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

Expanding use of the project

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carol, this is an interesting idea. I doubt whether such users would be found, but you never know. I just "lost" Patricia Ainsworth, but there was no hope of keeping it (her?) without more substantive references. How would you identify bias? How would you rule out, for example, someone who was interested in new articles about women, and as a result only AfD'd articles about women? Indeed once the article is gone it's hard to identify if it is about women or a woman. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC).

The more important thing is to note bios of women, works by women or women's organizations (a frequent target) being AfD'd at a higher rate than males. Actually, all you have to do is look at mens bios, works, organizations and in general you'll find a whole bunch with fewer refs than the article being AfD'd, but they don't even have a needs ref tag on them. That's evidence enough for me and a comparison chart would certainly be of interest. If I was a deletionist I could spend every day AfDing such stuff, but I'm not (unless it's really an absurd topic). If in researching this some individuals name kept coming up and a study of the AfDs through AfD history research showed a clear pattern, then it might be something to discuss with the editor. Maybe ask him to work on AfDing mostly male articles for next six months or whatever :-) Anyway, it's a thought that would have to be worked up into a research scheme and this is just throwing out ideas. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

"...that's evidence enough for me..." Please explain, evidence of what and why? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Affirmative action program...

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

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

I think the affirmative action suggestion is not practical because those that harass and/or make WP an uncivil place for female editors appear to also be the type to troll and engage in all sorts of sock-puppetry. So if we had an affirmative action policy for female editors, I honestly think it would be largely misused by a specific sub-group of male editors, pretending to be female editors, to get affirmative action, while disrupting the group this was actually designed to protect. I agree that cracking down on harassers and stalkers seems a better approach, as well as possible discretionary sanctions in areas that tend to attract a lot of trolls who rant irrationally about feminism and/or make blatant sexist comments and who generally make WP an uncivil place for female editors. Perhaps some sort of discretionary sanctions with respect to sexism against female editors/women's issues could be a better solution here. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention that verification of female editors may also be a problem. Are we gonna make sure they give us a copy of their birth certificate and a photo ID to make sure that they're female before they receive affirmative action? Oh, and what about trans women, will it apply to them? Tutelary (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

On the user preferences page, it asks whether an editor would like to be referred to as "She edits wiki pages" or "He edits wiki pages". It does not ask for birth chromosome confirmation, or surgical history. (It also offers the choice "I prefer not to say".) To me, this means Wikipedia intends to treat cis- and trans-women the same. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Referring to your terminology, don't forget all the cis-men and trans-men editors who will be treated the same way in being addressed as they prefer; unless they or another editor prefer not to use a gender specific pronoun at all, of course, this being a volunteer organization. :-) The relevant policy being Wikipedia:Pronoun#Tone and ArbCom Chelsea Manning. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It might not be a bad idea to create more of a newcomers program instead, or have an opt-in function for women editors. While some editors might not like the idea of having their contributions "propped up", for others it would help them feel more comfortable and increase the incentive for contributing. I don't believe that affirmative action will solve the core of Wikipedia's gender troubles, but its not a bad start. I could also see such a policy benefitting non-Western contributors, as I have seen an appalling amount of non-Westerners begging white male editors not to delete their pages because the people or texts they are writing about don't conform to "our" standards of what constitutes a reliable or notable source. Of course, enforcement is also required but I don't think it needs to be one or the other.--femmebot (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The WP:Teahouse came out of discussions about creating some sort of a women's wikiproject. I think this project is still finding it's way, but certain should be a place for women to come for advice about WP:Dispute resolution issues, since in the end that is what it is all about. Learning that system early would help a lot of women. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

If our project is perceived as hostile or indiscriminately accusatory toward good-faith male and trans- editors here, we will fail ourselves and the larger mission of WP. SPECIFICO talk 21:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually there are different issues that people may assume under the title "affirmative action", which move up a scale from recruiting to setting targets to inviting participation to more complicated projects. Regarding whether women choose to identify as women, that really depends on the progress we make in creating a friendlier environment here and dealing with the trolls. The more women there are, speaking up for each other, the easier it gets.

• Actively recruiting women, which the Wikimedia Foundation has committed to through lots of media publicity, Gender Gap at Wikimedia and WikiWomen's Collaborative.

Including having projects like this that help women deal with the various issues women face once they start editing and raising consciousness across the board on how Wikipedia culture discourages women from editing and encouraging the rational males to join females in dealing with the overly combative culture and the minority of guys who go out of their way to give women a hard time.

