a bit too boggled right now to think about it all, but maybe this weekend. Hmmmm, what a fascinating looking meetup group that needs women; is it near Washington dc?? 16:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, no, I'm not necessarily saying that any group "needs women" (although they might consider a "take your daughter to pub" event). There are valid reasons for having an event that is all or mostly men or women, and sometimes it just ends up that way. But the above pictures would tend to show that pink bunnies are not necessary to get women to show up; the more effective bait these days seems to be WIFI and power strips. —Neotarf (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean you are watching this page again? Welcome back Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 17:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On point number two, I just found this, which might save some duplication of effort. —Neotarf (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Neotarf, but come on. Pick more generic photos if you must pick photos. The humor has been beaten out of all this already, and this lightheartedness with the photos is a bit too much like a shot below the belt. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who's worked hard to encourage meetups of Wikipedia editors in the UK, I find it disgraceful that snide remarks are directed toward our meetings. There were other images that could have been chosen from that meetup showing a female editor was present. When we consider that only around 10% of Wikipedia editors are female, having a female editor among a dozen male editors is pretty representative of the underlying population, so what's your problem with our meetups? As it happens the sole female editor at that meetup became involved in Wikimedia UK activities following a session that Wikimedia UK held to encourage Girl Geeks to edit Wikipedia. Many of the participants at our meetups have gone on to train new editors at editahons in support of our annual Ada Lovelace Day or other initiatives to involve women in Wikipedia. I suggest that the members of this project may care to examine the events organised in the UK for examples of good practice in trying to bridge the gender gap. That would be far more productive than sniping from the sidelines at those who are actually out there doing something about the issue. --RexxS (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, pardon the heck out of me, but it looks like some of us are just not up on all the in-jokes that we're supposed to know. I met some of these users for the first time on this page something like a week ago, and to put it mildly, my first impression was not a good one. Seems odd though that someone would automatically assume that posting this photo is somehow "below the belt". I don't see any "snide remarks" or "sniping form the sidelines". —Neotarf (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neotarf: That leads to main Wikimedia.org Gender Gap page which isn't too active. (And no more gentle allusions, please. They are far worse than harsh specifics.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a soft redirect to a meta page--and quite a good one. I don't know how to set up the inter-wiki links. —Neotarf (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You normally simply need to use the language as a prefix. In the case of MetaWiki, it's "meta", so meta:Gender gap gives you the link you want. Similarly "wmuk" is the prefix for the Wikimedia UK wiki as I used in my post above. HTH --RexxS (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have now managed to use it in reverse, and post a link to this project on meta--but unfortunately not the talkpage. —Neotarf (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some very good points by Neotarf. Tony (talk) 04:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia.org Gender Gap Strategy

Wikimedia.org Gender Gap Strategy project statement reads: "Wikimedia's gender gap has been well-documented and increasing diversity is an area of concern for the Wikimedia movement. Our aim here is to build a collective and coherent strategy for addressing the gender gap as a movement." The strategy has been worked on over a few years by various individuals. Currently list their strategies as: Thematic edit-a-thons, Toolkits, Context research, More friendly-space policies, Gender gap grants campaign, Support WEP and GLAM, Conferences and meetups. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Training admins

One thing I've considered suggesting to the Foundation is that it finance the training of a group of admins to deal with gender-gap issues. I've noticed that admins are often blind to the differences in the way men and women interact. This can lead to a sense of unfairness in the way women editors are treated, and women's issues handled.

I wonder whether we could apply for a grant to set up online training for, say, 20 admins. Perhaps the Ada Initiative would supply the training. Those admins could then be called upon to monitor and close gender-gap-related discussions, or discussions about particular women (whether editors or subjects), where gender is felt to be a factor. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Long overdue. We saw this principle work well in the closing of the move request for the Hillary Rodham Clinton article. There is no reason to believe it does not have merit elsewhere. And the issues are much too complex for a volunteer WikiProject to try to inform themselves and develop a program in an area where they have no qualifications. —Neotarf (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! In addition to whatever "training" exists for admins, great. A permanent admin-related subpage on the topic would be good, too. And we can always write an essay right now. I still haven't even gotten near my first essay. I don't know enough to do that one, except provide suggestions.

I've heard a rumor that Wales said on his talk page he was interested in hiring mediators, but haven't researched to see if that's just a mis-remembering of proposals he do so. Some professional mediators to mediate and teach mediation to volunteers is a great idea, too. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are individual engagement grants that individuals or small groups can apply for; see meta:Grants:IEG. There are also project and event grants; see meta:Grants:PEG. I can't see the difference at the moment.
We would have to reach out to people in the Foundation and elsewhere who have discussed similar issues (e.g. the editor-retention team). Approach the Ada Initiative to see whether they could provide training, what it would cost, whether it could be done online (via Skype, for example, which would make it a lot cheaper). Put together a proposal and discuss with experienced Wikipedians how to apply. It would be a fair bit of work. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like a lot of projects, if somebody gets the ball rolling, others will help push it along

