Jump to content

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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carolmooredc (talk | contribs) at 16:47, 29 November 2014 (→‎Moving forward: ''onward and upward!''). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
  • 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 (~~~~).

Need active peer reviewers

The projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism/Peer review, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History/Peer review, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies/Peer review really need active peer reviewers, so if some people could click on those articles and add their usernames under the Active Peer reviewers section that would be great. Thanks!

Wikipedia:Meetup/Feminists Engage Wikipedia

Here is the list of red-links from that event in 2013, that may pique someone's interest. (#TooFew)

Working on. User:GRuban/Suzy Castor. --GRuban (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I rescued Chela Sandoval from AfC - other articles may exist in draft space.

Not impressed that these are still red links - makes me doubt whether those who put the event together actually take this seriously.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC).

Actually, these red links are the way editathons work! You add way more links than you expect to finish, to ensure there is a variety of material that will be of interest to attendees. Whatever red links you don't finish get picked up by someone else, and put in a place where they'll attract interest, just as you have done.
Editathons are more like a drop-in quilting bee where everyone pitches in for a few hours on an existing project. You need either skilled editors or subject experts to get major results / outcomes. When the right people show up, lots happens; other times, with newbies, the event is mostly training, coaching, and general outreach. (A few newbies have told me they decided it's easier to donate money than edit themselves ... :)
Established editors may or may not change their editing patterns to finish off an editathon task list. More likely they go back to whatever they like to do after the event.
For sustained efforts on a specific task list, you need a series of events.
The program evaluation folks would have more statistics ... Have you considered holding an event or two yourself? Even an editor as prolific as you could use a boost from others willing to pitch in on your areas of interest :) -- Djembayz (talk) 03:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, you are right, and indeed I have looked at the results of every editathon I could find, up to a few months ago. And this editathon did well, as did the series of women's ediathons earlier this year - in terms of "work produced during the session". My comments were not made in a vacuum, however, one of the editors Moya Bailey (who probably comes near needing an article of her own) specifically spoke to Al-Jareeza about the event and stressed the Disability justice article as being important. Hence my disappointment that, not only was it not created during the editathon, but has not been created in the 18 months since.
It seems that it is, just maybe, also easier to organise an editathon than to edit oneself.
(And if anyone wants me to organise/run an editathon, provided they can arrange to pay my fares, I would be happy to do so. If not WMUK does them by the bucketload.)
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC).

Teahouse Women

I have found being a Teahouse hostess has been a positive experience and though, of course I am not objective, I do believe that I have raised the standards for civility and have helped the Teahouse project turn into something other than a place where young men still produce a techie atmosphere and answer questions partly for the purpose of showing off their mastery with Wikipedia acronyms. I run into a lot of women at the Teahouse. They often don't make it through their first editing experience, unfortunately. Sometimes they get chewed up pretty bad by other more experienced editors.

I not only have a problem with gender issues, but there seems to be significant problems with the participation of older women. I believe older woman bring a totally different worldview into Wikipedia. We geriatric folk have seen the development of the Internet and computers in general and have been astounded at the pace at which technology has taken. Most other Wikipedians take for granted almost everything having to do with computers and Internet. In addition, I believe older women are far less likely to get offended or put off by other editors- we've been dealing with family issues for decades and Wikipedia doesn't hold a candle to most of our most notable experiences.

Please consider becoming a Teahouse hostess, it has been very rewarding.

Best regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  03:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bfpage, "Teahouse" is great! You are right about the issues a starting editor has, and also that more experienced editors sometimes incorrectly make life difficult for new editors (possibly due to the Dunning–Kruger effect).
I have corrected the link on your user page to the metrics on Meta - this inter-wiki linking trick is very useful.
Teahouse was designed to be polite and to avoid the "old school" short answers, simply referring the enquirer to a WP page. It is a shame if it has diverged form that path.
It remains to be seen whether it has had a measurable effect on editor retention as a whole, and on women in particular. The findings on Meta have blanks, that were supposed to be filled in by Friday (some Friday in 2012), and the solid conclusion "People who ask questions at Teahouse do better than those who don't." doesn't demonstrate causality.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC).
User:Bfpage You wrote "but there seems to be significant problems with the participation of older women". I'm not sure what you meant. That they leave quicker but would be good to keep around to deal with issues? Or something else. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/related resources seems to be turning into something far bigger than the scope of this project. I can understand that treatment of the gap at other venues etc might have some relevance to how it is addressed at this one but the list seems to be gaining a life of its own, becoming a sort of point-y accumulation of advocacy regardless of merit. Surely that is not a purpose for which Wikipedia is intended? Can it not be trimmed so that it just has whatever are the most useful elements? - Sitush (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a think. At what point does something like this become WP:SOAP, WP:LINKFARM etc? - Sitush (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At what point does this site fail to support the principle of equal opportunity? -- Djembayz (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is not relevant to my point. - Sitush (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2014

Nominations are now open, in case anyone wants to take on the responsibility. Meanwhile, I hope those of us still ambulatory will participate in questioning and commenting on candidates regarding issues relevant to closing the gender gap and making Wikipedia a better place to edit for older people, shy people, civil people, people of color, academics, professionals, feminists and even assertive women like me ;-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's very relevant to ask about these issues. But be aware that some candidates sour if they get too many questions and then won't answer them; so be selective in what to ask rather than bombarding them with questions. Iselilja (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you repeatedly claim you are assertive, does not mean you are assertive. In fact, many here would make the claim that your relentless grandstanding is not assertive at all, but rather obnoxious.--Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 17:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Insert: You know, I'm so used to personal attacks, it didn't even occur to me this might be one. How about removing it?? Thanks. (Talkie-Talkie) Slicin' salami Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)
Another thing to keep in mind is that (as long as you follow general Wikipedia rules - ie. WP:BLP applies everywhere, no personal attacks, etc.) anyone can produce a Voter Guide. Ask considered questions that can be added to your guide. AnonNep (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting idea. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) Make 'em squeal!

Last of the Mohicans

The Working Man's Barnstar
Note: there is now a gender-neutral version of this barnstar.