• Setting targets for numbers of new women (recognizing that not all will choose initially to identify as women). (Added later: Under Sue Gardner, the Foundation already set a target with a specific number by a specific date; don't remember numbers off hand. When I find it in my researches will add it to the main page.)
• Setting up programs that even more actively invite women's participation. One way the wikimedia foundation does this is through setting aside a certain amount of grant money to study the issue.
• More complicated projects. A couple possibilities have been mentioned here which I don't remember off hand. But personally I think we have to work on the above first. Only when there are enough women circulating to make any further action possible is it worth really promoting any further affirmative actions - and by then they might not be needed. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I feel like one thing that might tie into it is that every single time somebody calls a female editor "he" they get corrected by somebody or other. I dunno, I never care and seldom know what the sex of an editor is, it rarely makes any difference. I don't know, but I would guess that the women who edit must get mighty tired of seeing people leap in the middle of a regular conversation to make sure everyone knows they're really female. I wish we could adopt one of the many schemes to remove sex from English pronouns, or invent a new one (Personally I would be partial to replace he/his/him with xe, xes, xer with xe pronounced like "ge" in "gerente"; but with potential to vary the vowel among several options according to the role of the person named to permit pronouns for multiple people like you can do with "she saw it was his". But I digress...) Wnt (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I went through a period of calling everyone s/he if I didn't know their gender. Usually only guys object. Then got lazy (his/her being too long), and "he/his" is shorter and percentage wise more likely. Maybe I should start again. As for alternate words maybe "pers" for person or "indy" for individual. :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: I did have some problems with this section as needing more work and didn't realize that was what this original thread addressed. So just stuck a link at the top of the thread. Anyway, still a work in progress. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the idea of affirmative action for individual editors is impractical because this would lead to various forms of sock-puppetry with editors who are not female identifying as female to get affirmative action. It would look like female participation had increased when it hadn't. I think the goal of increasing women admins is better idea because by the time someone is considered for admin they are better known on talk pages and such and this could be better verified. Other goals I think we should look into to increase women's participation involve civility rules/policies regarding blatant sexism on talk pages and cracking down on wikihounding and stalking which appears to disproportionately affect female editors. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force&diff=619044452&oldid=619044038

At this diff] I did clean up this section, moving Sue Gardner material to top, removing excess verbiage and tightening up other sections. Scope probably needs more work, but another job for another day. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• This is a joke, right? Women getting "protecting from reversion" is a real proposal? Ignoring verification for the moment , this is the most asinine thing I've ever heard suggested on Wikipedia. Wow. Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Civility board

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 11#Where and how to request a Civility board, in case anyone wants to join in. There's some talk about the gender gap and civility, particularly in the subsections "If Wikipedia wants more editors" and "A trout for all the sexist pigs who run this site". SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been procrastinating about drafting an essay, but I just left a long new section contribution there at this diff that gave me some good material to work with. Interesting times... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 06:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

A Thought

As a side effect of the discussion at WP:AN, I am about to post an RFC. Some issues really do have to do with systemic gender bias. However, some misunderstandings have to do with differences between regional uses of words. In specific, the word "cunt" apparently is vaguely humorous in Australian English,and maybe in British English. In American English, it is deeply offensive when applied to a person, because it degrades a woman as a sex object. The solution is simple if surprising. It is to specify the use of Standard written English, which is cross-cultural, and is standard across the Anglophone portions of the world, except for trivial differences that are mutually understood and do not affect connotation. The words that are humorous in the Commonwealth and offensive in the United States, like words that are humorous in the United States and offensive in the Commonwealth (e.g., "bloody"), are not standard written English but slang. Specifying the use of standard written English will not be a double standard, and will not be affirmative action. It will just be a reasonable way to avoid misunderstandings. I will be posting an RFC at WT:TPG; see my preliminary comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course, the differences also are within national cultural subgroups. I won't even list some of the words that are considered highly offensive if used by people outside a group, as opposed to those inside it who may use it in a friendly way about themselves or others. It's important to say that people should just avoid language which is likely to cause far more trouble than it's worth using. That might even include WP:Dontbeadick, as much fun as that might be to use! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add 'bitch' to list. The U.S. version of Hell's Kitchen was shown in the U.K. on one of the digital channels and I was shocked by the aggression shown by the men to the women and the constant referring to them as bitches. It is a really extreme word to use and yet it peppered their conversations. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It is strange, especially since I am pretty convinced sure most bitches are men. However, imposing a "Standard English" is just a different form of discrimination, which should not be encouraged. I think that in today's interconnected world we should all feel free to use any word from any part of the world we want, mixing and matching freely. So far as I'm concerned there's only one language English. There's no Valley Girl English, Hacker English, Football Preacher English, and the differences between countries seem smaller than that. I don't know why people expect me to learn idiocies like "twerking" but not enjoy the description of a traffic light as a "robot" like the South Africans. A gentle note clarifying harmless intent should be enough, and with Wikilinks that is particularly useful and easy to do. There is nothing intrinsically bad or hostile about the four letters themselves, or the sound, or indeed the organ it most literally refers to; so why should we think it has to be bad when used in conversation? Wnt (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of an article talk page is to discuss the improvement of the article, which is in Standard written English of the appropriate regional variety. The purpose of a policy talk page is either to discuss improvements to the policy or to ask questions about the policy, and the policy is in standard written English. I see no reason that these comments cannot also be in standard written English. Since all of our editors should know standard written English, under the competency requirement, and cannot be required to know local non-standard English, what is the point to editing the talk pages other than in standard written English? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

There may be the perception that a talk page is a conversation, in conversational English. That is a perception, and is not really accurate. It is really a written historical discussion, and can be in language like the article or policy page being discussed. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I oppose the idea of a civility board. I've worked on several very difficult articles and in my experience the editors that I have found most difficult are just as nice and cheerful as can be, and as often as not say "please" and "thank you" and sign themselves off with "Cheers". They patiently try and try to explain to me why I am wrong by saying things like, "as I've already tried to explain" and such. Or, for instance, as at the To Kill a Mockingbird article where I pointed out the irony of calling my remarks "immature carping, fussing, griping, grumbling, bickering, protesting, agitating, and finger-wagging" while asking me, "May we please keep this on an unemotional level without unkind personal implications?", the editor responded saying, "When I commented on the tone of your postings and the nature of your words, I strictly limited my characterizations to your public verbal behavior – your behavior alone; at no time have I said anything about you as a person.  Again: I've described your behavior but not you as a person. And then, as usual, signed his post with "As always, smiles and best wishes,". Gandydancer (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Very true, but one has to try writing articles to realise the truth of what you say. So many of those complaining about incivility seem to feel that actually writing content is a menial job for those lesser beings they want to police. Eric Corbett 14:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't expect that from you Eric. Even though my contributions are pretty puny compared to what you do here, I am very capable of understanding the "truth" of what I said. Gandydancer (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

God, everyone's so touchy around here! I used the word "you" in a generic sense, I wasn't talking about you. Eric Corbett 15:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Well Eric, that's why I was so surprised - I know very well that you are anything but a misogynist. That's one reason that so many women hang out at your page. It was a kneejerk reaction on my part and thinking further I realized what you were saying. I'm a woman, and a "feminist" too, but I am so comfortable with it all that I'm not hypersensitive and don't imagine that innocent remarks are a putdown of women. But my work here is a little different in that I do sometimes feel that some people feel that one must have created a lot of articles to be taken seriously. So, the sensitivity... Gandydancer (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand, everyone seems to be very touchy recently. But I haven't created all that many articles myself as it happens. Eric Corbett 19:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

There's no doubt that the seemingly polite people can be disruptive and infuriating and even lead to others getting in trouble for losing their tempers with them and getting in trouble for incivility. (It's happened to me a couple times, for sure.) To me it's an absolutely last gasp alternative; I prefer just getting more women in making rational arguments and making it clear that those who are being jerks, whatever their modus operandi, are just being jerks... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for diff

Can someone please provide me (on my talk page is fine) with the diff for Eric's most recent use or uses of the "c" word? Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Corbett is not the person to be going after. He needs to moderate his language, but he's kind of a special case and we all know it. He also likes to just poke at people, equal opportunity offense. I'm not saying he's right, I'm just saying that it ain't worth the drama of going after him because he's an odd duck and is bullied as much as he gets bullied. You want to go after someone, try the real trolls like the one a while back (now blocked, I think) who said something to me like "shut up, woman." Or deal with creepy weirdos like this guy (old case, now done, just as an example) Montanabw^(talk) 23:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I actually searched the "C" word on WP:ANI and there were lots of returns. Enough for a research project in itself! Or maybe an essay for fun, if done from a women's perspective of course, IMHO. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

For Robert McClenon's benefit, how many of them were from me? Eric Corbett 18:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious why you would want to find it. I ask, because I get the sense that some think he was blocked for his use of the word. That isn't the case, or at least, the reality is more complicated.. If you want it for some other purpose fine, but I'd like to nip, if no longer in the bud, the urban legend in the making.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't be such a killjoy Montanabw. You know how much pleasure so many seem to derive from going after me. I've begun to think that I'm offering a service to the public really. Eric Corbett 18:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hatting vs. closing vs. immediate archiving vs. indexing on subpages

OK, this discussion has now happened on four or five threads, with all sorts of opinions and User:Neotarf just sent me an email about it, so it would help if we all could decide what we want to do about off topic/disruptive postings. How about a sense of the group? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

1. 1 Hat them under a little line so people have to open to read
2. 2 Close them in a blue box so everyone can see
3. 3 Archive them immediately or asap
4. 4 Index discussions on their own specific topic page.
5. 5 None of the above: simply ignore disruptive remarks. [added by me due to request below. Carrite (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)]

Poll

• I vote #2, soon moving to #3.
  1. 2. #3 is a slight improvement over #1, since it is an invisible cover-up rather than an apparent cover-up that doesn't hide anything from the curious. I take it that by archiving, you mean moving to an archive folder, while #2 is also referred to, loosely, as archiving, because it uses the {{archivetop}} and {{archivebottom}} markers. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
• I vote #4. Best, Jim Jim-Siduri (talk) 00:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
• Depending on the nature of the post and its totally disruptive and non-constructive, I vote #5 Remove, otherwise if its simply off topic or qualifies for WP:NOTAFORUM, then #1. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

5 None of the above. Simply ignore disruptive remarks. SPECIFICO talk 19:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Per my comment below, I have added and hereby advocate #5, "just say no" don't reply. SPECIFICO talk 19:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Just disregard my old comment and archive them, it's obvious that you guys are all leaning towards that direction. We aren't a bureaucracy and don't need to be forced to do procedure when it's not necessary, though I do appreciate the thought in trying to get people's opinions for it. Tutelary (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

When I originally said to archive them rather than hatting them, I meant to use {{archivetop}} and {{archivebottom}} to box them. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, some suggestions we may want to take into consideration:

Some of us suggest we consider a new approach to Wiki-discussions.

Some of us suggest, if possible, we consider making a novel "always open" Wiki-discussion system where the material/thread is moved to independent non-archived "discussion pages" for that topic and subpages are opened for any new topics that emerge (plus link to subpage on the parent page). This would: 1) keep material open, 2) searchable and 3) allow visitors to effectively find and contribute to the relevant thread, without having to plow through pages of text. Topic titles on the linking index page(s) would need to be clearly written and standardized, such as "Topic: Discussion regarding gender gap", "Topic: Discussion regarding Civility board", "Topic: Discussion regarding the Civility Wikiproject", "Topic: Discussion regarding how to recruit and retain members", "Topic: Discussions not related to WP Civility/off topic" etc.

Some of us suggest the "watch this page" feature should be highlighted to members as a way of keeping track of the topic discussions, now and into the future.

Some of us suggest the feature for making new sub-pages be made very clear to the new member and a civility reminder be placed at the top of every page.

Jim-Siduri (talk) 5:25 pm, Today (UTC−6)

Just watching threads on the same page can be confusing; this sounds worse. Would have to see a working example. Plus I'd like to think we are focusing on problem solving, not discussing ad nauseam, and thus once the problem actually is solved, you archive. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Which threads? I don't even know what discussion we are discussing. (Unless it's Corbett, in which case they shut that one down fast because otherwise it would just escalate into a months-long rodeo that generates more heat than light like it has the previous 10,000 times he's pissed off someone. ) Montanabw^(talk) 23:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote above, at the very least close the discussions that have gone most off track: New member; Respect - if this is not a value here, is it time to fork a "Women welcome and respected Wikipedia"?; and if Lightbreather feels the discussion is done, Departed member explains, in her own words, with DIFFS; Abuse of edit summaries. However, I think #s 1-6 have been incorporated into the project or into later threads, like my one on proposals page, so they shouldn't hang around much longer. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Carol, I think you should go ahead and do what you want. If it were me, I would close off-topic discussions using one of the templates that doesn't collapse them (not only so they're visible now, but also searchable in the archive later). Then after a few days I would move to the archive. If there is something actually abusive or threatening, I would archive it immediately, or just remove it if it's very bad. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Will wait til see how things shake out. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Disruptive comments or threads should simply be ignored. They will then die out or be confined in a voluntary and neutral manner. All the proposals here are based on the premise that one wise editor passes judgment, declares a thread to be disruptive, and then squelches it. Of course Admins may from time to time do that, but for editors in general to do that is only likely to prolong the disruption and contentious debate. SPECIFICO talk 18:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not your average article or project page. There definitely may be individuals out to disrupt the project or individual members; others may unintentionally disrupt through pushing a questionable agenda or other means. A project can get bogged down for weeks and months with such nonsense, making it difficult to find and deal with project-oriented threads. This is happening here already. And there are Gender Gap email lists members, Wiki Foundation people, admins, academics, women activists and journalists keeping an eye on what's happening here. So why give them junk that turns them off or gives them something to complain about or "expose" to the general public? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Why? To ensure we don't let one person's opinion determine what is disruptive and encourage peremptory action to close a thread. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

No one is saying one person's opinion decides what gets quickly hatted/closed/archived. In fact the original hatting was done by one person. Others objected. There was discussion and closing the three oldest seemed sensible. More than one person would be involved in such decisions. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

In that case, it sounds as if a second-order contentious discussion will erupt, so that there is still at least one disruptive thread and possibly two. They could multiply like bunnyrabbits. I really think that the spirit of WP is to allow open discussion and ultimately to hold editors accountable to the entire Community, per due process, for their actions. SPECIFICO talk 21:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Automatic archiving

Carol, ought we to add the bot for automatic archiving? We can still maintain subject archives, but we would also have the automatic chronological one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind if I move this here. I'm all for it and was thinking of adding it but just didn't have energy to figure out how. I'd say 30 days would be good. If something desperate needs to be brought back, it can be. However, I do think we need to get rid of disruptive comments quickly since there is no doubt some people will be out to disrupt the project; others may do it unintentionally. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

We can have 30-day automatic archiving, and we can change that if there are a lot of posts. We can change it on a daily basis if need be during busy periods. We can also archive single threads manually or using "one-click archiving". I don't know whether you have that enabled. And we can separate categorization threads if you want to maintain that separate subject archive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe more one more "task" vs. one more "relationship" type archives. Something to think about. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I've set up the basic bot archiving, and one topic archive, as it was before (categories). We can then copy threads into separate subject archives if we want to, though it's better to let all the threads be archived in the chronological ones too; if you only have threads in subject archives, it gets hard to find things after a while. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Great. Though the gray box does seem to take up a lot of space. What is the advantage? More a Wikiproject box?

Of course, it takes up less if we add some of the suggested language from the box below it or even my "behavior guidelines box".Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

If you mean lots of space in edit mode, I'm going to move it to its own template page, so then it will just be a link here. Or did you mean lots of space in read mode? The reason it's taking so long is I'm trying to work out how to include the archive and search box (with the topic archive) inside the gray box. There is a way to do it, but I haven't got there yet. When that's done we can remove the separate archive box. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the divbox to its own template, which means there is less clutter at the top. I still can't see how to add the subject-archive link to the divbox, so for now we have two boxes that refer to archives. I've seen other projects incorporate subject-archive links, so I'll try to figure it out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, Carol, I meant to say earlier that you've done a great job with the task force page, with the boxes across the top. It looks really good. Thank you! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually The Vintage Feminist did the boxes across the top of main page. [1] Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

In that case, thank you, The Vintage Feminist! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course as I was thinking about how to fit in a Resources or Proposals page, I looked at the HTML and realized what is there now just automatically turns existing page sections into headers. What we'll need to do is create a separate header page linked by html. Like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel/header or Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palestine/Tabs to name first two with those formats that came to mind. They have different color schemes and shapes of boxes; I'm sure there are lots more options. We could just look through a few to find the one with color and shape we like the best and substitute our own sections. Of course, the html can just be at the top of the page, like at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Feminism. But it can be more confusing to new users and risks getting disrupted more easily. But something to sleep on for a few days. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 07:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been looking at what bots might be able to take some of the load and found the popular pages bot, I requested it a few weeks ago, it takes about a month from the request to the page being set up, but it is here now so I've put a link in the navigation box. Since we are talking automatic things & bots I noticed that Hooters is listed as being of 'top importance' to the gender studies wikiproject. When I looked at the edit history to find out when it had been put there in 2007, a couple of weeks after the article appeared, by MadmanBot. I don't even think Hooters should be in the GS Wikiproject at all, let alone have it as being of 'top importance'. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The article is full of gender equality employment issues, and I would have thought the premise of the chain would make it very relevant to gender studies. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC).

In the project as a poster child for sexism, but in the grand scope of women's issues, low importance. Montanabw^(talk) 16:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about the topic of the last three postings. So Vintage Feminist was not talking about archiving? Is she talking about bots that collect list of articles and put them on the main page? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I was talking about any bot that would assist in the workload such as these. I put in a request for one which means that gender studies now has a list of popular pages which is generated automatically each month. I had a look at the list it produced and was surprised to see Hooters, not only is it listed under gender studies but it is of "top importance". I went looking to see who had assessed it and realized it had been assessed by a bot in the early days of the project. For me it's a bit like saying that an ashtray is of "top importance" in the study of carcinogens. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I got it. I don't know if this project will have a lot of articles under it, besides maybe essays and very topic specific ones. What more did you have in mind? And we'd need a template to stick on the articles, right? Will the bot's box automatically be stuck someplace on main task force page or can we choose where? I know the main page still has formatting and other issues but I'm still slugging through old gender gap emails and finding a lot of really good stuff which hopefully will end the "prove it" challenges. (sigh) Plus dealing with various small wiki fires here and there, not to mention Life! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Example (AfDs)

At AfD right now: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Marie Olsson. Montanabw^(talk) 23:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this really an example of SB? The subject is an editor; there are multiple previously deleted versions of the article; contributors to the current article want it deleted. At the very least it's not a typical gender gap issue. – SJ + 01:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Just alerting the wikiproject, not debating the topic. There is a problem that articles about women in general tend to be held to a higher standard of notabiity than many about men (my classic example is cricket players in Sri Lanka, who appear to get an article if they play one season of professional ball). This is an article about a woman, it's up for AfD. Members here can assess the situation on its own merits. If the topic is not notable, people here have the ability to discern that and recommend deletion. I'm just posting. Montanabw^(talk) 04:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

More examples (not listing all articles on women, only a sampling). I am taking no position on whether these articles pass WP:GNG, people can make up their own minds. I voted on one, but not the rest. Montanabw^(talk) 04:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Deese
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary K. Greer
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/María Benítez
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sister Ernestine Declercq
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Gilbert (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Powell
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Anna Frisch
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elinor Gadon
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Morgan (actress)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellenor Bland

Found all but one deserved articles and said so, even if I did have to pull out the systemic bias card a couple times. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I just can't see where a vote to Keep with comments such as "Actors like this can become very notable over night so why make someone go through the work of having to rewrite it? I'm sure we can find lots of white male actors with far less impressive resumes and maybe one more ref who are kept without question. Let's not practice systemic bias here, please." are going to help our female editors seem intelligent and fair-minded. As a matter of fact, that actor had no refs other than a movie database link. How do you know if the article contained libelous material? Let's not attempt to improve the image of women editors by insisting that if the other editors on a page are not voting to keep a particular female bio they must be biased. Carol, that is no joke to say you had "to pull out the systemic bias card a couple times". You did exactly that and it is not in the best interest of Wikipedia. Gandydancer (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually it was a naughty joke. As an inclusionist in general I've always used the "what if" argument and lots of other less than perfect ones. I did take a quick look at the articles just in case they looked squirrly, but you are right about BLP problems. Will be more careful. Actually after today's round decided I should make myself a little "data base" of good arguments so I don't get lazy and rely on subprime ones. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm torn about creating BLPs nowadays. We do need more women – I've lost count of the number of times I link an academic's name, only to find the men are blue and the women red. On the other hand, we don't know whether the subjects will welcome them; having a BLP isn't necessarily a blessing. Writing to each subject to ask whether they mind is the best thing, but it's extra work. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I was happy to see mine go even though it probably had more mainstream RS than all but two of the ones I voted for. I guess I'm just a "more the merrier" type of person. But will also keep that in mind. (The most obvious example is the British woman politician best know for an allegedly racist remark, which was well documented; though by now I should know in such matters to look at the sources more carefully for RS and accuracy.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised by the fight to Keep Anna Frisch, otherwise I'm trying to provide reasons for Keeping all of them. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 21:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Under Article improvement on main page I add links to two more "articles alerts" pages (which often include AfD alerts) and the AfD page for those who want to keep on top of article issues. In addition to any listings here.

OOPs, forgot to mention in edit summary I remove the "infobox" info; they are for both sexes and may be outdated. Feel free to add as separate section if it's more important than I realized. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I am surprised by the discussion about whether notable women would mind an article on Wikipedia. I was unaware that this was a criteria for adding an article. Am I missing something? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's more women (and guys) in the mid-range of notability who have found that previously created articles are sloppy, put WP:Undue emphasis on negative aspects, are vandalized a lot, etc. and their complaints have brought no change. It seems a couple individuals over the years in that situation wanted to get rid of them. Really notable people probably are used to bad reviews and their pages probably are watched more carefully to speedily get rid of the worst problems. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

My only experience with this was for Mindi McDowell, who summarized computer security threats for US-CERT. After I wrote a stub, she asked the Foundation that it be deleted, which they took care of. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Civility, sexism, gender gap discussion at Jimbo Wales talk page

A few good proposals ("light") in the middle of the "heat" on the talk page that we might look at in the future. Editors who care about closing the gender gap might want to read some of the better sub-threads and even join in. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's a link to a transcript of Wales speech at Wikimania 2014. It does focus on civility but not very effective solutions.

He tried to be inspirational and talked about "moral ambitiousness" to try to be on our best behavior, but then claimed this was working in BLP; maybe I'll go back to a few trashed bios I gave up on and find out.

He did inspire me to extend wikilove by ending more messages with smilies, though depending on my mood and who I'm sharing it with, I may have to mention it's wikilove and not apologizing for daring to open my female mouth... ha ha

He did have one good idea for dealing with chronically toxic personalities: encourage them to create content off line on their own web sites and encourage others to use it. I've thought of that a few times myself as a way of escaping toxic personalities. Though actually one can just do it in sandboxes too and promote them on talk pages. (I used to have two articles on my own sites that were higher than Wikipedia on two topics, but stopped promoting them and now they are 7 or 8 entries down.) Of course, the issue he doesn't get is that women have to walk a very narrow line of "proper behavior" before they get labeled in a negative fashion. Sigh...

Paying more attention to Wales page lately, I can see a lot of people are pissed off at the Foundation "super-protecting" all the Wikis so that no one can shut down the new media viewer, which they previously could. So expecting too much "top down" from the foundation probably won't pay off; even my favorite and relatively non-invasive hiring of mediators (and mediation trainers for volunteers) so that more content disputes would be solved earlier. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

WP article on Amanda Filipacchi

The section regarding Amanda Filipacchi's op-ed on sexism was recently tagged as containing excessive quotes. I’m not actually convinced the section contains excessive quotes, as I communicated on the talk page, but it could probably be improved and perhaps the improvement would alleviate need for quotes to explain issue. This section is in regards to the controversy regarding Women's categories which has been discussed by task force so I thought task force members might be interested and knowledgeable enough to review it for potential improvements. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

For whatever reason, this issue didn't make a big impression on me when it happened and I was only vaguely aware that it was a major issue related to the Gender Gap categorization debate. I have a feeling I'm not the only one. As I finish final clean up on my big list of articles/research/etc. links, I see lots of articles on/mentioning the Filipacchi complaint and even a Huffington Post one in May. (I'm still confused what the status is now: are all articles being put into subcategories unless there is not one or no one has bothered to? Or what? Later note: I just noticed that is something User:Obiwankenobi claimed, quoted in a couple articles...)

Anyway, I have a feeling this topic is not adequately covered in the Filapacchi article and needs to be an essay written/edited by those not trying to sweep the issue under the rug. Obviously there was enough arguing about it by women editors last month that they must have some perspective(s) on it that would clarify the matter for others of us - and even for the media when they try to discuss it again. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Gender bias on Wikipedia article

The article on Gender bias on Wikipedia was recently tagged as needing attn due to non-NPOV. Points of contention appear to be proper wording to neutrally present the National Science Foundation study on gender bias on WP and whether or not to include men’s right’s organization assertions regarding sexism against men on WP.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:RSN on Transadvocate use in BLP

This does not appear to relate to the 'gender gap'; and in any case should be discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Transadvocate use in BLP's. Most of this is inappropriate comments on other contributors anyway, closing this now. I strongly recommend confining comments here to editorial concerns and not comment on each other. For behavioral concerns, follow WP:DR/User conduct disputes. Dreadstar ☥ 17:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Regarding article Radical feminism and comments about women. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Transadvocate_use_in_BLP.2C_etc. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC) You've went to multiple different Wikiprojects and other pages for this, and you still haven't demonstrated what BLP it's going to be used for. Tutelary (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC) I mentioned it here and Wikiproject feminism and the article talk page and upon request gave more details at WP:RSN which anyone can clearly read. BLP is not the only issue of course. A poor source is not used for anything on Wikipedia. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC) This is starting to look like WP:FORUMSHOPPING because you don't like the discussion you had about a particular source. You understand that this type of proposal could lead to the invalidation of all feminist-identified sources from being used on any topic to do with women, right? 'Off our backs is used as a citation in many Wikipedia articles, and what you're pushing for would eliminate it as well. Sources with some identified bias are sometimes used for some citations as long as they are considered reliable in other ways, in context. I have to say that I think using the Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force to find support for removing a source about trans women to be deeply problematic. This effort seems like it's promoting the gender gap, not working to reduce it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC) The relevant policy here is WP:CANVASS and I'm well within policy. Forum shopping is bringing a whole big issue thread to a whole nuther noticeboard, talk page etc., which I have not done. It can be ok to do so (or to leave a note about another discussion at a relevant board) if there is little or no response in one place or if it's a BLP issue. In fact, you just reminded me re the latter point. I should leave a note for people to join the discussion there if they chose. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) Posting links to project-related discussions on WikiProjects is pretty standard practices afaik. Don't see a WP:CANVASS issue here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC) This is clearly forum shopping. SPECIFICO talk 03:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC) SPECIFICO Read FORUMSHOPPING again. It's for when issues are posted on multiple forums, not when you notify multiple groups neutrally about an ongoing discussion and providing a link to it. See WP:CANVASS. It is common practice to alert relevant projects about AfD, CfD, RfC, and such. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC) Hello, @EvergreenFir:, if one notifies interested edtiors or groups of editors neutrally at the time of posting a thread, that falls within policy. Policy is not intended to grant editors the option to post on a designated policy Noticeboard, wait and see which way the wind blows, and then if it's not favoring OP's view to post on a Noticeboard regarding a different policy issue. That is forumshopping, and it's not constructive. SPECIFICO talk 14:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC) SPECIFICO, Carol added this notice before anyone replied to the RSN. There were not winds blowing. You are assuming bad faith without looking at the details. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC) No, I have not commented on anybody's motivations or intentions. I am making objective comments about policy and stating my opinion that policy was violated in this case. I have not spoken as to whether the action was done with knowledge, premeditation, good faith, or error. Anyway, your response doesn't address the issue at hand, which is not me. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC) I should say that at the time, I wasn't talking about the notifications to related wikiprojects, some of which were perfectly appropriate. I was looking at the initiation of an RS noticeboard discussion and a separate discussion to change the relevant rule in Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources at the same time. As far as this talk page goes, there are two issues: 1) In order to get rid of one trans advocacy source she doesn't like, Carolmooredc was suggesting to change the guideline to consider all groups that involve any advocacy as questionable sources. This is singularly unhelpful with regard to this project. It would mean that groups that admitted any advocacy of anything like Feminism (or any groups that didn't mention Feminism but just said they advocated for women in any way) would be considered questionable whether they had a good reputation for accuracy or not. That kind of recommendation is directly counter to anything that would be helpful to this project. 2) A second issue is why this project was notified of the discussion. I can't see an argument that removing access to this website has anything to do with reducing the gender gap or its underlying causes. I could see an argument that removing sources that involve trans women could be a symptom of systemic bias against women, but Carolemooredc was the one suggesting that removal so I don't understand her motivations here. It all seems regressive to the project's implied aims. Any work that actually reduces any project-wide undue weight caused by the gender gap and systemic bias is welcome, whoever helps with that. I'm not down with work that looks like it would only increase a particular systemic bias, or systemic bias in general. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC) If anyone thinks there has been forum shopping or cavassing, take it to WP:ANI. (Last year at WP:ANI an admin held that SPECIFICO posting to 10 Wikiprojects, 4 or 5 of them irrelevant, was merely "excessive". Otherwise, this is just disruptive. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC) I checked the link to that old ANI. I see that, contrary to what you state here, no Admin called 4 or 5 of my notifications to Project pages, not Noticeboards "irrelevant." As a matter of fact, for anyone who cares to review the ANI link, it actually provides useful context regarding Carolmooredc's behavior with respect to this policy. For my part, I have nothing further to say about it on this page. SPECIFICO talk 17:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC) Sorry, I should have clarified "(4 or 5 of them which I considered irrelevant)". (Or as another editor wrote: "The requirement is that the projects be directly related to the topic. In the case at hand, such a relation is tenuous indeed, and raising a concern is reasonable." Followed by other editors discussing which were and were not "relevant" (without actually using that word.)Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC) My concerns about this aren't ANI-worthy, but the options aren't "ANI or shut up", either. (My concerns weren't about how many notifications about RSN you made, either. They were about the separate discussions and your involvement of this project.) No one has explained what discouraging use of the Transadvocate has to do with this project. You're not obliged to answer my concerns (and you haven't tried), but in the future this project should focus on addressing systemic bias, not whatever was going on here.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC) For note, Carol also posted to WP:XX which is more relevant, and I posted to WP:LGBT a day or two ago as it's relevant there. I was going to suggest that this be taken to ANI if there's truly a problem. Frankly I don't see one and I'm the one advocating for the use of TransAdvocate as a source. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC) I was never concerned about the fact there were notifications about the RSN discussion beyond asking what made it relevant to this one. I was more concerned that it wasn't the only discussion started by Carolmooredc around the same time about this issue. If her suggestion in the second, non-RSN discussion had been taken up, we would have faced a lot of new challenges to all sources that could be argued were advocating for women. It's the kind of suggestion to avoid if we want to find ways to counter systemic bias and I'm happy that it doesn't look like it's being taken up. So I don't see a situation to be resolved at this point, but I'm also hoping we don't see that advocating in those directions is a particularly useful strategy for this project in the future.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC) A) