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

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)

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

[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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@Carolmooredc: It's not a "morality" issue, but a practicality and categorization issue. Currently, as other people said, Meta-wiki has a gender gap project. A major focus of the 2014/2015 year for the WMF is to fix the gender gap, and this task force seems to have grown enough to become a WikiProject, as well as having a goal important enough to be a WikiProject. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 01:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I was just quoting you. In any case, right now there's not a clear consensus to change it. Perhaps we should wait anyway until the conclusion of the ongoing Gender Gap Task Force arbitration Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't archive yet, bot. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying

I've been watching this page and thinking about this question. To me, there's more than one aspect to closing the gender gap: there's increasing the number of article about women and "women-friendly" topics, there's increasing the number of female editors, there's working to change processes to make the project more welcoming for all, and there's probably even more parts to this whole thing. IMHO, each of these aspects is a task in and of itself and could be its own task force under a broader, over-arching Gender Gap WikiProject. Therefore, I think this Task Force should be spun out into a WikiProject. Ca2james (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

But who's going to do it? Interest has pretty much evaporated since the Arbcom case started. There's Carol, and ....Carol. —Neotarf (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

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)
• 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)
• No in-principle objection. Tony (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support as originator of the idea. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 20:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support Lightbreather (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
• Query: is there any value in using both locations? —Neotarf (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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

Note: Hopefully, changing it will not encourage more disruption, even as such disruption does not happen at Wikiprojects LGBT, Latino, African Diaspora, Disability, etc. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons I've already discussed. Ca2james (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: close

As I wrote in re-opening, let an editor who has not repeatedly publicly opposed the project and members close it. Especially at the end of the Arbitration. We'll know more tomorrow. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no point in trying to keep this from archiving. The situation has changed completely since the questions were asked, what with the ArbCom case. The poll is stale...and meaningless. —Neotarf (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Good point! After all Arbcom might rule that this project has a right to organize any thing it wants and that sincere members who support all projects (more articles/more women/more civility/etc.) have the right to kick off anyone suspected of being here to trash the project, including men's rights/anticivility/wikihounders/etc. In which case, individuals driven off the project by trolls and/or fear of becoming involved in an Arbitration might return with different opinions or different proposals. Now that seems like a good reason to close this as stale/irrelevant. Wait til things call down, in say January, and revisit the issue. It's not necessarily a bad idea, just in current context looks suspicious. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that this is an administrative move of a task force that currently doesn't fit into CSB. I'm not opposing this task force at all. I do not know where you got that statement. Also, the consensus above was that we should move. But there is a currently pending ArbCom case, so the move is postponed. Also, User:Carolmooredc, comment on content, not on the contributor. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You can't deny that many editors who have a sincere interest in all aspects of this topic have been run off this group by hostile individuals (men's rights/anticivility/wikihounders/etc). Why else are we having this Arbitration which was requested by someone fed up with such individuals. In that context, a lot of things look suspicious and saying an alleged consensus holds is problematic. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Polish monument to Wikipedia

Read about this on Facebook Wikipedia Women facebook page and now on Talk:Jimbo Wales. As I asked there, Are those figures genderless or castrati? [1] Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I've dropped in precisely because of this. I believe they're all men. Can you believe that? I mean ... um ... . It's a very impressive work, and someone has done very well to produce it, but I couldn't promote it or feel anything but embarrassment. It's sad. Tony (talk) 09:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

They don't seem to have anything between their legs, they might have been castrated and penectomized. Violence against male sexual organs is not cool. --Pudeo' 15:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

They're obviously male - not genderless. They have narrow hips, wide shoulders, and - most telling - crotch bulges. None appear to have breasts. Lightbreather (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

That's right, this is Catholic Poland. Not Dutch Amsterdam or Venice Italy. So of course they aren't going to show the explicit sexual details. OK, perhaps we can indicate to the Powers that Be that a nice letter explaining how they should have at least one woman in there would be really great! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. (It's a piece of art -- not a social statement. If the artist had made one or two of the figures explicitly women, and these figures are together lifting overhead a heavy globe, it would be a distraction to the art theme. [Why? Because strength to hoist heavy physical objects falls in the realm of something men would typically be assigned to do, for the raw muscle power needed. Put one or two woman in the mix, and you destroy the thematic thrust of the piece, hello. You'd destroy the art of the art piece; or, make into something ouside the artist's intent, to suit your own purpose, modifying his artistic vision in the process, i.e., destroying his artwork.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Imagine the Wikipedia sh*tF*t if it had been obviously all women by a woman artist? In any case, art can be crappy and people can say so. It's still legal. In any case, I thought it was going up a year from now, but it's this October, so a bit late. But hopefully they have or will have a plaque mentioning women editors. Actually, it's probably best that Polish Wikipedia women editors approach whom so ever. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Yoo, ha. Found the Polish article on the statue and asked the question on the talk page, using my best Google Translate polish. :-) Better late than never noticed a Polish Gender studies group so left message there too. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Update: Message on my talk page says an earlier model shared by someone on Polish Wikipedia [2] shows a couple women, but they don't know if til they see the actual statue unveiled. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Queen Bodicca doing something men would typically be assigned to do, for the raw muscle power needed and managing not to distract from the art theme. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if that's what someone said about it or speculation. Anyway, maybe the women were too big bosomed for the Polish politicians so they demanded it more gender neutral. We shall wait expectantly for Oct. 22. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Final momument was unveiled and looks like it has at least one, may two women in it, according to a talk page update. Yeah! Article on Polish Wikipedia with photo. Images.google search of "Polish momument Wikipedia" gets some more good returns. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I was worried there would only be 16.1% women! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC).

NPOV: pornography portal/ project, but no anti-pornography portal / project?

Should there be a Pornography portal / project and an Anti-pornography portal / project, or should the existing one be re-named "Pornography debates" or something similar, with more being added to the anti-pornography POV? Before anyone says, "Just because it is called the pornography portal / project doesn't mean that it is pro-porn." I would say look at the project's scope and the portal's list of categories. There isn't much for those looking for the anti-pornography POV. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a need for the anti-side to be presented. I'm also intrigued by the misogynist troll dramafest that will undoubtably erupt if either method is tried, but given that there are only 24 hours in a day and some of us have to eat and sleep as well as work for a living, I'd recommend waiting until Gamergate and the ArbCom case die down so those of us who are useful in a street fight aren't pulled 16 ways by other dramas the way we are at the moment. There are more trolls, and they don't have to eat or sleep as much because I suspect that they all just live in their mommy's basement. In the meantime, I'd spend some time and energy finding more allies who will be useful so that when you do drop the hammer, you don't have to fly solo, but you also won't have flaky allies who will pull your efforts off into some sort of stupid thing that is mostly a personality conflict like this stupid ArbCom case. Montanabw^(talk) 21:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

First, can we be civil with others' proposal and not insult both alleged pornography users and allegedly flakey "allies" or call the project stupid? It's really uncalled for and tacky.

In any case, it's only worth creating the "anti-pornography project" if a) you have enough articles to support a project and b) enough participants interested in keeping it going and and c) enough energy to put up with the brouhaha. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProjects shouldn't have a point of view. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 00:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I should have said: and if you survive a challenge to the existence of the project based on whatever arguments editors might offer. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking aloud more than anything. It just occured to me that there is a portal for Conservatism (selected article: the Bricker Amendment), and a portal for Socialism (selected biography: Karl Marx).

Selected articles / biographies on the pornography portal are generally about porn stars, porn films and - a newly added feature - erotic literature. When anything relating to anti-pornography is featured then there is an over-arching tone of "that bunch of censorship nutters" e.g. radical feminists (for 'radical' read 'lunatic'). The second paragraph of the article on pornography is typical of how the anti-pornography movement tend to be portrayed, 'various groups ... with varying degrees of success ... censorship and other legal restraints to publication' rather than 'a number of associations and organisations ... achiving success in reducing the amount of material that they regard as harmful'. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 08:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Since even voluntary censorship of viewpoints is such a big "no no" on Wikipedia - especially if it's censorship of things demeaning to women - a more successful approach might be to focus on pornography-related issues. For example, the addictive aspects of pornography, the psychological reasons males have poor relationships with women and thus are sexually frustrated, the "male surplus" issue leading to too few women available for males during the last 30 odd years[3], and any and all studies indicating a relationship of pornography to any sort of violence against others (women, children, men, animals). Articles about, and Project/portal mentions of, the dysfunctional aspects of pornography is something they can't complain is censorship. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep as is - I see Anti-Porn categories within the Porn portal, which seems the way reality is as well -- the anti is reaction to and part of porn generally, not a topic that would exist separate of the porn nor could porn ignore or not have anti happen. A title change to 'discussion' seems inappropriate as not expectable -- if the portal is only to discussions then is there to be another portal actually on porn itself is too conflusing, simpler to have the one portal on the simpler title and everything there. I think the current Portal title is the best fit and that there should not be a separation to two portals. Markbassett (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Survey re: gender gap on EN Wiki

As a part of my IEG, Women & Wikipedia, I've created a survey re: the gender gap on the English language Wikipedia. Any and all editors (of all genders and sexes from all countries) who contribute to EN Wiki are welcome to take it--and participation is much appreciated!