I have put this barnstar on Carolmooreddc's talk page for being the "Last of the Mohicans"--one of the few women who has not yet been driven off the Gender Gap Task Force or the current ArbCom case. —Neotarf (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of other individuals left. Others still chime in and hopefully will do more so after arbitration over. I'm just more of a pest since once you get a stubborn taurus the bull ticked off, they hang in there a lot longer. Whatever happens, I do intend to take a wikibreak to catch up on 8 years of my own projects. But that only should take a couple months. ha ha ha. And I'm sure other supporters of the project and its full empowerment will take up any slack and make 'em squeal. :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Women and user interface (from above) / willingness to participate in dispute resolution

Breaking out part of a comment from above discussion:

... Really, on Wikipedia, you have to identify what obstacles block women from editing Wikipedia, based on what women say and what you see. For example, we now have a friendly teahouse which has improved editor retention rate. We also have visual editor (I personally hate it but it works for editor retention), and a toolbar at the top of the editing box. Those work, and I'm sure if we focus on those types of usability we'd get more women. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 18:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm skeptical of the assertion that women can't figure out how to edit without Visual Editor. I think the problem here is that women don't want to edit, because of the unfriendly atmosphere. That said, VE may turn out to work better for some groups of editors than others, so it will be interesting to see what the data shows.
Regarding the user interface: this weekend I got the first explanation on women and user interface that's made sense to me. It came from a woman street vendor who's a former gamer, who used to spend a lot of time on various Internet forums. She says that now she only uses Facebook, because the interface allows her to talk only to people she knows; she uses the Facebook interface to block anyone she doesn't know from interacting with her or viewing her posts. This woman is not shy about talking to strangers, since she works as a street vendor; but she says she is finding it very difficult if not impossible to have civilized interactions with men on the Internet. So she is simply refusing to interact anymore on the Internet, at all, except with the people she knows in real life.
At one point, Jimbo Wales proposed something similar here-- a button to block editors we would rather not interact with. (Feel free to add the diff; I don't have Carolmooredc's time and patience for digging out all those diffs!) However, there's a problem: if you let women block anyone we don't want to interact with, as things stand, some of us women Wikipedians would stop interacting with a large number of administrators and ANI participants. If women can't participate comfortably at ANI, it means women won't be comfortable using our conflict resolution process, which puts women at a disadvantage. An interface with a block button would be an interesting experiment, to see exactly how many people block interactions, and who blocks who, but it wouldn't entirely solve the problem. Some group of administrators would need to be designated to interact with the editors who simply block all interactions.
Even an optimized interface could well leave you with a situation much like this one, where User:Carolmooredc is the "last women standing ..."
Perhaps we should just turn this forum over to the male members, rename it "He for She", declare victory and walk away ... ;) --Djembayz (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Motivation is everything. It doesn't matter how friendly the interface, if the interactions suck, who's going to bother? And even if it's a funky interface, if you are being encourage to come here, given decent tools to learn it and encouragement and happy collaboration, you are more likely to stay. Motivation is everything.
What's with dispute resolution in section header? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the dispute / conflict resolution boards are intimidating, or don't seem like a safe space, people will avoid using these processes. -- Djembayz (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion taking place about proposal to merge various male and female serial killer categories Cfm

--The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely nothing to do with CSB, as far as I can see. - Sitush (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gender specific categories are part of the focus of this wikiproject. Thanks, TVF, for the notification.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notification, The Vintage Feminist. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One more disagreeing with Sitush and thanking TVF. It may not seem like "serial killer" would be a desirable category to reduce systemic bias in, but, it is still a systemic bias. --GRuban (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Proposed decision

For those who care to read it; probably all of it will pass.

As a farewell, let me just say:

  • On a personal level, I have no problem with topic banning me from GGTF for a good while because as things are now even the most subtly disruptive editors will just keep pissing me off. However, on a political level, Arbitrators are sending GGTF members and the world a bad message - angry defenders of GGTF will be dealt with harshly while its most insistent, insidious, snide and harassing critics mostly will get off scott free.defenders of GGTF will be dealt with more harshly while its most insistent, insidious, snide and harassing critics, most (or all?) of whom will get off scott free.
  • The "Non-discrimination policy" section still fails to address disruption of Wikiprojects, including of those trying to end systemic bias. Arbitrators are telling bigots to have at them and and if defenders of the project lose their tempers, critics should try and get them blocked or topic banned. In any case, certain GGTF efforts will have to be taken off En.Wikipedia, which really is not a good sign.
  • I obviously am very aggravated in general right now after a year and a half of what I consider partisan and/or sexist harassment that cut my actual editing down to nothing. To see these issues magnified at GGTF was incredibly annoying. I do intend to take a nice long wikibreak to work on my own seriously neglected writing, music and video projects. But I still probably will add the occasional factoid into articles of interest. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, don't panic. It's rare that all of a proposed decision passes. Wait for the voting to conclude. (And not panicking even then is advised.) Second, it's absolutely not true that the proposal deals with you or Neotarf more harshly than Eric Corbett, the three proposed topic bans are the same, and Eric even has an additional paragraph. Arguably it would be unbalanced in the sense you spend more time here than he does, of course. One proposed consolation - the proposal doesn't suggest anyone be banned from editing any articles (unless there are any articles about the Gender Gap on Wikipedia) as such, and, well, the changes we make to articles is why we are all here in the end. Right? --GRuban (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noting that conceptual flub, now corrected. Believe me on a personal level I am relieved to be topic banned for a while anyway. The one arbitration I was in every thing passed, but haven't paid attention to others, so we shall see if they beef up the "Non-discrimination policy" section . I say no more since editors can follow the link if they desire. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
MRuban is correct that things seem to be getting more complicated there, for better and worse. Perhaps some consciousness raising going on? Slightly more elevated discussions than in previous rounds here... Time will tell... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an old time Wikipedian. I've seen it all. :-) --GRuban (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So Carol is going to be indeffed? If Corbett is too, I guess I can see that, but holy moly if he is not. And I'm not saying I want that. The findings against Carol seem silly, but I never pay attention to ARBCOM stuff. Yes she made comments about Sitush, the guy who wrote the attack BLP on her, one of the most legendary and clever assaults on a fellow editor ever seen. And supporting articles at AFD by at times claiming similar articles on males wouldn't be deleted is no great sin, its an argument that rises or falls on its merits. There is a gender gap, last I heard.--Milowent • hasspoken 05:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I may, that won't be decided until the case is closed. Arbitrators can easily change their votes, before then. GoodDay (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. A site ban is serious. That would be a shame. So sorry, Carol. --GRuban (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Carol hasn't been banned, as it requires atleast 7 supports at the close of the case. So far, we've not heard from the 12th active arbitrator, so Carol should remain calm. GoodDay (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is sort of fascinating how ARBCOM works, if you can get through the red tape. So LFaraone holds Carol's fate in their hands as to an indefinite ban. I do think its odd that two arbcom members who have voted to ban Carol (Beeblebrox and Worm That Turned) have abstained from voting on Eric Corbett. I know the case is not just an Eric v. Carol thing, but it seems strange that a judge can permit himself to abstain from any voting as to one party to a potential bias, but not another opposing party -- that kind of thing surely cannot happen in English or American courts.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Roger Davies is the 12th active arb for that case, yet to be heard. LFaraone, is inactive :) GoodDay (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say how much I appreciate the members of this group who have spoken up on my behalf at the talk page for the proposed decision. Since Arbcom have proposed to ban me from anything with gender in it, I should probably look over the BLPs of women that have created and see if I can get some of the tags removed from them. I suppose that would prohibit me from attending any edit-a-thons as well, applying for any grants, or anything associated with GLAM. I'm not sure if that would restrict me from working on my BLPs of male subjects or if I would have to concentrate on something like algae.