Go for it! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great idea. I'd be willing to assist with the grant application or interfacing with the Ada Initiative. I think we have a couple of GGTF members who have experience with the IEG process. If we could demonstrate that this is more than a one-off training, we'd be in a better position grant-wise. We could have a page for admins who can close gender-related discussions a la Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks or even incorporate a training module into admin school. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 20:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gobonobo, that's exactly what I had in mind, that anyone could request of a particular discussion that it be closed by one of the trained admins, or could request their assistance at any point. My thinking was to suggest 20 to start with, but an on-going thing would be much better. If you can put us in touch with the Ada Initiative, that would be great. I was wondering whether they could be willing to offer training, and even help with the initial selection of admins (devise an interview or questionnaire to establish who would benefit most, etc). Also, see the page posted in the section below. There is more information there about grants. What should our first step be? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I love this idea! If you think folks would need to be paid to help organize a training like this, an IEG might be the right way to fund (7 more days to submit a proposal for this round). If you think you'll just need funding for people's travel, etc, a PEG is more likely the right way to fund. We can help you point in one direction or another, depending on your timing and needs. And yes, WMF is thinking about running a grantmaking campaign in March to focus on funding new ideas specifically focused on the gender gap, so if you wanted more time to develop this idea into a grant proposal, we could think about it as part of the "Inspire campaign." Too many options, I know, but happy to help you narrow things down as you decide 1) what parts you'd actually need funding for and 2) when you'd realistically want to run this training. I'm sending Valerie of Ada Initiative the link to this discussion now, too, to loop her in. Any interest in starting to draft something in the IdeaLab meanwhile, which could potentially move into either sort of grant? Cheers! Siko (WMF) (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Siko, thank you for posting. It's difficult to know how to proceed. The funding I had in mind would be primarily for the Ada Initiative trainers, and for the admins to travel to the training if it could not be done online (I assume it could be done online; travel would make it expensive, though face-to-face training sessions would be very helpful). Perhaps the first step is to write up something for the IdeaLab (I love your Inspire campaign, by the way – thank you!). I assume it's okay to post a very rough draft on the IdeaLab for now? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, yes, please - that's exactly what IdeaLab is for :) That way we can all join in and help develop further, and it will give you something to point Ada folks to as well. Glad you think the Inspire campaign is worth doing too! Looking forward to more happening there soon. Siko (WMF) (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Siko, thank you, this is great. I'll start working on something, and others can join in and refine it. I'll ping people once I have something on the IdeaLab (and if someone else wants to start and beats me to it, that's fine too). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've posted something at Grants:IdeaLab/Gender-gap admin training. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: Do you foresee (or hope for) the community to empower the trained admins in a particular manner? That is, it's wonderful to have people trained to handle these issues, but that doesn't help much if their RfC closes (for example) are reverted, or their ANI judgments ignored, by other editors or admins who think these actions shouldn't involve any consideration of participant gender or gender issues. The community is generally resistant to adding more levels of "power", and I would expect that to emphatically be the case when the "power" is in regard to gender issues, which are often treated as "those women, who just can't take the heat and want us to cater to them". A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fluffernutter, I hadn't thought of admins with extra powers. I was hoping we could rely on the cooperation of other admins, so that, if an editor requests that a discussion be moderated and closed by a trained admin, others would agree to step back. They might want to be accepted onto the training programme themselves in future, so that would be an added incentive.
That may sound a little too hopeful, but most discussion closures are respected, so if there were problems, it would only be in a handful of cases. I think if the training programme took off and people saw it was producing something good, cooperation would increase. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This may actually be a chance to rejuvenate adminship. The admin corps is quite frankly in shambles. Admins have a reputation for bullying, and at this point there are probably more plans to reform the process than there are admins. Long-established admins are quitting, and I hear that for the first time, there were no new RFAs in either August and September. Perhaps it's time to go for quality, and start putting resources into developing the admins we already have. There is currently no criteria for adminship, other than a popularity contest. This would give admins and perhaps even potential admins a chance for some training credentials and certificates. Long-term, maybe it would be possible to have some dispute-resolution modules developed and added to the admin "tool" kit, but at this point gender is a priority with the foundation and this is a good enough place to start, funding-wise. —Neotarf (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this is an excellent suggestion. However instead of direct training, or in addition to, a series of recorded videos that would be available to everyone would give more bang for the buck. Prospective admins can use this "certification" to bolster their chances at RfA. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say 20 is almost too many for a physical meetup for training (around 15 seems to be a good number). For online meetups, one is playing with group audio and/or video hangouts, which may have different optimal numbers (possibly smaller). May I suggest that the selection criteria be relaxed to include those who might intend applying for adminship at some stage in the future? You might control the numbers gently by offering self-selection criteria for both groups. More generally, it's hard to proceed far without knowing more from the Ada Initiative. Tony (talk) 05:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, this could fall into super vote territory, and paying people to help "fix" Wikipedia could draw the ire of those who hated the foundation's handling of MV/VE/Flow. How can you assure the community that the training won't just lead them to super vote and that this isn't just another WMF grab for power? Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 12:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone who does *not* hate Media Viewer and Virtual Editor? If the WMF wants to supervote the community, they will just do it, with or without some training packet. By the way, Tony and I have both done a bit through the Signpost to publicize this controversy. —Neotarf (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted the proposal on the IdeaLab as what the page calls the "idea creator," but I see this as a gender gap task force project. If the people who've signed up as endorsers prefer to be participants, that would be wonderful. This is something that needs teamwork.