Note: A few participants have had issues with the survey, which is run via Qualtrics, timing out. I know that Qualtrics doesn't work well on Chrome, so you may want to try IE or Safari. --Mssemantics (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Mssemantics this page is a redirect which Ghostery blocks. Would be good if that could be fixed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC).

Thanks, Rich. Pinging Mssemantics to make sure she sees this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rich. This talk page or the Qualtrics survey page? Thanks! --Mssemantics (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Mssemantics The Qualtrics survey. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC).

Slim Virgin the {{@}} template pings too. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC).

Hi Rich, I'm not sure it does (I didn't get your ping). I thought I should let you know in case you're relying on it. There's a list of the things that work at WP:ECHO. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, I was confused. I acutally should have been using {{Ping}} (aka reply to). Like this @SlimVirgin:. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC).

Hi Rich. It looks like the issue between Qualtrics and Ghostery is something I can't fix. I'd recommend opening the link with a broswer in which you aren't running Ghostery, or I can send you a direct link to the survey via Wiki mail. Apologies! --Mssemantics (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh I can work around this stuff! I just want you to be able to get the largest sample possible. Fixing would be up to qualtrics it's a shame so many large sites abuse the web. I had 32 trackers on one major web site - WP is probably the only place that comes up with 0 junk. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC).

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!

Quote today about taking online harassment seriously / women being driven offline

"There’s a sort of sentiment that online harassment is not real, that we shouldn’t take it seriously. But, you know, as you just showed, Elliot Rodger had his manifesto online and his videos online before he actually took action. So, this is a larger culture of women, you know, one, not being believed about their experiences with online harassment, and when it is seen that they actually are being attacked in really vicious ways, it’s just brushed off as, "Oh, it’s just the Internet," or, you know, it’s just boys being boys, when that’s really not what’s happening here. These threats are very real, whether they are committed or not."

-- Anita Sarkeesian, in today's interview, "Women Are Being Driven Offline ..." -- Djembayz (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Djembayz. She argues that women are being driven offline, and that women who watch other women being attacked question whether they want to participate or speak up themselves. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yuuuuuup. It's a bummer. But as an optimist, I always think there's a solution. Though this isn't quite the space you can talk about them. I'm going to have to try that site (Women.com or something?) you linked to a while back. Feel free to share it again. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

There's really no connection between manifestos of killers and the Internet. The Unabomber had one, written on paper. Nonetheless there are very serious threats made online, by email, and amazingly social media in all its guises.

In the UK "credible threats of violence, harassment, or stalking" are punishable by up to 6 months (soon to be 2 years) imprisonment, under the Communications Act 2003#Malicious communications. I believe there are existing laws in most countries, that criminalise threats of physical harm, at the very least.

Is it credible that women are being "driven offline"? Well in the sense that some, demographically small, number of women (and men) might choose to disengage from social media, very likely.

In terms of the Wikipedia Gender Gap we (en:wp community and the WMF) have zero tolerance for threats of physical harm, pretty low tolerance of doxxing and outing, (notable exceptions are a couple of Arbcom screw-ups) and the community will not stand for overt harassment or wiki-stalking.

I'm not sure, then, that this adds anything to the resolution of the key Gender Gap questions, except to support the background concept that the Internet at large is not always a nice place.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC).

Zero tolerance of threats of harm? Unless you've got friends in high places and claim you were under stress and it was a joke, you mean.

Re no toleration for wikihounding, it took a year of my complaints to admins, at ANI and even at a past arbitration to get a hounder off my back. Considering the outrageous reaction of one of his buddies, I felt like this must be a "Wikipedia first", a man being sanctioned for Wikihounding a woman. I noticed another woman didn't get a guy off her back till it went to arbitration. Makes me want to do that analysis of ANIs for double standards vs. males and women (or push Foundation to pay someone to do it) even more. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Carol, I am a big fan of yours, the work you have done to reduce Wikipedia's gender gap has been inspirational. Keep up the good work! - Gem FightMisogynyNow (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Carol I have no idea what you are talking about. If someone made a credible threat to harm you, your first course of action is to contact the FBI. No on knows more that I the flawed nature of Wikipedia's governance, but oblique references to "bad things that have happened" does not contribute to a constructive discussion.

If you want to do an analysis of ANI's for double standards (and there has been some work on administrator responses to other editors by gender), that would be excellent, a positive contribution to establishing factually, rather than anecdotally, the editing environment.

You will need to record for each section at ANI, the gender of the person being reported (I would discard sections reporting more than one person), the gender of the person doing the reporting (for "boomerang" cases), and the outcome. You may also want to record the gender of the actioning admin, if any, or closing admin if no action is taken. you will also need to decide what constitute an "action" clearly "blocking" is relatively easily measurable, things like "warning" are less so, and for something like that you need a methodology to ensure that a consistent measure is applied (for example that it is mentioned in a section close, or that an admin says "I have left a warning on their talk page").

If existing research on blocks is anything to go by, the ratios are likely to be fairly consistent for blocking, there is also some research on warnings templates, but I don't remember those results.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC).

Thanks for comments. Not sure how research on warning templates related (it was by gender?) I assume that would be on wikimedia.org if I wanted to look? Maybe after the current GGTF Arbitration whoever's left standing can encourage other researchers, including those working on the study of wikipedia sexism, can do it. I mean we do want to help outside researchers don't we? Or is that a "no free speech" privately off Wikipedia provision that only applies to GGTF that we haven't heard about? First time it occurred to me. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Internet harassment studies, Slate, Daily Beast articles

I notice we seem to be veering a bit from women on Wikipedia to women on the internet in general. Unfortunately, studies on harassment on the Internet in general are ambiguous.

• http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/10/22/pew_online_harassment_study_men_are_called_names_women_are_stalked_and_sexually.html
• http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/04/men-are-harassed-more-than-women-online.html

Seems that quite often men actually get worse treatment, but women are affected more. So it's hard to tell whether that helps us here on Wikipedia all that much, and I think is a reason for us to focus on specific Wikipedia effects, that are easier to pin down. --GRuban (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think they are all that ambiguous.

• Even just looking at the title of the first one gives a slightly different perspective: On the Internet, Men Are Called Names. Women Are Stalked and Sexually Harassed reads: 44 percent of men and 37 percent of women who use the Internet reported experiencing harassment there. Men “are somewhat more likely than women to experience certain less severe forms of harassment like name-calling and being embarrassed,” Pew found, but they’re also more likely to receive physical threats—I’d call that “severe.” Meanwhile, “women are significantly more likely than men to report being stalked or sexually harassed on the internet.”

Considering women don't tend to jump into a profile political debates and stick to more social media situations, it's not surprising they get fewer threats. If a similar percentage entered those controversial areas the number of women threatened would shift considerably. As I can attest being active here and elsewhere and getting dozen of threats of even the most innocuous statements so guy didn't like.

• And the second one is about a tiny sample: "a fairly small sample of British celebrities, journalists and politicians whose Twitter timelines were tracked over a two-week period, its findings are nonetheless interesting. On the whole, 2.5 percent of the tweets sent to the men but fewer than 1 percent of those sent to women were classified as abusive."

Again, did they compare what the two were writing about? Some topics raise more hackles than others, no matter who is writing them. Just often bigger hackles if it's a woman. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Point well taken, GRuban. Do you have any particular specific Wikipedia-related effects in mind?

Let's say this site reflects a more general trend, in which women tend to find harassment more distressing than men, even though men may be receiving more physical threats and name calling. If women are sufficiently distressed to stand up and demand a friendlier, more collaborative atmosphere, wouldn't that benefit men also? For long-term editor retention, quality improvement and content expansion, doesn't it make sense to branch out beyond the community of mean-spirited people who like nothing better than nasty arguements? -- Djembayz (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, entirely agree that civility is great all around. My point is just that treatment of women on the Internet in general is much more complex than on Wikipedia in particular, and especially bringing up mass murderers is, hopefully, even less relevant to our work closing the gap here. I truly truly hope! It's not as if we have any shortage of specific Wikipedia effects to discuss, from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force/research to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force. --GRuban (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

University of Sydney gender diversity Wikibomb signup

The University of Sydney is hosting a gender diversity editathon on Friday October 31st about women currently or historically connected with the university. The project page is at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/University of Sydney Wikibomb. Any Wikipedians who can attend on the day would be much appreciated (sign up now!) to help train newcomers. If you would like to contribute online (sign up now!), pick a subject and start your research. --99of9 (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Good, although already mentioned above. People here might like to comment on what advice should be offered to new female editors—for example, guidance on selection of a user name or on what should be posted on a user page. Johnuniq (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, would it be too aggressive to consider other forms of conceptual "Wikibombs"? Such as creating memes to facilitate positive change vis-à-vis the gender gap problem? NeoFeminism directly <redacted>, for example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IshtarPoster.jpg

I completely understand that while highly effective, some may consider this approach <redacted>. This represents a tough philosophical quandary for #HeForShe #NeoFeminists such as myself. Do my colleagues and I use every tool at our disposal to affect positive change at Wikipedia, or do we hold back until <redacted>? GemSophos (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Er ... Gem? Did you just post with the <redacted> already in?[4] I'm afraid I can't quite understand what you're getting at. Though your poster seems rather frightening. --GRuban (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You are the prestidigitator? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC).