The Committee has now added a proposal to place this topic, or perhaps this page, under discretionary sanctions. For the last year I have been a very vocal opponent of discretionary sanctions, but I am now leaning towards recommending such a thing to the Arbitration Committee. One of the huge problems with DS is that it is enforced by the WP:AE, a small, all-male group that has a reputation for harshness against non-admins. They can't tell the trolls apart from the editors who are trying to stop the trolls. I can envision the tiny number of women editors being caught up in this system, especially any who were trying to develop their capacity for leadership, and as a result, have some sanction applied to them that would remove them from the pool of potential admins. You can see what has happened to me. If I were to recommend such a thing to the Committee, I think it might carry some weight, at least with some arbs.

Alternatively, you may want to consider closing the Gender Gap project as being much too risky to participate in. This would protect the small number of individuals who are willing to risk editing in gender topics, so that the number of such edits will continue to rise. I can see some value of the group as a notice board, but unfortunately the notices are so buried in walls of arguments that it is often impossible to read them

Finally, there are some lists of resources, and probably some lists of redlinked articles that are at risk of being lost if some of us are topic banned. They should be transferred somewhere where they can be curated and referenced, perhaps to Meta, which already has a tightly reviewed list of resources. I know I have done a little copyediting to such a list, and it is still in very rough form, but it should not be lost. Carol has probably done the most work on such lists and knows what is in them. If she is to be prevented from working on this, the time to tap her expertise on this matter is now, before the case is closed. The arbitration committee usually works slowly, rarely meets its own deadlines, and tries to keep things open as long as possible in the interest of fairness, but in this case the committee has repeatedly been pushed to meet its schedule, whether for protecting a page, or closing a section -- and so far has been responding to these requests. Carol needs to ignore the trolls, something she is not very good at doing, and now concentrate on the tasks she is good at, and that will continue to benefit those who do not wish to see women shut out of the Project for years to come. —Neotarf (talk) 11:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actualy, Neotarf, even though some people here wouldn't like to have you showing up at editathon events and giving the GLAM women ideas about how women are treated here, thankfully, GLAM institutions have their own rules on who they welcome, and are not under Arbcom's jurisdiction. --Djembayz (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding though Djembayz, is that these events usually involve making actual edits to English Wikipedia, which would in fact be under the jurisdiction of the ArbCom. I think it more important than ever, now that nominations for Committee elections has now opened, for this task force to develop a standard list of gender-related questions to ask the arb candidates, for example, what kinds of gender-specific language is allowed in their own workplace and whether it has any bearing on Wikipedia. —Neotarf (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who does a lot of stuff with grants and is on the GAC: regardless of arbcom's decisions, you will be more than welcome to apply for grants. Each GAC member (and WMF staff) will evaluate your proposal and your ability to carry it out, but in my book you've demonstrated a committment to gendergap issues (an area I particularly want to fund,) and a capacity to do meaningful work. If you receive a siteban from ENWP, you may need to make any grant proposals not ENWP-specific since we don't tend to give out grants that violate the rules of particular projects, but the WMF grants program is outside of the jurisdiction of ENWP's arbcom, and a siteban here wouldn't preclude you from applying for grants by any means. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree about the need to develop questions for ArbCom candidates. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, feel free to draft something. It would be nice to add asking about harassment/wikihounding and gender-related slurs and "battleground alliances" issues as described here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe also consider including a question about saving people from Salem type hollering gangups.OrangesRyellow (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The place to have that conversation might be on some of the current arbs' talk pages--now. —Neotarf (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Steinem article nominated as a Good article

The nomination is under the category Social sciences and society, and the subcategory Culture, sociology and psychology. Please review if you can, and if you do please let me know on my talk page. Thanks! Maranjosie (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed it; it passed. Lk7t3Yu (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grant proposal for HR staffer

There is a grant proposal at Meta for a staffer who would deal with community human resources concerns. This is long overdue, especially since the Foundation has no such staff person. I am pinging Tony as well, since he is a member of this group and well experienced in evaluating grants. This might also be a good time to look for someone to act as a liaison with the Gender group, since Arbcom is currently considering whether to ban me from gendered topics. —Neotarf (talk) 12:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very much needed. For example, the Twitter reporting tool for harassment, profiled in Forbes and Engadget can't be implemented here, because there is nobody to report to. --Djembayz (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Educational Partnerships

The Wiki Education Foundation has article on their blog titled "Help us close Wikipedia’s gender gap". This information via Eryk Salvaggio on the Wikimedia Gendergap mailing list. —Neotarf (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endometrial cancer for Today's Featured Article

I've set-up Endometrial cancer as a blurb for the Today's Featured Article requests process.

You can see it at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Endometrial cancer.

However, as I myself have nominated a bunch of other articles lately, I won't actually transclude it at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.

If anyone else wishes to do so, they can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, and then a discussion will start as to the article's consideration for the Main Page.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Disbanding/development issues

Based on the Arbcom case that is litterly tearing editors apart I propose that this task force be disbanded. I am hearing from women editors that the attitudes here are toxic and seeing how the rep of this place is already in the dumps do not see how this can go forward encouraging women to edit more. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that it's better for any such proposals to come from the task force members themselves. Those who are not interested in participating should feel free to step away, and let those who wish to remain to figure out what they want to do. isaacl (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Literally. But it isn't. The Arbcom case has prevented me from having the time to work here. I hope to return shortly, when the case is put to bed, though I may need to make some amendment requests. OTOH this page might be under discretionary sanctions, in which case, make with the barge-pole. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC).
The problem isn't the tone at this page, it's that this community is still developing its processes for dealing with sexual harassment. Getting communities to the point of consensus that a governance process for dealing with sexual harassment is needed is not something that happens overnight.
Right now, we are going through the "storming" phase of "storming, norming and performing." Take it from someone who experienced how social change for women developed over the years before computers, even though there is a low point in the process where you feel like "the floggings will continue to morale improves", eventually people realize that they need to create a governance process that helps keep the community livable.
Yes, it's unpleasant, but telling women to "just ignore it, go back to work" isn't working for the ones who experience harassment, here or on the internet in general. You need a place to discuss the unpleasant stuff too. Pretending it's not there doesn't always work.
Although it would be a lot quicker, easier, and more effective to have paid professionals dealing with this stuff, people who are trained in the standard HR processes demonstrated to work when you need to big groups of people functioning, for some reason I don't understand, that's not happening. --Djembayz (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "sexual harassment" would seem to be in the eye of the beholder, given how many declared women contributors have said that they do not agree with what the cheerleaders have been doing here. Obviously, there is never going to be 100% agreement within any cohort of users but the numbers are pretty significant, I think, and a cultural divide is also evident.
Doubtless, there is some feminist theory that can explain all this away (maybe a patronising line that says that those naysaying women contributors are simply poor, misguided fools brainwashed by the male bullies?). The reality, though, is that unless you are prepared to address those women who have issues with the project then there isn't a lot of hope for the "sexual harassment" argument. It is anecdotal, personalised, and incapable of resolution unless we start banning even words such as "drama" and "hysteria". Some people will always be offended; but most people will just get on with it.
That said, this project has a purpose. It may be in the wrong place and it is certainly seems to be lost at the moment, but there have been some good suggestions put forward recently. The sooner that the battleground mentality is resolved, the sooner those proposals might bear fruit. It will be hard to "win" using emotive demagoguery, mudslinging, and tendentious forum-shopping. - Sitush (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because most people don't want the WMF to hire even more non-essential employees. Also, everything is determined on consensus here. There is no delegation of authority in the wider community except for WP:ARBCOM and it is debatable whether you include WP:MEDCOM or Jimbo. Administrators can only implement community consensus, as well. Where would this new HR person fit in? Would he have a higher level of power than everyone else? Could he overrule community consensus? What is his purview? These questions would need to be answered before I decide to support this. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that "most people" don't want the WMF hiring. My suspicion is that most people haven't stated a view on it. WMF can certainly afford to hire, although whether it would be justifiable or even in conformity with its remit is another matter. WMF involvement in things that actually take place on any given project is highly constrained, as I have found to my own cost. The proposal has been raised before here, as was the quickly-shut down proposal that WMF have some sort of community advocate for the gender gap issues. - Sitush (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is his purview? His or her purview, surely.
I wouldn't ordinarily be so pedantic but this is GGTF and as one of its members (with no intention of disbanding) we should aim to get it right at least here if nowhere else on Wikipedia. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. As a sub-project of CSB, perhaps we should also "get it right" when we refer to "Wikipedia". Which "Wikipedia"? There are loads of them. That is one reason why there is a valid argument for this being a soft redirect to the project at Meta: the issues transcend the language. - Sitush (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not using the singular they, and "his or her" gets clunky when you have to use it when you don't know the subject in question's name. Gender-specific and gender-neutral pronouns#Generic he Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 01:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Djembayz. It's really better to speak in terms of harassment, period. Many women assume from our own experiences -and that of dozens of women who have written about it in various forums - that editors known to be women are insulted/harassed/wikihounded more often than editors assumed to be males. (After arbitration the only thing I have planned to do is look at all the research and provide more details.) However, it's the atmosphere where these can occur to anyone that is the issue.

Now if you are talking about obvious sexual harassment, which tends to be more males on females, obviously that does merit the term "sexual". But is there so much of that it merits a staffer? Seems like one of those situations where WMF has to say - start enforcing this admins or we start enforcing Terms of Use policy.
If WMF is going to hire anyone, it should be mediators and mediation trainers who will help people deal with content issues, which often are the beginning of behavior issues, issues which become chronic over time in an ever downward spirale of hostility. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chess, this isn't the best place to use the "generic he": just because it's an accepted form doesn't mean that it's a good thing to do going forward. If you find that "his or her" gets clunky, rewrite the sentence to avoid its use - or replace it with a "generic she".
Carolmooredc, I have heard that elsewhere on the internet, people known to be women are insulted and harassed more often than people who are known to be men. However, I'm not convinced that this is true here on Wikipedia. All you've given us are anecdotal statements that it happens and unfortunately, no matter how compelling those statements may be, by themselves they aren't enough to conclude that it's a widespread phenomenon .
I do think that the discussion atmosphere on wikipedia tends to be confrontational and brusque and that this can be insulting to many. I also think that there are editors that harass other editors, and that wikistalking and harassment is unacceptable. But are all these behaviours targeted specifically at women? That I just don't know. I'd love to see some research and studies.
With respect to mediation, I think that hiring people trained in mediation and dispute resolution would be very useful. I could see them being a resource for volunteers in those areas and possibly providing training to them. Ca2james (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The link above, about Gender-specific and gender-neutral pronouns#Generic he, is for the article based on the subject. The one for editors is here: Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language#Pronouns and states: There are a number of ways of avoiding the use of generic masculine and feminine pronouns; the following are examples. ... Using he or she ("Each politician is responsible for his or her constituency"), although this can be ungainly if repeated within a short space. Since it wasn't being repeated within a short space his or her is the correct form, or, as Ca2james rewrite the entire sentence.
Like I said, I wouldn't ordinarily be this pedantic but in a GGTF thread, in a discussion about whether to disband GGTF itself, it did tick the box marked "ironic" for me. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find some of the attitudes at this task force toxic. It's those attitudes from some women editors that involve treating all male editors as the enemy. Such irrational paranoia only hides what might be a real problem and, if it does exist, guarantees that it will continue. HiLo48 (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please. I am male ( no, I am not going to provide any proof ). I did not encounter any toxicity, or enmity here, I mean, not from women editors at least. Thanks.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Using Discretionary sanctions
HiLo48's comment above is the kind of thing that hopefully will lead to a topic ban after Discretionary sanctions go into effect. Editors here will just have to be assertive about bringing these things to ArbCom/Enforcement. HiLo48 would get a warning here. Next time he'd get a talk page comment. Third time to ArbCom. It will get tiresome taking these editors to ArbCom over and over but it's the only thing that will allow the project to do anything besides list articles that need creation or work. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. Two editors willing to do so are about to be topic and site banned, but don't let that discourage you. Or will it?? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone: please don't waste ArbCom's time with such requests as such things really would be tiresome for them. I thought I had explained this before: enforcing DS has nothing to do with referrals to Arbcom - see WP:AC/DS. - Sitush (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon my head cold. To clarify, per here:
  • A Discretionary Sanctions template will be put on the talk page in question. [Added later]
  • Template:Ds notices are what you put on a disruptive editor's talk page. You will go to Template:AE_sanction to find the GGTF template once it is created. You can do it as the first warning, without even bothering to say anything on the talk page if you prefer.
  • If they ignore the notice and keep disrupting you can just ask an admin to do something. Or an admin watching might do so.
  • But if such admins refuse to do anything and the problems continue or you feel that problems already are serious enough, you can go to Arbitration Enforcement.
Editors take these steps all the time on other Arbitrations. There is no reason this one should be any different. This info should be on the main page here since disruptive comments surely will continue here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. What will happen is that a template will be placed on the relevant pages. Something like {{castewarningtalk}}. Believe me, admins will be prepared to act: they do so as a matter of course but chivvying them will potentially create a boomerang. There is no harm in someone creating the template but I'd wait until the case closes and I would suggest that whoever does so is not involved with the project, so perhaps put a request in at the template aficionado's forum? - Sitush (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot the first step on a template on the talk page and added it. The rest is accurate. Admins may watch the first couple months, but not necessarily immediately. And if it's all biased admins watching, editors may find it necessary to take to arbcom to deal with their biases. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that you still seem not to understand how it works. Admins do not have to watch in order to act. If someone thinks there is a problem here, they can just go find an uninvolved admin and ask whether they would look into it. I think many of the allegations of bias are driven by bias, not actually evident in fact, but in any event if such bias does exist somewhere then it will soon be found out and, of course, the bias could be in either direction. I'm tempted to quote A. E. Housman on "three minutes' thought" but what I'm really concerned about here is just setting the record straight before we go off yet again on some huge tangential and ill-informed thread about the injustices of Wikipedia etc. As with the Polish statue, getting the known facts in order first can save a lot of misplaced annoyance and pixels. - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you read my points, I include finding an Admin. But the final step if nothing else works or if one feels admins are incredibly biased is going to ArbCom enforcement. And/or ANI to complain about the Admin. But it's unlikely it would get that far, so haven't listed it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I give up and leave it to your peers. I can't cope with these repeated vague allegations/insinuations of bias (and deals within arbcom etc) without evidence. - Sitush (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In case you haven't heard, any time you have a contested area, individuals on either side may think that some admin decision was biased. Please don't insinuate a neutral fact is more than it is. I'm just pointing out there is recourse, though like I said "it's unlikely it would get that far, so haven't listed it." The more important thing is to make sure that should admins stop paying attention that individuals know how to deal with disruption. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wikipedia controversies

Just discovered this article and see no mention of gender gap issues, despite about 60 RS articles in the Gender Gap list of mainstream and tech media articles on the general topic and at least one, probably more, specific incidents. Left a note on the talk page and here in case someone wants to have a go. (Also see relevant info in the list of research studies on the Gender Gap on Wikipedia. So definitely a section or paragraphs (since it's organized by year) devoted to that needed. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, what's the controversy though? There needs to be conflict, and there isn't. At least one that hasn't been reported by many, many rs. You may have rs that say 'Wikipedia doesn't have female editors' or the statistic and what not. But that's not really a controversy, it's a fact, which is even acknowledged by WMF all in all, isn't a controversy. So I'm not sure exactly how we'd add it. Tutelary (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the only real controversy I saw when I skimmed the list of links was the Amanda Filipacchi incident but as Milowent says, it's already included in the article. I guess the recognition that there's a gender gap on Wikipedia could be added but that isn't exactly a controversy. Carolmooredc, was there something in particular that you were thinking should be included on the controversy page? Ca2james (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I searched her name and didn't spell it right. First what is your standard for something being included as controversial? Only something where at least one WP:RS mentions the word "controversy" or "controversial" in the article? A topic that has 10 articles on it about some Wikipedia issue, written from different perspectives? Is there a similar standard that the article sets? Or is there a minimal standard below that? We can't measure without a ruler. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent point. We need to define our terms so we're all talking about the same thing. Wikipedia defines controversy as a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view. Oxford says it's a prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion. I'm not quite sure that there's been a heated discussion or disagreement regarding the gender gap on wikipedia since pretty much all of the articles agree that the gap exists. While the gender gap is something that affects the site, does it rise to the level of a controversy? I don't know; maybe. I don't think it's a given that it belongs there but maybe it could be added. Ca2james (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If someone puts it in, I'll likely take it out. Unless there is a fundamental disagreement between studies etc (eg: yes there is a gap/no there is not), it has no place there. It is just politicking. Find something more useful to do regarding the project would be my advice because adding it to that page is just opening a whole new can of worms for naff all gain. - Sitush (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since the articles agree that the gap exists I would say that controversy surrounds the questions: "What are the root causes of the gender gap?" "Why is there a disproportionately large number of male editors compared to female editors?"
Answers have included – sexist remarks being made in discussions about article content (counter-claims: the broader issue is one of incivility / if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen); there have been various accounts of what puts women off editing WP and what can be done to increase the number of female editors (counter-claim: the only reason women don't edit WP is because they are not interested and that doesn't point to any particular problem / issue that needs to be resolved).
I'm not sure how acknowledging that these disputes exist and placing them in a list of controversies constitutes "opening up a whole new can of worms". In fact it ought to do the opposite, e.g. in a discussion which is getting heated, it would make it possible to say, "yes, the issue of what cause the gender gap has been a source of controversy for a while now see link". --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are these studies etc actually criticising each other? If not, there is no controversy. Keep it focussed, keep it tight would be my motto: there is enough to play with in the three proposals that were recently made here without adding sideshows. Especially since those three proposals do indeed seem to be at the heart of the issue. - Sitush (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Ca2james: I don't think Wikipedia article definitions are necessarily the final word, especially if some policy clearly trumps them. The article's lead definitely leaves some wiggle room because even a quick look at all the examples refs may not prove either prolonged or public debates, especially outside Wikipedia. And have you read every Gender Gap-realted article and research study and thus can say that "not a single one describes differing opinions inside or outside Wikipedia?" (I bet we also could find a few RS naysayer articles that I missed.)
I myself wouldn't try to add anything to the Wikipedia controversies article except at the end of my thorough study and analysis of these sources. And that won't be til next year. That's why I posted this, in case any others interested in putting RS info on this topic in that Wikipedia article wants to do it sooner. At that point anyone objecting will have to make explicit why their criterion for exclusion should not apply to any other existing sentences/paragraphs/sections of the Controversies article which don't pass a similar muster. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see: you were musing again, and on the basis of yet another promise of something you'll do some far distant time in the future. And making up rules also - At that point anyone objecting will have to make explicit why their criterion for exclusion should not apply to ... is incorrect. Sorry, Carol, we are going to be IBANNED and I've done my utmost to ignore you outside of ANI/ArbCom for weeks now, even when you have referenced me obliquely as in the above quote, but I'm fed up of this. No-one here seems willing to call you out but they damn well should do. - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Studies? I'm not sure that there needs to be studies? This is the list so far for 2014, all of the references are to news articles and blogs. In fact, flicking through the references for all the controversies since the beginning in 2002, the majority link to newspaper items, including the controversy surrounding Amanda Filipacchi's article in April 2013, "Wikipedia's Sexism Toward Female Novelists". Are you planning to delete it from the list of controversies? Isn't "can of worms" just another way of saying "it's controversial"? That is what the list is meant to be.
Controversies may be a sideshow of Wikipedia, but they can hardly be described as a sideshow from a list of controversies. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I said "studies" because, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no controversy in news sources regarding existence of the gap beyond the specific examples already in there. However, it seems that the linkfarm of studies has been created indiscriminately, so I guess it is unlikely that anyone has actually read the things yet. I worry about coatracking, a lot: the more this sort of point-y stuff is dispersed, the harder it will be for everyone to achieve an improvement in the core matters. It isn't as if this project has been short of publicity on this particular Wikipedia, is it? - Sitush (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A quick flick through The Guardian suggests some omissions: Women! Wikipedia needs you; Stop female scientists being written out of Wikipedia history; and Is Wikipedia the best place to promote women in art?.
I'm not sure what "coatracking" you think there would be, or what "this sort of point-y stuff" you're referring to. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, The Grauniad is good for stuff like that. I don't see the controversy, though: they're saying what everyone knows, surely? Do people actually dispute what they report? - Sitush (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


(edit conflict × 3)Carolmooredc, I'm confused: were you thinking of someone else when you replied to me? I haven't read all of the links on the resource page, but then I haven't claimed to have done so: in fact, I said above that I skimmed the list of links. I also haven't said anywhere that "not a single one describes differing opinions inside or outside Wikipedia." What I have said is that I'm not quite sure that there's been a heated discussion or disagreement regarding the gender gap on wikipedia since pretty much all of the articles agree that the gap exists. This statement leaves room for articles to disagree that a gender gap exists. Even if there are reliable sources that say the gender gap doesn't exist, does that elevate the fact of the gender gap into a controversy?

To be honest, I'm trying to understand your position but I'm having a hard time of it. I think you're thinking that if something negative gets written about in multiple reliable sources, then it's a controversy. Is that right, or have I misunderstood you? Am I also right in saying that you think Wikipedia's definition of controversy shouldn't be used in this discussion? The reason I included it was to make a start at defining our terms and to try to show why I didn't think the existence of the gender gap was necessarily a controversy. Is there a definition you'd prefer to use?

The Vintage Feminist, I agree that there is some controversy around the causes of the gender gap, although so far there aren't a lot of definitive answers as to why the gap exists. Studies are definitely needed to figure that out.

I've been thinking about this subject for most of the day and I'm still torn. Am I right in thinking that the Andrea Filipacchi controversy brought the gender gap issues to the forefront? If so, then one possibility could be to add something in that section about how the gender gap became a more prominent issue as a consequence. If I'm wrong, then ignore that thought. Ca2james (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For me the Andrea Filipacchi controversy brought the WP policy of categorization by gender to the forefront: A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic. That is the opening line - "could be"? The rest of that section is about as unencyclopedic as it is possible to be. Why does gender need to have "a specific relation to the topic"? What specific relation to the topic of writing do women have that men do not? If a category is becoming too large, then creating two diffusing categories of male and female might be useful. Having a diffusing category of female / women without also having a male / men diffusing category creates a kind of 'dump' that women are shoved off to. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with The Vintage Feminist that there were many references to gender gap before Filipacchi, not all of them mentioned in the resources. Obviously Filipacchi controversy emphasized one of the gender gap-related issues and got a lot of media attention, but that doesn't mean earlier reports did not mention or indicate controversy.
The point of my starting this thread is to ENcourage editors interested in the topic to research what might belong there. So it would be helpful if editors controlled any nitpicking until there actually is a concrete proposal - at the article itself - would be helpful.
My bottom line position is that what is a controversy relevant to the article's list should be judged on the same criteria as current entries, per my writing: "At that point anyone objecting will have to make explicit why their criterion for exclusion should not apply to any other existing sentences/paragraphs/sections of the Controversies article which don't pass a similar muster."
I haven't quite figured out what the criteria are, though off hand the standards don't seem all that high, and can't speak as to what articles and studies would meet that criteria since haven't researched them sufficiently. And I don't see any point in debating generalities. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we were discussing whether and how to add something about the broader gender gap issues to that page. I don't know how to have that discussion without speaking in generalities (like the definition of controversy) and nitpicking (like discussing particular aspects of the gender gap). If I'm wrong about the discussion and/or it's approach, please tell me.
Thanks to both of you for clarifying the timeline a bit. I agree wholeheartedly with The Vintage Feminist's assessment of the gender categorization guideline - to me it's the perfect representation of that aspect of the gender gap on wikipedia. I didn't know that the gender gap had been brought up before the categorization controversy and having read the above, I agree that each must stand on its own.
That said, it makes sense to use the same inclusion criteria as is currently used there, although I agree that this criteria is quite vague and I haven't figured out what it is, either. Even so, I'm still hesitant to include the overall gender gap issue there because I'm still not convinced that the fact of the gap is a controversy. I could see including the very first mention of the gender gap in the list because it might have been a controversial topic when it was first discovered and raised. Does anyone know when that happened and/or have some reliable sources for it? Ca2james (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the 2009 WMF/university report here? No idea what the reaction was. - Sitush (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, this, it would seem. - Sitush (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm thinking that if we could find an early reference describing not just the research but how the gender gap impacts the encyclopaedia, it would fit as a controversy on that page. That page seems to list issues that have impacted the quality and reliability of content and I think there has been discussion (or possibly research) that says the gender gap has affected article content this way. Ca2james (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've not been able to find a suitable one yet but it would seem that "early" cannot be before late 2008 because that is when the research was first done. I think it was Djembayz who recently linked to some commentary in The Guardian and certainly that paper would raise such issues - that paper covering a liberal, feminist, pro-empowerment story is about as predictable as The Daily Mail (UK) saying that Thatcher was a good prime minister. So, maybe another trawl through their archives would be worthwhile? - Sitush (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: it was The Vintage Feminist who provided the links, not Djembayz. Sorry about that. - Sitush (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, oh. I really don't want to make the list of controversies, but it may happen. Looks like ArbCom, which has been dying to ban Eric Corbett for years but didn't have the chutzpah, made a deal to Site Ban me and Topic Ban Neotarf, so that they can shut up Eric's followers when they ban him. (If they get that final vote.) With all those reporters and "researchers" watching to see "Is Wikipedia Sexist?" this may become a controversy.
On my own part, now I have to make a side by side chart of all the (relevant) evidence against me (20 odd items, a few of them snarky) vs. that detailed ad nauseam vs other editors (100+ insulting, obnoxious and harassing and often clearly sexist quotes). (Though any number of watchers/researchers/reporters might beat me to it with shorter and more dramatic listings; in any case it leaves a real bad impression.) I intend to just leave it up at my revamped carolmoore.net in January in my new Wikipedia section and generally re-promoting the site alone will inevitably bring attention to it. (Which, ironically, I'll only have time to do cause I'm banned.) In the search for freedom and equality, I find a temporary loss can be the springboard to a magnificent gain. Karma is on our side. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Carolmooredc, if ArbCom made such a deal then that's a very seriously bad situation and would definitely qualify as a controversy, although I'm not sure that the focus would be on you. Do you have proof that they made this deal? I'd be interested in seeing evidence like that (and I'm sure I'm not alone there). If you don't have evidence of such blatant wrongdoing then it might be best if you withdrew those accusations.
I know it looks like you're going to get a site ban but even if you do, you'll be able to appeal it in time. A site ban doesn't necessarily have to be permanent. However, if you do make unfounded accusations it's more likely that your appeals will be denied, turning what would be a temporary ban into something permanent. That would be a loss for the encyclopaedia and I'd be sad if that's how things turned out. Ca2james (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't thinking of the "deal" as being a controversy, but you are right. Frankly, I think it would be more a psychological thing with minor inferences and asides (and private emails) that, like many such deals, only are exposed if participants whistleblow on the process. Not holding my breath. To me the real controversy is explained in the Devil Advocate's posting at ArbCom decision talk page: Rewarding the harassers and punishing the victims. Considering males are more likely to be harassers than females, this is a concern to women. But you can read in depth analysis of this at my personal webpage next year. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gendergap-L

I'd like to encourage people who are discouraged from starting meaningful conversations here to sign up for Gendergap-L. I don't have the ability to remove discussants whose behavior is clearly disruptive and whose goals are at odds with the mission of the GGTF from participation here, but I can and will remove any such discussants from Gendergap-l. Although the atmosphere of GG-l hasn't always been great in the past, we kick people off a lot more readily than we used to. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Kevin; I woudl imagine wherever you are there is heavy censorship and people being removed and kicked. You really are a very foolish boy. Giano (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Giano, do you really have nothing better to do than apparently edit stalk me constantly? I'm frankly impressed you found a post of mine on a board I doubt you were following within three minutes of me making it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken, this has been on my very extensive watchlist for a while now. As for stalking, you are truly ridiculous and perhaps just a touch paranoid. Would I accuse you of stalking Eric Corbett? No, certainly mot, even though you do seem to pop up with a tirade of venom everywhere his name is mentioned. You need to calm down Kevin - you were made to look a fool once because of your overreactions, don't make the same mistake again. Giano (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You need to calm down Kevin - you were made to look a fool once because of your overreactions, don't make the same mistake again. What do you want to achieve by delving upon one incident again and again .... ? Is the objective to make it difficult / joyless for Kevin to contribute ?OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
... says a person who is among those who has been dragging up one incident again and again? This is getting nowhere, folks, so I suggest we drop it. - Sitush (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be intimitated off GGTF by anyone, folks. No matter what your views are. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was quite a bit of discussion on the list in June 2014 about moderating it more closely since some men were overwhelming the list with their opinions and repeatedly negative comments. I remember a lot of support and no significant objection. Here it looks like we will have discretionary sanctions which should be used to end such off topic or discouraging rants and personal attacks. GGTF Discretionary Sanctions reads regarding GGTF: sanctions should be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts the discussion. Let us pray. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discretionary sanctions should do the job :) GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a single project on en-WP that is moderated. As for discretionary sanctions, please don't think of them as some sort of magic bullet equivalent of moderation. Unless there is some rider attached by ArbCom, they're just a quick way to enforce admin remedies in situations that usually are in breach of our normal editing practices, basically saving some work at ANI. Thus, for example, they will not cause the stifling of appropriate criticism nor limit who can contribute here provided that those contributions fall within our norms. - Sitush (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying: Discretionary sanctions will cover wrong behaviour from both camps, of course. GoodDay (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carol: we've removed, I want to say five people since then? Unfortunately I've had some physical health issues since then that caused me to miss a lot of mod stuff, but that should have ended and there's definitely no way some of the comments on this page would stand on gendergap. Hopefully DS will work here, but unfortunately sanctions working requires an uninvolved admin to patrol the page, and I have the unfortunate feeling that that might be hard to find. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editors also can ask for Arbitration enforcement and several admins familiar with the process are there. I don't know how many admins there are, but hopefully there are a number who, though they may have views, are not "involved" pro or con vs. any specific editor. We'll think positive thoughts. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well DS makes me very wary of returning to this project. I hope it will be all to the good, but it remains to be seen. It is certain that the Arb case blew a 6-week hole in progress with the GGTF for me. Others may have found the time to be productive. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC).
@Rich Farmbrough: Rich, I agree that this has not been good for GGTF, and I think we need to get it back on track. I've been waiting until the case ended, but there's no sign of that, so we should try to move on regardless. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone object to me signing up to Gendergap-l? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony, please do, you'd be very welcome. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carol

For what it's worth, Carol posted a strongly phrased rant on the proposed decision talk page and Jimbo Wales's talk page. She was blocked for a week, banned from the GGTF, and possibly most important, two arbitrators, including the influential and usually reasonable Newyorkbrad, changed their decision towards her proposed site ban, so it now has a supermajority. Poor Carol. --GRuban (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Her block has been reduced to 3-days. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can see where Newyorkbrad has withdrawn his motion to close the Arbcom case while the wording is worked out but I don't see any change of his decision. Can you provide a diff? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can see my change of vote on the remedy itself. The diff in question had a number of implications that are concerning, not all of which may be obvious at first reading. (Any further discussion should preferably take place on the arbitration talkpage.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) [1] Two others followed. Did I mention influential? [2][3] --GRuban (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see it now & will comment on the arb talkpage. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Carol has ban banned from the Arbitration by a clerk, not the GGTF.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 04:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FREE
THE GGTF THREE

. This has gone way too far. Bad things are gonna happen if the outcome of an arbitration endorsed by Jimbo to root out disruption of a project trying to combat the Gender Gap on wikipedia ends up banning only a key supporter of the GGTF that was trying to stop the disruption.--Milowent • hasspoken 05:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carol sealed her own fate with the exceptionally unwise rant linked to above. I wish Carol well, and wish her peace in her real world life. But her relentless politicizing and conspiracy theorizing here on Wikipedia has resulted in our elected representatives concluding, correctly, that she is a net negative for this encyclopedia building project. I agree. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Combatants come here and question the reason for the project's very existence. It leads to Arbcom. Carol and NeoTarf banned. Eric adds to his lengthy list of slaps on the wrist. This Arbcom case, given the way it appears it will end, should go down as one of the most notorious examples of just how broken Wikipedia really is. It will be deserve to be raised at every speaking engagement and interview Jimmy Wales does in the same breath as 'Does Wikipedia have a gender problem?'. AnonNep (talk) 04:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a sad outcome indeed. Kaldari (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward

I know that there isn't a decision in place yet, but that isn't reason to not try to make some efforts to address some of the concerns raised. Yes, I am not a member, and I have said before that the reason I am not at this point is that I perceive the group as having what seems to me a rather clear political overtone beyond wikipedia itself. So you are all, of course, free to ignore anything I might say on that basis.

The discussion of the proposed decision has made it clear that there are several women on both sides who say that the other side "does not speak for all women." And, clearly, I, as a male, am in no position to inherently speak for any women. This seems to me to be the essence of the problem. Are there any particular statistics regarding specifically what "kind" of women is more or less likely to be alienated from the project more quickly? If yes, what are they and is there anything in the details which we might be able to use to maybe try to develop content or guidelines or practices which might perhaps delay that alienation?

If there are no such statistics, then we are in a bit of a difficult position. I suppose a few things we might be able to do, maybe, perhaps, is try to find what sort of environment for developing content, here at wikipedia or at other WF entities, is most appealing to women, if there are factors indicating that there exists a preferred environment, and maybe make some efforts to bring more attention and focus to those areas. Alternately, perhaps, there might be some more input in the soon-to-be-started Wikipedia:Co-op, which might involve trying to pair specifically newer women editors with either more senior women editors or senior editors of any gender who have a particular interest in their topic of interest.

I can myself think of only one female editor I am aware of who seems to have left the project. So far as I can tell, her particular almost single-minded interest was to change content of a large number of theology articles to reflect developments in feminist theology. Unfortunately, she also said she was more of a contemplative than a researcher, and didn't seem to be interested in seeking out or reviewing sources to support such changes, even though I e-mailed her several of them to review.

Any ideas? John Carter (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be a good idea to wait for the ArbCom case to close before starting up another discussion about how to address the WP gender gap. As for your questions, numerous sources have been given and a task force Resources page was created.
I'm not sure who you're describing, but it's not me, and I am a woman who left the project because of its agonistic editing environment. I only returned recently to comment on the ArbCom case, and I'll be leaving again soon. Lightbreather (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Every set back is just an opportunity for advancement. Current events only have clarified and dramatized that harassment of those considered powerless (including women) is institutionalized within a small but powerful coterie of editors and administrators and now within ArbCom. (Harass those you want to get rid of til they leave or they over-react, then get them in trouble.)
Obviously WMF is going to have to take some incisive interventions. Listing and discussing various alternatives and lobbying for them is the solution. (Plus fun with videos.) Gender gap mailing list will at least have announcements about various steps taken by various individuals, some of which will be post-able here without getting anyone in trouble. (And if trolls have a fit and become disruptive, there's discretionary sanctions.) Meanwhile as a reminder of previously mentioned outside efforts: Genderdesk @ wordpress.com; twitter.com/SaidOnWP; and Wikipediocracy which needs to take a firmer stand; there do seem to be several sexist commentators there. I'm still undecided if want to deal with the drama there or not, and if with my real name or an anonymous handle for fun (and see how long before they figure out it's me). Anyway, as I always say, onward and upward! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force&oldid=635911777"