Tony, there's no reason it couldn't be extended to all experienced editors who want to apply. I've added that to the IdeaLab page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/suggestion: Over the years, I have attended a few seminars where we identify our Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator and use that as a segue to talk about different ways of interacting. The first one I attended was quite insightful, making it clear to me that different people interact in different ways. I'll throw out as a suggestion that teaching admins about this issue might be a way of covering useful material, without making the arguably over-simplification that men and women communicate differently. I prefer to think that different people communicate differently, and it is useful to understand these differences. If we found some MB experts, I bet the talk pages would be rich in material to illustrate various ways of communicating. While I try to be aware of these differences, it is easy to lapse into my own preferred style; I would find it helpful to learn how to watch for different approaches, so that I could tailor my responses accordingly.--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I agree that interaction styles don't split neatly into male and female, and I think the problems we see in the way discussions are handled discourage a lot of men too. But the focus of this task force is the gender gap, so the proposal is to tailor the training to that issue to keep things simple. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Myers-Briggs is useful. About 25 years ago some libertarians did it of a couple hundred libertarians, including may 40 women; something like 80 percent of them were ENTJs. Which I am too. They are only 1-3% of females (and you have to be to put up with some of those guys). I wonder if there would be a significant number of any one of the 16 personalities among either women editors or admins. Which might be a good segway to my earlier comment below. (Since I can't remember now what the heck the relevance was.)

Below I noted that the Admin how-2-guide seemed more concerned about abused admins that abused editors. However, that is part of our problem. Editors willing to deal with the most abusive editors will get abused back; and the tendency has been for only hard noses to give blocks to abusers and stick it out as Admins. And hard noses aren't the kind likely to want to be sensitive to women's issues on ANI. Another reason to get more of the good guys in there learning about the issues so they can teach by example to the hard noses in the field. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In person training

It's the WMF's money and they can do what they want, but I'm afraid many here would view this as another WMF junket giveaway. Tens of thousands of dollars for travel and lodging expenses are going to raise eyebrows. Businesses and universities have been using technology for remote learning quite successfully for many years now. There is no reason this training shouldn't be done frugally. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 14:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget existing resources on Wikipedia/Wikimedia that can be tweaked or used:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_how-to_guide exists but the only abusive editors it seems concerned with are the ones who abuse admins who've given blocks or whatever. Maybe that needs and "abuse of editors" section which has one or two sentences on women's issues.
Wikipedia:Advice_for_new_administrators could probably more easily have that info inserted.
Wikipedia:New_admin perhaps this one too
Are some good admin-related essays? [Placeholder for links to any I find later]
Wikimedia.org help videos exist. Have a small group trained in administration in general, and another one dealing with systemic bias (including gender gap). :Have smaller google hangouts and video chats on these topics.

What others? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you! I just about to ask what there was currently. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can anyone recommend any online sources that provide this type of advice (differences in the way men and women interact) that regular editors (such as myself) can read? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I collected a bunch of stuff at Draft Resources page which frankly I haven't studied much yet. (Mostly things listed at Gender Gap email list, things I ran into in my travels around linked articles.) A comprehensive search on it would be good - and that is what we're supposed to be good at, eh? See what you find there and if you find good stuff that needs to be added there, feel free to do so in the appropriate section. 03:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

How long a training session were you considering? Is it something that could be run at Wikimania? Alternatively could this be run in multiple centres, I work for Wikimedia UK and we could easily supply a room, wifi and coffee if someone was offering to run a session in London (lots of admins live in or near London, and not just admins on this wiki). If anyone fancies running a session in London please drop me an email, this could work as one of our wiki Wednesday events. Ϣere SpielChequers 05:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WereSpielChequers, the idea is in the early stages, and I'm currently doing lots of reading to try to put something together, but yes, holding workshops at Wikimania and Wikimedia UK would be a great idea, as would filming training sessions so that everyone could learn from them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked with one of my colleagues who has the diversity brief for WMUK. We are definitely interested in doing something in London. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. The Ada Initiative has said they are interested in this in principle, but they're in the middle of a fundraiser. I'll keep you posted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what sort of training you were envisaging, so suggestions as to what we should cover would be welcome, but if you were thinking of an opportunity for experienced editors to talk to existing admins then yes we could arrange that. An evening session in London for 6-10 people would cost very little to convene, and a geonotice would be a good way to promote it. Ϣere SpielChequers 01:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probable lack of current admin/community support

I'm sure that for at least one situation if this proposal gets implemented, some people might disagree with the interpreted outcome by a specially trained admin, so what would happen if there was a consensus against these "gender gap trained" admins? Also, could a gender gap admin overturn a regular closer? Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 12:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are reading far too much into this discussion of training of Admins. Whether or not the Foundation takes something like this on, local groups can always have workshops and trainings of editors, wikidata people, and even admins. Latter workshops/discussions can review the many different functions that admins can take on, most of them not even relevant to behavior, and discuss as well how to deal with various behavior issues, including the more obvious incidents of racial/sexual/gender/sex orientation/etc. bigotry. (And know when people are taking some innocuous thing and blowing it out of proportion to make some ridiculous trumped up case. I've certainly had that happen to me enough that I'd like to see admins who know how to read diffs and thus know the difference!) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, the goal should not be to produce admins with special privileges to evaluate consensus. The objective ought to be to increase awareness of cultural diversity of all sorts by the editing community, as well as the subset of editors with administrative privileges. This should lead to better informed discussions on points of contention. isaacl (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation gender-gap initiatives

Gender gap strategy, posted by Siko (WMF) and AWang (WMF). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google efforts.

Interesting article about Google's attempts at minimising systemic bias. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article about their diversity-training – thanks for posting it. Just making people aware that they have these biases, without realizing it, can make such a huge difference: "Dr. Welle goes on to explain that some of the most damaging bias is unconscious; people do the worst stuff without meaning to, or even recognizing that they’re being influenced by their preferences." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of admins

I haven't nominated anyone for a while, but my last five nominations were all successful, and as far as I'm concerned those of my nominees who have got through RFA have made good admins. I am hoping to nominate more candidates at RFA, if anyone here is interested in running and would like my nomination then please read my criteria, and if that doesn't put you off then please email me. Ϣere SpielChequers 05:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2014

A positive sign as far as narrowing the GG.

Gender Balance by registration

64% Male

36% Female

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC).

That's excellent news. Thanks for letting us know, Rich. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HeForShe

Alex Wang just sent the gender gap mailing list the video of Emma Watson's speech to the United Nations, introducing their HeForShe campaign. It's worth sharing here too. Any thoughts about how we could use this idea on Wikipedia? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Love these celebrity photos with the hashtags at Huffington Post. Looks much more up to date than the Robin Morgan-era "Mind the gap" symbol. Are there any photogenic Wikipedians? —Neotarf (talk) 05:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English-language translation now posted of Charting diversity, a collaborative effort of the German chapter and Beuth University. It's a little academic in its angle, particularly at the start (that's the German preference); and there's no executive summary up-front, which is a pity. But well done. The shocking stats for participation and readership are on p. 8, to add context to the slither of good news Rich posted above. 3.2 Reasons for low female participation in Wikipedia is interesting. They conclude: "The overall picture emerging from the analysis of surveys, reports, and interviews with individual Wikipedians is complex," which doesn't really bring us closer to designing strategic action.

I think a little of this report could be referred to in a funding application such as Slim is planning. And let's not forget the IEG grant to Amanda Menking and David McDonald (a narrative approach to gaining insights into gender on WMF sites), which should be starting to produce data/findings. McDonald points out that we don't know why WP is so much worse for female participation than other interactive social sites. Tony (talk) 10:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants a laugh

Well I thought it was funny anyway - User talk:Eric Corbett#The god-king has spoken (also check out the sign at the top of the page). --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wales page definitely a better place to bring up ideas about a BBC style monitoring system than here. Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales notes that he is an Admin so has the same powers to block or indefinitely ban users as other admins. He's only use it once. What self-control!! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wales made other pro-civility statements today[1] and yet another editor stated that, in effect, "big content producers have ra right to be as uncivil as they like" and those who aren't big content providers have no right to complain. In response I put up a home-made "Wikibreak" box on my user page. It's a polite way of saying "I'm too aggravated and disgusted to edit much any more." Creating perhaps more positive boxes is an option for all of us. Maybe I'll make it more positive tomorrow. (Like making one for hiring trained mediators.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this section was archived when there's a 20 day automatic archive bot on this talk page, but I've reinstated it. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 06:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I unhatted it. Maybe it's not the most enlightening discussion we've seen here, but it is information regarding civility issues and what administrator Jimmy Wales and/or the Foundation could do about them if they chose; do not dismiss project concerns as "dramafest". Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Not the first time we've linked to user pages that individuals found relevant, be it Wales, mine or others. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, if linking to user talk pages never ok do tell and archive this thing. Things that used to seem like no nos have become yes yeses of late. Please discuss before taking action. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Wales is out of touch with his own project; he blocked Bishonen, of all people! He is too busy with other things to really stay on top of things here and has a tendency to shoot from the hip. He certainly is not going to be the God-king to solve gender agp issues, remember, this is the guy who started off doing softcore porn sites... Montanabw^(talk) 00:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gender gap on Twitter

There are two Wikipedia Gender Gap accounts on Twitter that people might want to follow:

There's also The Ada Initiative @adainitiative.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I thought SaidOnWP might be a plant to trap us, but seeing recent quotes, looks like it's for real. I'll still just bookmark it and peek from time to time. The other one seems a good way to get out positive info about positive efforts. Ada Initiative's "F-Word" - Feminism graphic - is pretty ironic in light of various goings on lately. "What the... Feminism! is going on!"??? Well, one doesn't have to adopt a label to do the right thing, that's for sure. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following @SaidOnWP and have seen some interesting quotes with diffs; worth following. Also @adainitiative is a gem; for transparency, I'm an AdaCamper. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mind the Gap

So, the symbol and the phrase "Mind the Gap" - is it known outside the UK? Obviously it means something to people who travel by rail in the UK, but how about people in, say, New Zealand, do they understand it? mMybe the phrase is used worldwide, I don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.183.53 (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's used outside the UK, and we even have an article on it (of course!): Mind the gap. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I suspect most subway users are familiar with the phrase, I'm probably not the only person who was (or will be) reminded of the Thigh gap, which considering the subject matter and some of the sensitivities involved is perhaps a reason to not use it. I was going to address this a few weeks ago, but considering the toxic enviornment thought better of it. Not that I mind a double entendre every now and then, but this isn't a good place for such right now.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 03:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That use is a neologism, and should not be used to run off an older expression. Montanabw^(talk) 06:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know what a "thigh gap" is until now. I, personally, have not heard of it. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 12:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "mind the gap" at The Chive to refer to thigh gaps is just community lingo, like "sharp knees" is at Fark. There is no reason it can't be used by GGTF to refer to the gender gap.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is clever.--S Philbrick (Talk) 12:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was in the news a few years ago due to some Victoria Secret ad campaign, which raised in the public sphere some questions of body issues. Should someone mention it in the future, you will know the reason why I suppose. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 15:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were talking about a gap between the train and platform but evidently you're talking about the gap between a guy's thighs when he doesn't have much down there. I actually would like CLOSE THE GAP better myself. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of it being used towards men in that fashion before, but you travel in different circles it seems. The thigh gap meme is nothing to sneeze at; Young women and girls are subjected to enough body issue stereotypes already. Hopefully the women leave the moronic spacers in the ears fad tto the men. I too would prefer "Close the gap", if only for the reason that is one less kitschy UK meme being used that people seem to be so fond of. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 18:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close the gap is a phrase used in Australia for a campaign to reduce the gap in statistics of age at death, child mortality, etc between white and indigenous Australians. AnonNep (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Narrow, Mend and my favorite, Bridge would work well too,Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 19:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like Mind the Gap just fine. For those who also associate it with a caution, that's fine, too. I think there's a certain risk to Wikipedia if it doesn't mind the (gender) gap. Lightbreather (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Mind the Gap". The Gap is something to be AVOIDED, not CLOSED. Just a thought. 141.6.11.21 (talk) 07:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can't avoid it. Perhaps "mind the gap" is good for the outward facing messages. For the project "dive into the gap" might be better. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC).

If I dive into the gap, then I'll probably die. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 15:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fall 2014 Art+Feminism IEG & PEG Grants Notification

Hello All, the Art+Feminism Edit-a-thon organizers have prepared an IEG grant, and a PEG grant this week for the fall Wikimedia Foundation grant scholarships. These grants will fund several NYC training sessions, another major international Edit-a-thon, and the creation of infrastructure to support this year, and years going forward. The project is seeking community comment / discussion and endorsement signatures (section at the bottom of the page) to help complete the grant process. We encourage you to take a look at these grants, and offer your feedback and/or your endorsement signature if you feel the project worthy. On behalf of the other organizers. --Theredproject (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Women using technology to stop harassment

"How young women joined forces against misogynistic YouTuber Sam Pepper": After Pepper posted a video of himself approaching young women on the street and touching them on the butt, YouTuber Laci Green wrote him an open letter signed by top vloggers in the industry that was reblogged more than 100,000 times:

Please stop violating women and making them uncomfortable on the street for views. Please stop physically restraining them and pressuring them to be sexual when they are uncomfortable....These videos encourage millions of young men and women to see this violation as a normal way to interact with women. 1 in 6 young women (real life ones, just like the ones in your video) are sexually assaulted, and sadly, videos like these will only further increase those numbers.

Pepper has been dropped by his YouTube network and is longer welcome at fan conferences. Says one of his former collaborators, "A sexual predator isn't a good look." The Sam Pepper article is currently a redirect to List of Big Brother 11 housemates (UK)#Sam and has been indefinitely protected from editing by non-admins since August 2013. —Neotarf (talk) 05:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question is if he's notable enough to warrant his own article. If you know of enough quality sources I can see a case being made, but I can also see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP being tossed in your path as well. It seems the incident is more notable than the individual in this case. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with EvergreenFir's comment. To be sure, someone could create a new article at something like Sam Pepper controversy or Sam Pepper (YouTube), but it will need to be a strong article for the inevitable AfD drama. Something similar happened at 2013 Vidcon that was also disgusting [2], if there are sources to support an article on female harassment via video bloggers.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He's not. He clearly falls under WP:BIO1E. If someone creates it, ping me and I'll lead an AfD charge. It could be one of many examples and listed in a general article about cyber-harassment of women. Montanabw^(talk) 19:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this isn't an encyclopedia of douchebags.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 21:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberbullying is current article and it has only a couple trivial ~~articles~~ [clarify later: mentions of women]. Search "internet" or "online harassment of women" and you'll find dozens of RS that would be the basis of a good article. Fairly high on my list of articles to create...someday. However, feel free to create it now. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother is a mainstream show in the UK, for that reason he story is bigger in the UK and has been covered by the BBC, The Independent and has had a (small) mention in The Guardian. I would have thought they would be enough to pass the notability requirements. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, most BB contestants never see the light of a BLP article. They are listed in the shows article, but very few are blue Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 00:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If someone writes it I will back it, the notability comes from the media coverage and the broader issue of harassment. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 08:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't in the Laci Green article, although the article has a criticism bit about "citing an apparent opinion Green once made about sexism and Islam" that leads to a dead link. If the criticism bit is notable enough for inclusion, it seems this would be. The whole Green article seems pretty sparsely written. —Neotarf (talk) 12:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting read

I am reading The Argument Culture by Deborah Tannen - most recently this section:

Tannen, Deborah (1999). "Fast Forward: Technologically Enhanced Aggression". The Argument Culture. Ballantine. pp. 250-. ISBN 9780345407511. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) (section, "Gender on the Internet")

I recommend this book for those interested in addressing the gender gap. Lightbreather (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a lot new there, just more about how women tend to be less confrontational. For someone like me, that means I get thrown under the bus by other women who refuse to "get involved" or 'don't like conflict." Doesn't matter if you don't like conflict; you gotta not put your head in the sand; choose your battles and keep focused - and focused on the right stuff (like, for example, any number of trolls involved with "Gamergate") - now there is where we actually have a problem. Montanabw^(talk) 06:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit problematic to blame women for preferring to avoid unnecessary conflict or to refuse to join in one's own preferred battles; just like it's problematic to call them "Drama queens" or "queen bees" or whatever if they tend to edit in controversial political and economic topics where aggressive males dominate.

We can encourage women to be more assertive - including in demanding a more collaborative and less abusive editing environment. I think it's been great that a lot of women already have spoken out on various gender gap issues here and elsewhere. However, let's cut each other some slack if we don't live up to each others expectations, be it being not assertive enough or in being "too assertive" or in not choosing one's own preferred strategies. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is both problematic AND condescending AND throwing other women under the bus to say something as stereotyping as "women prefer to avoid conflict" or "women prefer a collaborative as opposed to an individualistic environment." Bullshit. We are all individuals, some do, some don't. But if people cut and run, then those of us left are those who are trying to "butt her way though a steel wall," while the rest of you stand around and say "hurry,you're so strong." (You know the poem) And no, Carol, a "queen bee" is a women who likes to put other women in their place so she can be the dominant one who controls the dialogue. And now, because there is a confusion between incivility and sexism, we have an ArbCom case that is apt to result in banning a few people who aren't even the main problem and a conclusion that we need more fuzzy pink bunnies and magic unicorns on wiki to attract women editors (sigh...). Montanabw^(talk) 03:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said: However, let's cut each other some slack if we don't live up to each others expectations, be it being not assertive enough or in being "too assertive" or in not choosing one's own preferred strategies (and may add), "or whatever". Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be new, but it's important. Deborah Tannen is a respected socio-linguist. Her research shows that in general (not all, but a majority of) men tend to communicate and resolve conflict in an agonistic way and in general women use different methods. She makes it clear that neither method is good or bad on its own, or that men or women who communicate and resolve conflict differently are good or bad. What Tannen suggests is that we ought to understand these general differences and consider how to improve our dialogue so that not every discussion is a competition with winners and losers. I am suggesting this applies very much to communication and conflict "resolution" on Wikipedia, and we need to tone it down - especially if we want to recruit and keep a more diverse group of editors (women and non-white). The current environment is advantageous to one group: men educated in Western institutions (and the fortunate others whose personal dispositions happen to work in such an environment). Lightbreather (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the first chapter explains what I'm talking about better:

Tannen, Deborah (1999). "Fighting For Our Lives". The Argument Culture. Ballantine. pp. 3-. ISBN 9780345407511. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

--Lightbreather (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WMF slide on recent state of gender

Slide 6, presented by Anasuya the other day at the quarterly metrics meeting. See also a few of the subsequent slides. And an interesting dialogue between some key players at the meeting, here. Tony (talk) 04:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Curious to know how they know that articles that are of interest to women are underrepresented. Since women are 51% of the population, that's a rather large pool. Have they done a study to indicate what these interests are?Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 17:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TKOP. Yes, the statement is based on a study: Lam 2011. You can find the information you are looking for in paragraph 4.2. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a woman and slide7, "Gender content gap is widespread & persistent" is of interest to me, particularly as it relates to WP:WMNWRITE, a WikiProject I founded last month. I was looking over the number of articles that exist on the EN language Wikipedia regarding Angolan women writers. Did you know that I could only find one, Ana Paula Ribeiro Tavares, within Category:Angolan writers and its subcats? This factoid makes me sad... 2014... just one article on an Angolan woman writer. So if you know me, you can guess that I'll spend some time trying to increase the number of articles on Angolan women writers. But not today as I just feel worn out. I'm assuming that the research on underrepresented articles includes factoids such as the one about Ribeiro Tavares, a factoid which isn't hard to discover. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, take a break and have some fun! Africa wasn't built in a day ... :) Djembayz (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like Thanks to Tony for bringing this to our attention. The slide and dialogue bring out some key issues, using just a very few words, about the current state of play on both the content and participation side. Djembayz (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the trick is for some of us to create content, which is what the encyclopedia is supposed to be about, and then for the rest of us to mutually support the creation of content from the trolls who try to AfD things as "not notable." And for NO ONE to get run off the wiki by the trolls!!! (Strategic retreat, occasionally, and if desperate, a wikibreak, but no quitting!) One place to look is also at the guidelines themselves, which, by the way, anyone can also edit... Montanabw^(talk) 03:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These numbers make me sad. Women represent 22-30% of newcomers, but only 8-16% of active editors. Just recovering those that did not stay active would be great - before even recruiting more women! Is there a way to contact those who are inactive and invite them to join the GGTF?

Are we allowed to advertise outright? Why not run ads (using WMF money) in magazines and on websites where women who are likely to make good editors congregate? Women in tech, women writers, and ??? Lightbreather (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea. But we might get a better response if the WMF reaches out to these places and encourages them to write a story about women and wikipedia and why their readers should participate. This too would cost money. But if we went with your suggestion, what would an ad look like? What sort of magazines would reach the target audience? Publications for primary school educators might be a good place to start.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 13:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony1: and @Iselilja:, thanks for pointing this out. Hard data like this is exactly what is needed to convince skeptics there is indeed a gender gap in terms of not only editors but content. For those of you who haven't looked at the slides, a NSF study shows that college men tend to focus on science and engineering fields and college women focus on the arts and humanities.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 13:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll on priorities, direction, and tactics

The text that accompanies the WMF slide on recent state of gender which Tony mentions above suggests two different directions:

1. Transform the overall Wikipedia community into a more positive experience for women
2. Create smaller spaces within the existing community designed for participation by women

Either approach has pros and cons, and the consequences aren't entirely clear.

Which direction would GGTF members prioritize at this point? Is your favored approach a means to an end, or your preferred end result? Are there any possibilities for unforeseen consequences we should consider?

Discuss. -- Djembayz (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First one, I'd say. There are certainly some issues which are not covered or are not adequately covered enough within Wikipedia and who's main audience is women. More civility and the like enforcement is needed. 2nd would create rifts in the community as you can't really bar 50% of the population from participating in something, and who's to say that someone isn't and is a woman? Some verification process? Gender identity is a thing and it gets quite filthy and controversial when people don't respect it. But, if it's meant for participation for women, but men are not excluded or discouraged from it, then that would be fine. Similar to the women's only hotel rooms who the hotel got sued for gender discrimination (and they lost) so they had to rent the rooms to men. They still made it suited to women's needs, so that they complied with the order, but it was really meant for women. Tutelary (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

#1, without question (though I am not necessarily agreeing with anything else Tutelary is saying) I don't think women need the "short bus" - or a ghetto. So, for me, #2 is an insult, right up there with half-size basketball courts and fainting couches. People of color, people who are LGBT, all sorts of people are underrepresented on wikipedia. (I for one am appalled at the systemic bias and racism that impacts Native Americans) The only long-term solution is to work on is #1 and here, women's rights have some unique aspects, but in many ways they are also HUMAN rights and if things are better for women, it would create a better environment for everyone. People want a safe space, they can plot offline and within safe places like the geek feminism wiki (god knows that the trolls use Wikipediocracy as their recruiting ground...). I disfavor the "oh honey, let me help you across the street" attitude. To expand that metaphor, I can cross the street all by myself, thank you very much, but I would appreciate it if they WOULD fix the traffic lights and enforce the speed limit so I'm not risking life and limb every time I try... Montanabw^(talk) 02:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Safe spaces on Wikipedia are impossible. Better enforcement of existing rules is the answer. We need a "recruit women to edit a lot in non controversial areas and make friends, make them admins, and then clobber the trolls" strategy. :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia metrics clearly show that long-term editors tend to edit content in a specific area, so I disagree to some extent. I had no trouble making wiki-friends from the get go AND finding controversy landing on my head in the simplest and one would think most non-controversial of places. AND my worst "I'm sick of this shit and I want to quit" fights were originally with editors who appear to be female. My first huge dustup was with a woman editor over, of all things, the correct pronunciation of chaps (where I stuck to my guns and won); my second biggest dustup was editing rodeo articles and encountering the ItsLassieTime sockpuppet, who had dozens of personas, but may well have been female, given the editing pattern (and it was me sticking to my guns again that exposed the whole sock drawer...) ; so, IMHO it is for us, the more experienced, to Defend Each Other! and help newer editors stay safe on these mean streets. Montanabw^(talk) 19:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editors can help each other out when we have the time and psychic energy and can figure out what the dispute is about. That's what many of the noticeboards about. Letting a group of women or women-friendly guys here know about problems a lot of women experience differently than men, from incivility to harassment to pervs wanting to talk dirty on our talk pages, to getting late night stalker calls, to double standards applied to us regarding behavior and/or editing is certainly a goal here.

I have seen lately that some editors create tight little gangs of editors who defend each other right or wrong. That should not be a goal here. Meanwhile, when it comes to looser alliances, individuals will choose to join them or not. I tend to go by principles myself and am always happy to find allies on those principles. And sometimes we just have to go it alone, at least til we drift into the right noticeboard where people "get" the problem. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: using this Wikiproject to develop and propagate negative stereotypes about "appear to be woman" editors and "may well have been female" editing patterns, this xkcd cartoon shows how it works. —Neotarf (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To address Djembayz's question, in part at least, this is a false dichotomy. Because the question has been framed in terms of "gender gap", the research has focused on women, but without a control group. That is, questions tend to be asked only of women, and not groups of editors as a whole, so that you can compare populations of women/men with arts/sciences types of editors, which might pull out statistically significant differences, or some completely unexpected information. For instance, who can say that this type of exchange, ("Why are you trying to pin the blame on me for your own indolence/incompetence? You've had plenty of time to fix this article, but you haven't done it".), which someone put on Jimbo's talk page a few days ago, is good for the project as a whole? Who would want to stick around a job like that, even for pay? And yet this remark was addressed to a female editor, who subsequently stopped editing. So is this a "gender problem" because the remark was addressed to a female editor, or a "Wikipedia problem" because it creates a toxic editing environment. —Neotarf (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously incivility (and harassment) are a problem for most editors. In general, women will get turned off to it faster as various studies have shown and thus it becomes a Gender Gap issue. One of the things I wanted to do, but constant disruptions prevented, was to go through the studies and just list their main findings as a separate document. Now behind on so many things don't have time. But anyone who wants to give it a try can check out Draft GGTF Resources. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 could you update the links to the text and slide(s) you're referring to? Lightbreather (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightbreather, I don't see anything wrong with the text. Slide 6 is here. —Neotarf (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remove redirect

I want to create the article Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues but currently that redirects to Caucuses of the United States Congress. Can someone please remove the redirect so that Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues shows up as a red link on the page Caucuses of the United States Congress, so that I can make it an article? I'm really bad at this and I tried to look up how to do it but I don't get it, so if someone could do it for me that would be great. Please let me know on my Talk page. Thanks. Maranjosie (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maranjosie, I've left a note about this on your talk page. Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That fixes it!Maranjosie (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Women's History Barnstar

I'm thinking it would be cool to have a barnstar for people who help write articles on women and feminism, especially since Wikipedia has a gender gap. So how about the Women's Work Barnstar, for editors (of any gender) who make significant contributions to articles about women, women's history, and/or feminism? Over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards under the section I wrote about this (Proposed Barnstar) you can upload a design for this barnstar for consideration. Thanks! Maranjosie (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of framing the issue as a "women's barnstar", in the fashion of dividing the world of authors into "writers" and "female writers", why not a "science barnstar" for improving the coverage of science issues by adding women scientists, or an "artists barnstar" for improving the coverage of the arts by adding articles about women artists. Focusing on the professional aspect might also discourage gender symbols or fluffy bunny designs for professionals whose work had nothing to do with gender. You could also give a whole lot more barnstars that way, and maybe even recognize people for designing barnstars, or recognize Wikiprojects who have their own gender-awareness barnstars. Contest, anyone? —Neotarf (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll do a Women's History Barnstar. I like that topic best. I'll put my version on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards, and anyone who wants to can approve it or disapprove it. Maranjosie (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's up! Let me know what you think. Maranjosie (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I love it! But can we have an all-purpose one that uses the GGTF "Mind the Gap" logo? Lightbreather (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see there is a Mind the Gap Award on the task force's main page, but a barnstar version would be great. I would l-o-v-e if the very first barnstar that I ever receive is such an honor! Lightbreather (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gender inequality in the United States

Can somebody help me out? Baileybrash (talk · contribs) improved Gender inequality in the United States to a much higher quality just under a year ago, and experienced GA reviewer Khazar2 (talk · contribs) declined to pass it, but said the improvements were still worthwhile. It has been sitting awaiting a second GA review for over six months, Baileybrash has not edited since April and Khazar2 is now retired.

So what can we do? I could review the GA candidate, but this topic isn't my area of expertise. And when I'd finished the review, how would I know if anyone would be willing to resolve the issues or not? If somebody here would like to take on the review, and somebody else independently tackle the improvements, I think it would do this project a great credit. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe post it at the GA cup, they are trying to get more articles reviewed. Montanabw^(talk) 04:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 458: / Line 458: @@
 :Are we allowed to advertise outright? Why not run ads (using WMF money) in magazines and on websites where women who are likely to make good editors congregate? Women in tech, women writers, and ??? [[User:Lightbreather|Lightbreather]] ([[User talk:Lightbreather|talk]]) 18:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 ::Not a bad idea.  But we might get a better response if the WMF reaches out to these places and encourages them to write a story about women and wikipedia and why their readers should participate.  This too would cost money.  But if we went with your suggestion, what would an ad look like?  What sort of magazines would reach the target audience?  Publications for primary school educators might be a good place to start.[[User:Two_kinds_of_pork|Two kinds of pork]]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Two_kinds_of_pork|'''Makin'''']]</sup><sub>[[User talk:Two_kinds_of_pork|<span style="color:#cc0000">Bacon</span>]]</sub></span> 13:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
+*{{ping|Tony1}} and {{ping|Iselilja}}, thanks for pointing this out.  ''Hard data'' like this is exactly what is needed to convince skeptics there is indeed a gender gap in terms of not only editors but content.  For those of you who haven't looked at the slides, a NSF study shows that college men tend to focus on science and engineering fields and college women focus on the arts and humanities.[[User:Two_kinds_of_pork|Two kinds of pork]]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Two_kinds_of_pork|'''Makin'''']]</sup><sub>[[User talk:Two_kinds_of_pork|<span style="color:#cc0000">Bacon</span>]]</sub></span> 13:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 == Straw poll on priorities, direction, and tactics ==