HELP!

Just a quick update on this (sorry for the double posting earlier)... it is going to be the biggest editathon I have ever attended. There are already 36 signups on the project page, and we are expecting somewhere nearer to 100 on the day!? We will have a decent number of experienced editors on site, but we will be stretched. Anyone who can provide online support 03:00-07:00 UTC tomorrow (Friday) would be much appreciated. Please add your name to the project page with a note so that I know who we can call on. Here's some ways you can help:

1. Any sandbox started by a wikibomb participant should be added to Category:University of Sydney Wikibomb 2014 so that we can all find it.
2. Monitor These Related Changes to look out for editors having trouble.
3. Write (kind) sandbox_talk page comments if you see promotional language. It seems that some participants are intending to write articles about their friend/colleague/boss. The organizing team now all understand how much COI editing is discouraged, but I'm afraid academics are harder to herd than cats. We are at least trying to ensure that everyone declares their employer on their userpage, and declares any COI they have on the article talk.
4. Assess articles' readiness to move into mainspace (also post a note on the talk page). Experienced Wikipedians will do these moves, but for COI and general stress relief, it would be good to have third party eyes over it.
5. Categorize, prettify, wikidatify, wikiprojectify ({{WP Australia}}{{WP Biography}} etc) any articles that do make it into mainspace. We will not have time to concentrate on any of these things.
6. Ping me or another Wikipedian if you spot any problems.
7. Publicise on Twitter (#Wikibomb) with a link to the project page

Thanks for helping! --99of9 (talk) 10:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Feminists Engage Wikipedia

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

• Suzy Castor

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

• Nancy Feagin
• DJ Kuttin Kandi
• Marie-Laurence Jocelyn-Lassègue
• Sister Singers Network
• Artemis Singers
• Mimi Kim
• Creative Interventions
• Allied Media Conference
• Disability Justice (should probably be at Disability justice
• Women's Joint Congressional Committee (United States)
• Techno-Orientalism
• Erasing the Distance
• Ourika (TGOW)
• J Mase III
• National Dalit and Adivasi Women's Congress of 2013
• Third World Majority
• Anne Emery

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)

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).

Notifications

In case anyone else, like me, keeps mistyping when using WP:ECHO, George Orwell III and Quiddity (WMF) suggested adding this to your common.js:

// Add custom Character Inserter entries, to the end of the first 2 groupings
window.charinsertCustom = { 
	"Insert": ' Mention: {\{u|+}}  {\{ping|+}}', 
	"Wiki markup": ' Mention: {\{u|+}}  {\{ping|+}}' 
};

At the bottom of the edit window, it adds "Mention: {{u|}} {{ping|}}". You place the cursor where you want to insert it, click on {{u|}} or {{ping|}}, and add the name, which is incredibly useful. Thank you, Quiddity and George! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikiproject and task force guides

Better late than never discovered Wikipedia Wikiproject Council guide which includes handy items like: Topic coordination; Inter-WikiProject coordination and collaboration; Article tagging; Role of the WikiProject Council (when conflict between projects); bots; creating project details. There's even a whole page on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/Task_forces. (There's like 130+ listed!) Just put it on the main page so we don't forget where it is. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Research article: Emotions under Discussion

Iosub, Daniela; Laniado, David; Castillo, Carlos; Morell, Mayo Fuster; Kaltenbrunner, Andreas (August 20, 2014). "Emotions under Discussion: Gender, Status and Communication in Online Collaboration". PLoS ONE. 9 (8). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104880.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Conclusions/Significance

Emotional expression and linguistic style in online collaboration differ substantially depending on the contributors' gender and status, and on the communication network. This should be taken into account when analyzing collaborative success, and may prove insightful to communities facing gender gap and stagnation in contributor acquisition and participation levels.

--72.223.98.118 (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

In view of the generally negative atmosphere that some seem to experience around here, I would like to draw attention to something positive in this report:

The largest human encyclopedia ever written, Wikipedia, is one of the most prominent examples of successful online collaboration to date. In fact, considering the thousands of failed online collaboration efforts, its size and success are quite miraculous. This noteworthy performance has motivated a flurry of research activity on topics ranging from leadership behaviors to motivations to contribute.

This would seem to suggest that we are doing some things right. We should bear this in mind. --Boson (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Study of gender differences on Wikipedia discussion pages

Later note: this is same study as one linked above so put them together. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Via a Wikipediocracy forum link[5], I noted this Spanish news article on a recent study that asserts that women are more constructive editors on Wikipedia discussion pages than men. Edits of 12,000 editors on the English wikipedia with at least 100 edits were reviewed. Nine percent of these editors were identified as women. The research paper is in English and can be found here.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Pretty soon I'll update the research page with last few entries. But a dozen plus editors are trying to get me topic banned from here and even site banned (since they know I'll never totally quit). So others may have to keep adding material to:

• List of research studies on the Gender Gap on Wikipedia sponsored by Wikimedia Foundation and independent entities
• List of mainstream and tech media articles
• List of Wikimedia.org and en.Wikipedia Gender Gap action projects
• List of Related resources: projects and writings

Don't cry for me, GGTF, if my head goes to the chopping block for thinking that incivility and harassment of women editors are just as important GGTF issues as the number and quality of articles about women. Some even may want women shoved into a ghetto of only working on articles about women. By we also have a right to edit in articles in the political and economic spheres where males dominate and some (not all) want to keep it that way. And they'll use nitpicking and personal attacks and harassment to drive us off.

But being an optimist, I say, ONWARD AND UPWARD! If the worst happens, I'll have the time and energy to take my opinionated uppity woman act into the larger world. Plus one can still do GGTF stuff off wikipedia. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The basic flaw in that research is the problem of identifying the female editors, since it is well known that a number of users who identify as women online are actually men, who are trying to "act female" whatever that is. So until you are able to identify the actual gender of users in real life, say at a live WP event instead of by analyzing edits, the results are going to be skewed in favor of reinforcing rigid gender stereotypes. And then you get self-fulfilling prophecy, echo chamber, etc. —Neotarf (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

RE: original topic of Spanish study saying "women are more constructive editor". Neotarf is correct about the "identifying the female editors" of course. A careful analysis of overlapping findings from various studies, many of which have the same flaws, still might come up with some interesting findings that also might overlap with outside studies where the sex of the editors actually is known.

[Later add paragraph that fell out of sandbox draft:] The reprint linked does confirm my own experience of feeling less under pressure in discussions dominated by women and more collaborative males. Unfortunately, once I get in a high testosterone competitive atmosphere my own abundant testosterone heats up. Anyway, there are some other relevant studies.

Off the top of my head (since who has time to review all that good stuff on the GGTF/research page), I think the finding that editors who say they are women tend to make larger edits and not change them as much as those who say they are males. This would accord with outside findings that a) more women have advanced degrees and therefore may have more educational and research/writing experience and b) women are more careful to vet and cross check their work and present it as whole cloth because they also tend to be nitpicked and criticized more, so they want to have as few errors as possible.

In general I tend to do the latter myself when I'm allowed to focus on editing, creating a couple of paragraphs at at time or even revamping a whole article in draft form, polishing it for days and zapping it up there. (Though over the years I've taken a bit more to the alleged "male style" of just throwing stuff up there with a reference and seeing what happens.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think you need to physically confirm the actual gender of every editor by personal observation to have a valid study; every phone-based political poll bases gender on self-reporting. However, I agree it could be a weak point. The study says this on the subject: "While information on editor status is available through the Wikipedia API, collecting gender information is less straightforward and can prove challenging. In this case gender identification was possible using a combination of methods, ranging from using Wikipedia's API to crowdsourcing the gender identification task to Crowdflower (see [20] for more details)." That explanation doesn't tell me what they really did.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure the real live researchers have a good handle on how to regard gender reports. And phone surveys obviously more reliable. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

If someone wants to start with some less questionable links to archive, I have been looking through the links in the email I received, and they are definitely not a waste of time. —Neotarf (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The last link has to do with bullying, and different tactics chosen based on the bully's gender. [6] —Neotarf (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully will have time this weekend to add various new links to appropriate pages. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment on "Today's featured article"

Participants here may want to look at this example of comments on today's featured article requests. Getting some different perspectives on whether or how this sort of thing feeds in to the Gender Gap and atmosphere for female editors could be constructive. -- Djembayz (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Per helpful recommendation from Djembayz, I've removed the image of the male author from the blurb text. I've replaced it with a free-use-licensed image of the book cover itself. Hopefully this is now satisfactory to Djembayz. Once again I'm thankful to Djembayz and happy we were able to obtain a free-use-license for the book cover. And as an aside I personally think this particular Gender gap task force does good work on Wikipedia, so thank you all. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Considerably less objectionable (to me), and more on-topic, but still not convinced this sort of mainpage material does much to improve our standing among prospective female editors. Any opinions from other GGTF participants? -- Djembayz (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

(As an aside: If it turns out that GGTF readers are too intimidated or displeased to post any opposing opinion on that page, we would be well served to remind ourselves where we appeal when we need someone to stick up for women's honor, safety, and dignity on this site: the ANI noticeboard, which contains exchanges like this one). -- Djembayz (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I had an attack of free speech! I wrote: Oppose: Just reinforces image of Wikipedia as a bunch of 15-25 year olds who've never gotten laid and may never get laid, and thus go in for juvenile jokes about sex, their hand, "tw*t", "c*nt", etc. Now that's the kind of freedom of speech on Wikipedia I'm talking about! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Djembayz:I must admit I'm a bit disappointed that after successfully addressing your complaint about the image of the man smiling (the author of the book), and after I went and contacted the publisher company, and got them to release the image by a free-use license, and removed the image of the man smiling, and replaced it with the book cover as you had recommended, that this did not change your views that much. Perhaps you could revisit and at the very least note that it is now "considerably less objectionable" to you? I'd appreciate that, especially after the work I did to remove that image and replace it with another one, because of your comment, Djembayz. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I think a better title for the book would be "FUCK: Human devolution to Idiocracy". Having said that, I use it all the time myself, but I know it makes me stupider every time I use it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I like that movie quite a bit, Carolmooredc, and think Idiocracy is quite an interesting commentary on our society. But as I noted, below, there have been many influential women who were (and still are) notable, famous, and quite strong proponents of freedom of speech and anti-censorship. As I noted, below, one was Judith Krug, and I took that article to Good Article quality after finding it at the category created by Lquilter, Category:Free speech activists. — Cirt (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Just offhand I would say the article needs to be moved from Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties => Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties (book). Compare Jesse Sheidlower's The F-Word (book). The current title fails both WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISION naming criteria for a title. ...and why would anyone want to feature a book from 2009 *now*? —Neotarf (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC).

We're about to feature an Australian Prime Minister from 1972. HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Um, no, Neotarf, there are zero other books on the planet by that exact same title. — Cirt (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You're probably thinking of WP:DISAMBIG. There's always Friedman's The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century, aka The World is Flat as a model. —Neotarf (talk) 03:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Your example should be moved to the full title if there are other books with the same shorter title. — Cirt (talk) 03:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not how naming works at all, but I don't work on move requests anymore and I'm not particularly interested in yet another discussion about Recognizability and Conciseness. The place for that is the article's talk page, or maybe at WP:TITLE, where you will find many people knowledgeable about these conventions. If you want to list the article for discussion, the instructions are at WP:RM. —Neotarf (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

On the principle of "do as you would be done unto", I think we should avoid statements of the form

". . . reinforces the image of <group> as a bunch of <discriminatory phrase> who . . ."

whether the group be Wikipedians, feminists, or whatever, and

whether the discriminatory phrase be related to sex, ethnic or social origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or whatever,

even (or especially) if we do not share such prejudices.

This is one of those silly discussions that seems to be based on an assumed premise, but without evidence. That an article has the word "fuck" in the title is somehow presented as proof that we hate women here. That's nonsense. That proposal is not an anti-woman one. It may be anti-prude, whether they be female or male, but that is surely an entirely different thing. Are the opponents here arguing that all women are prudes? HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, great, the "prude" thing again. Ninety per cent of Wikipedia's current aggravations could be eliminated by adopting a new section to WP:What Wikipedia is not called "Wikipedia is not a place to try to figure out sex," although I suppose that is already covered by WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK and WP:NOTTHERAPY. In my neck of the woods, some children get fixated on Bad Words in about the 6th grade, until they get bored with it and move on to some new social experiment. If their parents are attentive, they may move out of the awkward phase more quickly. Hmm, maybe a section called WP:NOTPARENTING...—Neotarf (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what that post is trying to say. It doesn't seem like a coherent response to what I wrote, nor does it seem to have any relevance to the article being discussed. HiLo48 (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

My pointy-point above (and this is one of few times I really see myself being pointy, mea culpa) is that an obsession with curse words about sex is a symptom of sexual frustration by a certain larger percentage of the male population than the female population. (To quote a song I wrote in my 20s "girls can get it easier than boys can".) Be aware of that and don't impose it on Wikipedia. We don't see women trying, for example, to keep getting articles about menopause, PMS, sanitary napkins, and other "eeeeuuuuwwww" type subjects as featured articles. Like certain proposed principles say, let's be frank here about the topic at hand. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I think getting Menopause, Premenstrual syndrome and Sanitary napkins to featured article status is an excellent idea. I see the first two of those are already class B and high-importance. There must be some physicians and other relevant professionals on the task force. --Boson (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I actually was thinking about terms females use that also could use a book, but this is a family centered media. :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Like Boson, I too think articles on Menopause, Premenstrual syndrome and Sanitary napkins should be a high profile part of a quality encyclopaedia. They impact on everyone, at least indirectly. I would also like to see an encyclopaedic article on the terms (all?) females use, as distinct from terms (all?) males use. Calling this "family centered media" as an excuse to avoid explaining it is in direct contradiction to WP:NOTCENSORED. As for your somewhat Freudian explanation of the use of swear words, I'd like to see a reference for that. HiLo48 (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You might try the Wikipediocracy discussion about it, but if you go in there calling them "prudes" and "Freudians" I doubt they will be very polite. —Neotarf (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not a constructive response to all that was in my post. Is "prude" a rude word too? If so, what's a nicer one for people who insist on telling others how they must communicate? And I didn't call anyone Freudian. I described an explanation given as part of someone else's post as "somewhat Freudian". That's a very different thing. Editors who misrepresent my posts come across to me as either dishonestly manipulative, or incompetent. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Fine. Then don't look at it. You're welcome. —Neotarf (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Another pointless post. Please try to have a discussion. That's what this page is for. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Notable women free speech activists

I just want to note something here:

1. Thanks to Lquilter, I was able to look through Category:Free speech activists.
2. Back when the late Adrianne Wadewitz was discussing the Gender bias on Wikipedia in the media, I was inspired and decided to try to improve in quality an article that was both related to women and one of my topics of interest, freedom of speech.
3. So thanks to Lquilter, I looked through the articles at Category:Free speech activists for one on a woman that was deceased (and would therefore be less likely to have new information develop during the course of her life, and I could find a relatively full corpus of existing sources to improve the quality of the article).
4. I chose the article Judith Krug.
5. This was the state of that article before my quality improvement project began.
6. I successfully improved the article to Good Article quality, see this version as promoted to GA.

• Thank you for this project and I agree with the initiative of the Gender gap task force and the fact that there is indeed a Gender bias on Wikipedia.
• But, like Judith Krug, I also believe that women can be strong supporters of freedom of speech, as she was during her lifetime.

Perhaps we could compile here, potential quality improvement projects that we could collaborate on, that are similar to above: related to both women and freedom of speech. Maybe we could start with other women from Category:Free speech activists. — Cirt (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible quality improvement projects -- related to both women and freedom of speech:

Looking for deceased women from Category:Free speech activists:

1. Zoia Horn - note: recently deceased, dovetails with history relating to successful WP:GA quality improvement on Judith Krug, might be able to find similar research sources.
2. Ida Craddock
3. Lena Morrow Lewis
4. Kitty Marion
5. Harriet Pilpel
6. Margaret Sanger - note: already WP:GA, maybe could take to WP:FA with others helping in collaborative project.
7. Ayşe Nur Zarakolu

— Cirt (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps Djembayz or Carolmooredc would like to help collaborate on one of these Quality improvement projects to improve an article from Category:Free speech activists on a deceased woman who was a supporter of freedom of speech. — Cirt (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Of the above the one most directly related to freedom of speech is Zoia Horn. I think I'll begin some preliminary research and minor improvements to that article. If Djembayz or Carolmooredc or anyone else from WP:GGTF wishes to help out in a collaborative initiative, that'd be most appreciated. :) — Cirt (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Good to see your interest in this. As I said above, my interest is making it easier for women editors (especially those who let that factoid slip) to edit in traditionally male areas (politics, economics, sciences, etc.) unmolested by that 1 in 15 40 (or whatever) guy who can't stand seeing a woman disagreeing with him, reverting him, trying to get a third opinion when there's an unresolved difference of opinion (some people still think going to some innocuous noticeboards is a "personal attack"), requesting they go to dispute resolution, or when they start getting nasty, taking them to WP:ANI. At the latter I believe too many admins still take womens' complaints less seriously - or at least don't want to offend any guys even by just warning them to cool it. We can't increase the number of women editors if we keep trying to shunt them into women-related areas. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous editor: "I wish I could participate, but it is too dangerous."

[Note: It has been suggested that I cross-post this here. This was written by an editor who contacted me by email in the context of the current arbitration case on gender. The user writes:

"The problem is silence does not solve the problem for women. Remaining silent only works until we can't deal with it, and then we leave the project. Meeting fire with fire is the only workable solution, and the culture is so toxic that this generally leads to pretty bad things for female edits and bad things but less bad things for the other side. (I get my job threatened. What does Eric Corbett get? Not the same thing.)

"I had the first paragraph ready to hit save on that but couldn't do it. Can't risk the personal fall out. I wish I could participate, but the reality is it is too dangerous. I tell other women that too."

The user has given permission for me to post this, but wishes to remain anonymous. I have reposted the first paragraph to Jimbo's talk page, and the longer version to the case workshop page. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)]

To Neotarf's point about "hostile work environment", the Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization dedicated to building an encyclopedia. They work with other organizations and commercial services in distributing their product,[7] an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. People who build the content are volunteers, and while they may leave at any time,[8] there have been a few court rulings in the USA, whom have legal jurisdiction over the Florida incorporated Wikimedia Foundation, that explicitly demonstrate that volunteers have the same "employment" rights to be free of a hostile work environment that their paid employees have a right to.[9][10] The right to be free of a hostile work environment extends beyond the person being subjected directly to the behavior. [11] As Wikimedia has become more professionalized with students completing coursework, semi-professional editors working on community and content development as part of their employment, grants from the Wikimedia Foundation supporting work that leads to content development and community growth aimed at new content development,[12] open tolerance of harassment of women (and other groups such as people with different sexual orientations, of different nationalities, people with disabilities, etc.) is just that with increasing potential to demonstrate real damages.[13]

Beyond that, the tolerance for such behavior sends a clear and overriding message to women that they are not wanted[14] and the current advice to women of ignore has proven largely ineffective. Openly encouraging such behavior as that status quo and providing zero resource to fix it other than escalating the situation through non-functional dispute resolution processes makes Wikipedia prime for its own version of GamerGate.[15][16][17] At some point, the Wikimedia Foundation may very well find itself having to do what Adobe did.[18][19] The only reason that has not happened to date is because many of the women who have dealt with sexually based harassment, have had their employment targeted because they are female, have had their academic work targeted because they are and dealt with gender specific crap have either lacked the media resources to put the story out there, cannot take the professional risk of exposing the systemic problem or at their hearts of hearts believe so much in the movement (where editors seek to actively destroy them because they are women) that they have not willingly thrown the Wikimedia Foundation under the bus. The last part is probably the most important reason. <names redacted> are prime examples.

The tactics being employed in general on English Wikipedia towards women as a form of harassment include: Sabotaging a person's contribution, Post complaint retaliation, name calling, threatening punishment, Interfering with employment, Boasting of own success and proficiency with the intention of using this success as a weapon. For all of these, the research has shown that males are much more likely to engaged in these forms of harassment.[20] The type of harassment given to males is markedly different, and the type of harassment women are more likely to engage in compared to males is markedly different. English Wikipedia provides a format where male specific harassment techniques are much easier to do, and do effectively. Given the already large male participation numbers in pure percentages, ... Go back to hostile work environment.

"Five campaigns against sexual harassment that you should know"

• Examples from different countries: Five campaigns against sexual harassment that you should know, from Deutsche Welle -- Djembayz (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No.4 - " French short film reverses gender roles" - does sound problematic. Even if women were 3/4 of the population, I doubt they'd form gangs or militias or militaries. Of course, you know there'd be guys taking advantage of it building harems and staking out territory where they could control their women.

[21][22] --GRuban (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

But the other four are good observations. Patriarchal culture just enforces such behaviors instead of making it clear the "terms of use" of being human frowns upon them.

I wonder how far Monica Lewinsky will go with her new campaign against online harassment and cyberbullying. She has said "Having survived myself, what I want to do now is help other victims of the shame game survive, too."

• Lewinsky makes emotional plea to end cyberbullying, CNN, Lewinsky joins Twitter, CNN, Monica Lewinsky Speaks: 'It's My Mission To End Cyberbullying', Forbes, and lots more articles from last week.

Maybe she'll open a Wikipedia account with a female handle, identify as female (but obviously not as herself!), and learn the ropes and see the editor reaction and do a 6 month report. :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The examples in the article are interesting. Each example is a bit exaggerated to make their point but even so, they provide an interesting place from which we can start a conversation. Personally, I don't know that there would be more male-controlled harems or men controlling women in a predominantly female culture. Logic tells me that people raised in a predominantly female culture will have different goals and ideals than we have in our culture. Is there research to suggest that men would become more controlling and dominant in this kind of culture?

it will be interesting to see where Monica Lewinsky focuses her anti-cyberbullying efforts and what kind of results she'll get. It would be nice if she was here but I suspect that her priorities are elsewhere what with the whole gamergate thing and all. Ca2james (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Frida Kahlo

Thought some people here might be interested - there's a campaign to get Frida Kahlo in the Mustache Hall of Fame, as she was proud of her mustache and often included it in her self-portraits. You can nominate her (or anyone else you like) here: http://mustachehall.com 12.186.136.234 (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds off topic. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 16:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Created page need help

So I created the page Sheila Shulman about a influential female rabbi, but there seems to be some problem with the access dates I can't figure out. If anybody could fix that I'd be really grateful.Maranjosie (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done. It looks like the "accessdate" parameter wants the day to have two digits—that is, it prefers dates of the form "2014-11-03" rather than "2014-11-3". —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!Maranjosie (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it will accept "5 July 2014", July 5, 2014" or "2014-07-05". We should really be fixing missing zeros by bot. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:55, 5 November 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)

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)

ANI thread involving respect for women reopened, than reverted back to closed

An ANI thread involving respect for women was closed immediately, when I posted the following remark:

Are the folks in this thread really suggesting that all editors here have to accept people swearing at us, because that's where the community wants to set its social norms?

Members of GGTF may think it's just fine for anonymous men online to say "****** you!" to women, or they may not. For people interested in closing the gender gap, it's worth taking a look at the situation, and whether any further comment is appropriate at this time. The thread in question is:

• Days after my return to Wikipedia after months away, cursing editor returns to bait me. -- Djembayz (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, attempt to re-open this thread was immediately reverted by User:Sitush, a participant in the current Gender Gap Task Force arbitration case. -- Djembayz (talk) 12:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Here because of your ping. The thread was nothing to do with this project. It was not "involving respect for women" but rather a very specific situation concerning two parties, one of whom alleged incivility and baiting. GGTF need to stop turning umpteen drama board threads into an opportunity to bang a drum. There is a lot more to the gap than just civility and we have a project for that specific issue. - Sitush (talk) 12:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

So, an oversight role regarding the social norms promoted at ANI is not an appropriate task for the GGTF? --Djembayz (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

You are not drawing me into this. If you want to revert me at ANI then please do so. Doubtless someone else will revert you again. - Sitush (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about arguing with specific individuals, it's about getting a little more clarity regarding how the first point in how the Wikimedia Foundation Code of Conduct, "Treat other people with respect" gets enforced around here. At this point, it is becoming abundantly clear that somebody or some group in addition to the administrators at ANI needs to stick up for women. Who is responsible here for sticking up for women and how this gets done is not so clear to me-- even after many hours of looking through the back pages of this site. If it's not the GGTF, who is it, the WMF? And if so, who specifically at the WMF do we contact regarding womens' issues? -- Djembayz (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

In this case, I agree with Sitush, even though he has a negative attitude on whether there is a gender gap. The issue in this case wasn't civility enforcement in general, but two editors who are hostile to each other. In particular, Tenebrae was making too big an issue out of occasional profanity by Winklevi. Although, in my opinion, any profanity is uncivil, it was no more uncivil than Tenebrae going on and on about demanding action. User:Drmies was justified in closing the thread, because nothing was going to come of it. WP:ANI is not where any change in civility enforcement will occur. We already know that civility enforcement at WP:ANI is weak. Any change will have to come from somewhere else. After multiple civility threads have been closed at WP:ANI, thinking that this one would be different was foolish, especially when Tenebrae was being more uncivil in his persistence than Winklevi was with occasional swearing. This was just a case of a petty feud between two editors. It should have been closed either with no action or with a two-way interaction ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a "negative attitude on whether there is a gender gap". I've even said that there is one, just as there is a reverse gap at Facebook. What I've had and expressed is qualms about how this GGTF project has been operating, which has basically been as a civility task force. Happen I suspect that there may soon be a shot fired across the bows of this project courtesy of the Arbcom case that you opened. It will survive that and it will be better for it. - Sitush (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

As to Djembayz's question, who will stick up for women, do the women and men of GGTF really think that swearing is the most important women's issue? In any case, the answer does appear to be the WMF, and for GGTF to advocate. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. There was actually a thread about this here some weeks ago. Someone closed it and I was pretty much told not to argue when I queried why the thing had been dismissed so peremptorily. You'll find the details here. - Sitush (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Er, um. I'm all for civility, but I think that particular thread might not be the best example of it. The person complaining started by posting on the talk page of another, saying "to use language you used to me, stay the hell off my talk page".[23] So he or she wants the other person not to post on their talk, but won't respect their request to do likewise; and objects to their cursing though curses in response. The admin closing the thread had it right; it's hard to say that the complainer was that much more wronged than the complained-against. --GRuban (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• I closed that thread. Djembayz, your suggested chain of cause and effect is incorrect: I closed it not because of your comment, as you suggest with "was closed immediately, when I posted...". Drmies (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It's highly inappropriate that involved editors Sitush and Drmies closed the thread. Uninvolved editors/admins should have done so. We also never had a conversation about how best to deal with these "Fuck you" etc. situations as a group. Do we want to try now? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I imagine you have excluded me from that group, Carolmooredc? And what group is that? I suggest you read up on WP:INVOLVED, and ask yourself if you could convince anyone that I am somehow involved with Tenebrae and Winkelvi and the word "fuck". This is, again, nothing more than a ruse. I don't even think you believe there are uninvolved admins, uninvolved with anything. But if you do find one, ask them if they think that that particular ANI thread should have led to sanctions. It's a clear example of misreading and overreaction--and I say this having criticized Winkelvi and praised Tenebrae in the past. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

How was User:Drmies an involved administrator anyway? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Drmies has forgotten that relevant evidence vs. Sitush in regards to Djembayz was presented in GGTF Arbitration evidence? That Sitush wrote on Djembayz talk page: I'm sure that the families of Twatt, Orkney will be impressed. Especially those whose spelling is poor ;) because she had protested the use of "c*nt"? [24] And that you [Drmies] commented at Arbitration on some of my other evidence against Sitush? Like I said, others should have dealt with it. Considering you closed the ANI right after Djembayz commented on the larger issue of this kind of language on Wikipedia, a concern of many on this project, one has to wonder.Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

But that is "Sitush in regards to Djembayz", the thread was about Tenebrae and Winkelvi. Drmies claims (and I have no reason to doubt) that he is not involved with Tenebrae and Winkelvi. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC).

Clarification from Sitush and follow-on

Thank you, User:Sitush, for clarifying about a gender gap. As you say, the gender gap is not primarily a civility gap. On the one hand, civility does appear to be an issue that is of greater saliency to female editors, statistically, than it is to male editors. On the other hand, I don't think either that civility is the primary gender issue, or that profanity is the primary civility issue. (Personal attacks and insults are a greater civility issue.) I would prefer that there be no profanity in Wikipedia. However, editors who make too much of an issue about profanity, at least about occasional profanity, set themselves up for dismissal by contributing to a chain of reasoning. The chain of reasoning is, first, civility is about the avoidance of certain bad words. Second, the use of those bad words shouldn't be that much of an issue. Third, therefore, the civility policy can be allowed to be a dead letter. I would prefer that there be no profanity in Wikipedia; however, other battles are more worth fighting than that one, including against personal attacks. (Why should telling a user to "fuck off" be worse than calling a user a "blithering idiot"?) Making too much out of incidents of profanity not only wastes pixels; it also discounts the case for civility in general. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Good gosh, is it really necessary to explain that women are admonished to avoid angry males using sexualized language, due to the potential for unwanted physical contact, and in worse case, physical injury or unwanted pregnancy? "Blithering idiot" does not have these connotations. This is the GGTF message board, specific to women's issues-- not the general "civility" message board. If women speaking up impedes the general efforts on civility, that's truly unfortunate, especially for someone like Mr. McClenon who is making the extra effort to work for a better atmosphere here.-- Djembayz (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. To call someone a "blithering idiot" is an insult, but not particularly threatening except perhaps to one's ego. But to tell someone to "fuck off" is insulting and threatening. "Fuck you" is even more threatening. All are personal attacks, in my opinion, but "fuck" language is violent language. To someone who knows what it's like to feel truly, physically threatened, there's a huge difference. My chances are good in an intellectual fight, but not in a physical one. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

"Fuck" language gets the adrenaline up. For most men (not all) it gets their "fight" instincts up. For most women (not all) it gets their "flight" instincts up. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Is swearing really the issue where the women and men of GGTF consider it worth advocating to the WMF on behalf of the women of Wikipedia? What about personal attacks? What about article imbalance? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC) In this case, Tenebrae was, in my opinion, more disruptive by being tendentious than Winklevi had been by using profanity. Your opinion may vary. I certainly don't think it is worth the GGTF advocating about that thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I had "clarified" weeks ago. The problem has been that the general noise levels here and the amount of mud being thrown drown out my occasional comment on the subject. There have been some at least half-decent suggestions made on this page but they are getting lost. - Sitush (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, there does need to be a guided and rational discussion of how to deal with civility and harassment issues. I don't know if that's possible here, given the number of editors who lurk looking to oppose such discussions. Editors (mostly female) complaining (and usually rightfully) about specific civility or wikihounding issues, of which this is an example, haven't been too fruitful, except for dealing with obvious issues that actually happen here. Thus discussions inevitable will happen elsewhere. Such efforts may have been dampened and/or delayed by the arbitration. But there's lots of time in the future and lots of forums where systematic strategies can be designed and implemented. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, I think that, if you want to talk about civility, you're going to have to take back the above unfounded accusations you leveled at me. Civility isn't just about specific words.

In addition, I refuse to accept these essentializing remarks of yours, or any essentializing for that matter, and I do not appreciate being pigeonholed in that way; I wonder if someone should maybe give you a Diane Fuss book for your birthday. I have been in many a hounding case and many a civility case, and I do not see the disparity that you see. Maybe I spend too much time in article space, where I work with male editors, female editors, and editors whose gender I don't know. And one more thing: you can't seriously think that an ANI thread on one particular instance of supposed incivility is the proper lead-in to a "guided and rational discussion" on civility and harassment. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Bad words are just the far end of the spectrum. Of course, others will accept bad words and come up with abstruse and even phony arguments to mis-characterize innocuous comments of others. (And I'm speaking in generalities here.)

I wrote above: We also never had a conversation about how best to deal with these "Fuck you" etc. situations as a group. Do we want to try now? This thread just reminded me about this issue. If someone wanted to start a separate thread on it, great. I wasn't going to.

Then I presented more of my own position: Editors (mostly female) complaining (and usually rightfully) about specific civility or wikihounding issues, of which this is an example, haven't been too fruitful, except for dealing with obvious issues that actually happen here. Thus discussions inevitable will happen elsewhere. Such efforts may have been dampened and/or delayed by the arbitration. But there's lots of time in the future and lots of forums where systematic strategies can be designed and implemented.

In any case, the main issue is should editors who perhaps don't like an editor from this group be quickly shutting them up at ANI by closing a thread right after they respond? That's what it looked like to a couple of us anyway. Others obviously feel differently. Agree to disagree and all that. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's see what we can agree on. You accuse me of administrative misbehavior, acting in a thread where I was supposedly involved. You are proven wrong and cannot prove your accusation, and you refuse to apologize for your mistaken accusation. You'll disagree, no doubt, that I think this is incredibly uncivil, but perhaps you'll understand that I no longer pay any heed to your claims of incivility. Your blatant lack of AGF and your display of poor manners is much worse than using a cussword.

Besides, your avoidance of the issue of essentialism that I raised above suggests you are quite ignorant of the real issues, and I no longer place faith in your comments on the gender issue either. The essentialism you seem to display here is allowable in sophomore college students, but cannot be excused in someone who claims to be fighting a gender gap, in 2014. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I actually am fighting a "sex gap" but that leads to too many misapprehensions by puerile males, so am stuck with gender gap :-) In any case, I admit it's possible you don't remember that Sitush wrote on Djembayz talk page: I'm sure that the families of Twatt, Orkney will be impressed. Especially those whose spelling is poor ;) because she had protested the use of "c*nt"?[25] - memorable as that sound bite might be. And therefore it is possible you did not close it because she was a GGTF person. But evidently you did close it because you saw a civility debate developing and it leads me to suspect you don't think a whole bunch of childish cursing is a problem or something likely to drive off mature editors. Obviously at 66 I'm not very mature or I would have been driven off many years sooner. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what the comment about being 66 has to do with anything. I was born in 1948, and I don't understand the comment. What are you, Carol, saying? I don't see administrative bias, as you apparently do, just a difference of opinion, and a thread that needed closing. Age isn't the issue. Can you explain why you see age as the issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

What's the basis for your argument that calling someone a cunt is childish? In my experience that's a word very rarely used by children. Eric Corbett 02:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Namecalling of any sort is childish. As per our namecalling article, it's the lowest form of argument, least likely to persuade, or, for that matter, to have any positive or useful effect. Hence, childish. (And, of course, sexist, hurtful, generally offensive, and downright stupid, but we're addressing childish now.) Most of us learn with age to use different sorts of argument. --GRuban (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

In your opinion, not as a matter of fact. Eric Corbett 14:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Heh. Well, it's a commonly held opinion; also a cited opinion - you'll notice I cited the article, which cites to other reliable sources that back those statements. Do you really disagree? Would you really like an RfC to test whether "Most of us" believe namecalling to be childish and something that we really should grow out of? Would you agree the point in dispute is "Is namecalling childish"? Or would you prefer closer to your original statement "Is calling someone a cunt childish"? Either one will do. I notice you didn't follow up the last time you proposed a hypothesis on this page, that there wasn't a difference in the way men and women edited articles, and I showed fairly convincing evidence that there was. Are you willing to follow up this time and put namecalling to the test? --GRuban (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Who are "most of us"? And to be clear, I didn't consider your "evidence" to be worthy of rebuttal. Eric Corbett 15:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Whichever you propose, sir; any reasonable interpretation of the word "us". RfCs normally mean "those Wikipedia users that choose to participate", but if you have a different "us" in mind, please explain. --GRuban (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

If you're unable to define your terms then no further commentary is necessary. Eric Corbett 16:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Sir, the terms have been defined by clear implication; and not only that, by objecting to the statement, you have admitted that you have accepted at least some interpretation of them (either that or that you are objecting without knowing what you are objecting to!). "Us", throughout history, clearly refers to the participants. On this page, therefore, "us" may be taken as - "humans" - "Wikipedia users" - or "members of the Gender Gap task force" - (or, if you had a different interpretation when you objected, please say what you interpretation was). In the test, however, it will only mean "those that choose to participate", given that we have no means to force those that do not choose to do so. Frankly, you are backpedaling faster than before. Given the fact that I'm letting you have any reasonable interpretation, you seem to be admitting that there is no reasonable interpretation that won't prove you wrong. --GRuban (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I note that logic isn't your strong suit. Eric Corbett 17:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It might be best if you both drop this. - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• I note that you make a sexist accusation here, and though I'm not 66, I'll see that shortly: please don't call me puerile. I note also that you keep thinking that a dispute between editors A and B somehow has something to do with an dispute between editors X and Y (that's a gap alright), and you seem convinced that I closed a thread because editor X comments in a thread on A and B and editor Y has in the past said something to editor X and I am acquainted with editor Y so I refuse to act against editor A because editor X supports (as the only one, mind you) editor B's position?

  Now, this last claim of yours, about how I "evidently" closed it because I saw a civility debate coming--I could argue how wrong that is, since you have no such evidence, or I could just call it, in common American parlance, complete bullshit. I have no desire to either judge or comment on your maturity, but your lack of AGF and your let's say whimsical logic are quite startling. Good day, and good luck enforcing your sense of civility in this project in which you seem to have a very limited interest. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

All I know is that every time I stick up for somebody here who doesn't like people swearing at them / using sexualized language, I get pushback from a bunch of male editors who think that it really isn't that big a problem when people are swearing / using sexualized language with editors who object to it, that something else is really a problem instead, and that I should just move on, be quiet, and write biographies of women. I thought I was signing up for an encyclopedia here, not a street gang / barbarian hoarde re-enactment. -- Djembayz (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I think its time we amended the TOU to say that anyone who becomes a Wikipedian should be ready and willing to live in a civility environment ( and other shenanigans ) which can be expected in a male dominated street pack in Manchester. Since we are highly resistant to doing better, in the interests of honesty and avoiding the hassle of giving the true picture to those who cannot come to terms with such an environment (after they sign up ), I think this should be done immediately. Either this, or we should make civility an inexcusable imperative, and ditch those admins who think/behave as if application of civility rules should be selective or optional. Cheers. OrangesRyellow (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

What has the city of Manchester got to do with this discussion? Eric Corbett 14:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

"Manchester" has nothing to do with this discussion. IMHO "male dominated street pack in Manchester" is quite different from "Manchester" and I had used the phrase "male dominated street pack in Manchester" because IMHO/subjective perception, it gives a good idea of the what I perceive to be the current accepted level of civility on Wikipedia. Just wanted to get myself understood clearly and I am not saying anything about Manucians in general. Nothing nefarious / blasphemous there.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

So why did you mention Manchester then? Eric Corbett 15:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I just explained in my preceding post that I had mentioned "male dominated street pack in Manchester", rather that "Manchester", which is quite different from "male dominated street pack in Manchester". I had also explained why I had mentioned "male dominated street pack in Manchester".OrangesRyellow (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You have not yet explained anything. Why did you mention Manchester? Eric Corbett 19:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I have already explained what I claim to have explained. I don't see how I am expected to explain it any further.OrangesRyellow (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

What makes Britain great, makes Manchester yet greater!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that this should be dropped also. Oranges sometimes turns up in the hope of winding me up. Best just to ignore, especially since the relevance to GGTF is zero. - Sitush (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Some disagree. Pretty funny video. Now I know where they make all those movies about zombie and alien attacks on england. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This entire thread is ridiculous, its like the whole gang of pro and anti GGTF'ers having a dysfunctional pizza party. Put on the Taylor Swift.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

[Insert:Milowent is correct. Debate about the original posting aside, attempts to deal with real issues of bias/incivility here usually sabotaged. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

What's a GGTF? Wikipedia gives me German Golf Teachers Federation. HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@HiLo48: WP:GGTF. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

In case anyone still has not figured it out, the provocative language did nothing but inflame the situation and lead to more provocative language. The admin should have strongly discouraged the language, and insisted on showing respect for other editors, then when everyone was calmer, addressed the underlying problems: talk page courtesy, BLP issues, RS issues. Nothing can be gained by ignoring a user's psychological safely and expecting them to be a doormat. In this case it only lead to the disturbance spreading from one forum to another. —Neotarf (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

For the Reddit "Men's Rights" members of Gender Gap

Members of the Gender Gap group who are also members of the Reddit "Men's Rights" group may be interested in what a GamerGate party looks like. —Neotarf (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

What is the relevance of this? --Boson (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

None. Just the usual pointed-ness, as in the prior section. - Sitush (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Misogyny on Reddit has been mentioned at GGTF before. And of course there also is the context of one or more editors having repeatedly said that GGTF participants should work more on the problems in the gamergate-related articles. So it is of at least some relevance of reminding GGTF what kind of opposition may be coming here, even if proving it does have outing issues. And it's not like any who might be here would be embarassed enough to leave. Obviously, another issue that can't be dealt with in a forum unmoderated for disruption and incivility. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Love this article! It shows that there is humanity in everyone! These people never even met him and they worked up an entire system to get his wheel chair into the truck! I hope Brennan will love a long and healthy life! And everyone was very nice to Sarah, according to the article, there was no misogyny! I never knew a Gamergate party would be so diverse! Men, women, a guy in a wheelchair, African Americans, Asians, this is a very diverse party!

Thank you for sharing this link, User:Neotarf! What a fascinating and human group of people! Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 01:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. And interestingly, two women for about ten guys seems roughly comparable to the gender parity here. --Djembayz (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure any other women could join gamergate if they agreed that SJWs are evil. To be honest, most people that play video games are men, so it would be natural that GG would be mostly men. There's still lots of women in gamergate, and now there's more women in gaming now, just because they like different types of games, like social games. 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)

So why do you call them SJW and why do you believe they are evil? —Neotarf (talk) 05:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Chess: By "majority" you mean that literally, right? Because they are they majority by 2%. Don't think GG is 48% women... wonder why. Anyway, continue with the "SJWs are evil" nonsense. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, well, well, "Women older than 18 are 36 percent of the game-playing population, while boys younger than 18 are only 17 percent" and "The number of female gamers age 50 and older increased by 32 percent from 2012 to 2013." And your grandma is probably not going to be amused by the "dead woman in a freezer" meme, or whatever. —Neotarf (talk) 12:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

What's a SJW and is Wikipedia a game? Killing off others' text, articles and desire to edit does seem to be a game with some editors. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll say it's paternalistic and an enforcement of your privilege to say that women can't support Gamergate and play video games. I'm sure the women in Gamergate don't think it is misogynistic. When you're criticizing misogyny against women when the very women you want to "protect" don't agree with you, you are reverting us back to the 1500s when women couldn't defend themselves on their own or have their own opinions. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

How the tropes work, for anyone who has not seen what they are trying to censor: [26] —Neotarf (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

First of all, those of us who don't play online games may be confused by all this and the Gamergate controversy article doesn't make it clear in the first paragraph. What it really is about is that a woman who decided to criticize sexism in the video games was accused of sleeping with a critic and that's the alleged "gate". (Same characters probably put lots of dirt in her Wikipedia bio; deja vu.) Despite the article's euphemistic lead sentence, its really about guys having fits because females (like many groups) don't like being stereotyped, being seen as desirable targets of violence, etc. I see the article is a lot longer than Sexism in video gaming.

Re video Neotarf linked to: looks like a lot of guys get off on the kidnapped/murdered woman stereotype since they have no idea how to related to an alive or empowered female.

Also, looking at Reddit, at least each group can have guidelines and moderate posts and kick out the trolls immediately, rather than having to put up with them month after month, noticeboard after noticeboard, arbitration after arbitration. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, Gamergate started after an independent female video game developer's ex-boyfriend falsely accused her of sleeping with a journalist in order to get positive reviews for the game. Gamergate followers use this falsehood to show how unethical video game journalism is. Unethical video game journalism does exist but it's much bigger than independent designers or women (it involves a lack of separation between major video game development companies and the major journalists who cover them). At around the same time, a videogame critic was speaking out against misogyny in video games and gamergate people objected to this. Ca2james (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

So can we agree that it's actually about ethics in gaming journalism? Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 21:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The unofficial motto of Gamergate—"actually, it's about ethics in game journalism"—has now morphed into Internet shorthand for someone arguing in bad faith. Tumblr now has a collection of memes to drive home the point. —Neotarf (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Or is it about ethics in online activism? AnonNep (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc: Also, Reddit's subreddits are "governed" by moderators, who are essentially dictators. They get their positions by being first to create that subreddit, or by taking it over from another person. The reason why the accused trolls haven't been kicked out of this group is that nobody rules this group, and every single person on Wikipedia, de jure, has the same amount of stature on the GGTF talk page. That essentially means you need to get a consensus involving everyone on Wikipedia, and currently, Wikipedia hasn't been able to come to a consensus. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 21:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate people would very much like others to think that they're all about ethics but I don't think that's their actual focus. The people involved have only focused on a few women while completely ignoring blatant examples of ethical problems in video game journalism. Also, some members have doxxed and sent death threats to women. The majority of the movement hasn't condemned or denounced these extremists so the whole group ends up being painted as misogynistic. I most certainly do not agree that they're about ethics in video game journalism. Ca2james (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Even those who have taken a great interest in GamerGate seem to make statements that are wrong, or at least unverifiable, on their face. For this reason I don't think there is much to be gained by discussing the matter here. Even less is there any point "accusing" - even unnamed - members of the GGTF of being also members of some outside group. I feel that starting threads such as this is counter productive, and urge contributors to concentrate on what I see as the three legitimate interests that the task force are likely to have in common

1. General research into the Wikipedia Gender Gap
2. Recruiting or encouraging women editors
3. Improving coverage of women and women's issues

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC).

The point, Rich, is when people who identify with Gamergate and misogyny start closing polls they have started and reverting stuff without discussion. Why would a member of Reddit "Men's Rights" want to be active here? —Neotarf (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

They have? You didn't say that in your opening remarks. And who are the Reddit members that you allege are here? Why does it matter if they are here or not, given that this is not a closed community? This all looks like a lot of vague mud-slinging to me. As Rich says, this (and several other threads that you have started) really have no use here: they are counter-productive. Perhaps even an attempt to foment disruption by inciting bad reactions. Rich makes some good points regarding where the focus of this project should be. Alas, it tends to be anywhere but in those areas, with the possible exception of the linkfarms that have been created. - Sitush (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Could we put those three points in a big box at the top of the page, archive the rest, and start again? --Boson (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Because of past disruptions, we really haven't had an in depth discussion of the scope section, which mostly has been written or tweaked by SlimVirgin. I know there's one or two things I'd add back or investigate more. Something else that probably should await the outcome of the Arbitration. Hopefully these have ended and some of us will recover soon from the Post Traumatic Stress, which I see this and other somewhat "off" threads as being examples of. However, there is another issue that some editors keep downplaying and I've added it as a number 3, since people are drawing up lists:

1. General research into the Wikipedia Gender Gap
2. Recruiting women editors
3. Dealing with issues women editors believe discourage their editing
4. Improving coverage of women and women's issues

Note that "Dealing with issues women editors believe discourage their editing" is subjective, just as are many of the policies on Wikipedia. Women do not have to cite a $50,000 research project to say something distresses us. And we don't need men saying "no, you don't feel that" or "your feelings are not important." That's been the crux of the problems here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You've split my point 2 into your points 2 and 3, and tweaked 3 slightly - the splitting is a good thing, probably. It's worth discussing our difference of emphasis on point 3.

• The research into the Gender Gap has thrown up some surprising results, as well as a lot of expected ones, that's why the research is done, and is worth doing. These surprising results (apparently) contradict our gender stereotypes, they certainly show us that we cannot extrapolate from our own feelings/point of view to the universal or even dominant. Indeed we should recognise that it is very common that people (and by extension ourselves) do something for one reason and believe it is for another. (I would recommend Thinking, Fast and Slow and The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat to understand just how much our brains can - unintentionally - deceive us.) So firstly feelings provide a valuable place to start, and, if we have no better information, they needs must be the basis of our our actions to deal with environmental issues. But it is better, where we can, to have hard evidence. Secondly if our initial take on something suggests a line of action that is widely considered a good thing or at least harmless, there is no need to wait for better evidence that it addresses GG before acting on it - we should, if possible, build measurement into our efforts to see what effect they actually have.
• Secondly we need to be careful that we do not conflate "the women who edit Wikipedia now" with "women editors" in the abstract. It would be a mistake to do something which suits this cohort (who are likely to be more similar to the male cohort than, say, a random group of women) but which discourages new entrants.
• Thirdly you've chosen to focus on the conflict "issues that discourage". I prefer a more positive "encouraging", which certainly might include, let us say, reducing some of the unnecessarily complex rules, or being more supportive over wiki-stalking, but would also include things like the "thank" interface, or Tea House.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC).

• I haven't studied the research sufficiently, but having seen it misreported a number of times as being less damning than it is, will wait to make further comment on how surprising it is or isn't.
• "Women who edit wikipedia now" is an ever shifting group if they keep quiting for various reasons, the most obvious one being biased behavior against them. Women who stick it out actually might be 2/3 stubborn taurus the bulls and hard nosed capricorns or a bunch of ENTJs, like one long-ago survey of libertarian women proved a very large percentage of them to be. (Including me.) Or women who mostly edit in areas of little interest to males (or editors in general) and thus escape bad behavior. But should women who only members of such peculiar classes feel they can continue while the great mass of those who give it a try get quickly turned off?
• I don't have a problem with "encourage" as long as it includes explicit language we are encouraging women to quickly seek help for the kind of bad behavior that most quickly turns women off, be it asking for advice here or taking repeated personal attackers and harassers to ANI or RfC/U (which I've never done because I hear complainants often get trashed more than the subject). Maybe I should quickly write up that essay encouraging women to deal with such nonsense and then we'll have something specific to discuss. (Just been enjoying getting my own stuff done last couple weeks!!) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Question: If, as some posting here seem to feel, the GGTF is not the place for "Dealing with issues women editors believe discourage their editing", where should this be done?

Is there an appropriate venue on-wiki? Does this need to be done offline, or on other websites? -- Djembayz (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

No-one has said that, from what I can see. What has been said is that it would be better to focus on the positive "how to encourage", which obviously would include looking at things that discourage.. It is semantics, but useful nonetheless because the former is more inclusive than the latter. People need to drop the collective "us" word also: there have been plenty of declared female contributors of late who have expressed at best a complete apathy with regard to the issues that have been alleged on this page. In other words, some women may feel discouraged/encouraged but there seem to be many more who just prefer to get on with things. They may benefit from change, of course, but they seem not to want to seek it. - Sitush (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Djembayz The gender gap mailing list certainly can be used to organize strategies and proposals to bring here. Or people can bypass en.wikipedia GGTF entirely if critics dominate it. (Doubters and uncivil people won't last long on the moderated list.) The problem has been not enough editors willing to organize much on mailing lsit for a number or reasons; it's mostly announcements with occasional flareups of discussion. But as long as we don't dominate the list, we certainly can put out well-formulated ideas there for feedback.

Those supportive of the GGTF-empowered as opposed to GGTF-ghettoized (or whatever dictomy) should join the GG email list. There are a number of other related projects linked in our resources that also could be useful, allowing a bypassing of this one.

Here, trying to discuss anything besides finding out which women's articles need beefing up and announcing the occasional content noticeboard/RfC/or male on female wikihounding ANI probably won't fly. Unless Arbitrators "get it" that disruption of wikiprojects is a no no and take effective action.(A girl can dream...) Once arbitration is through it will be clearer what to do for those who want to do it. Or we all can take a wikibreak for the winter and those interested in a more empowered project try again in the spring. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Waaaah! Waaah! I'm upset and should set up a project under CSB right now because the above post is hemispherically biassed. Who's winter? North or South? Or do you mean half of the participants should be active when the other half are not? It just goes to show that people make inadvertent mistakes, I think ;) - Sitush (talk) 07:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Links collection

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)

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)

At what point does this site fail to support the principle of equal opportunity? -- Djembayz (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

That is not relevant to my point. - Sitush (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Gloria Steinem article

Can somebody please fix the date formatting on some of the dates on the Gloria Steinem article? If you scroll down to the references you'll see the ones in red that need help. I'd do it myself but I'm not really good at it. Thanks.Maranjosie (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done. The problem was that the dates were listed as "unknown"—if the date is unknown, it should apparently just be left blank, rather than listed as "unknown". —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!Maranjosie (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 pork^Makin'_Bacon 17:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

[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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)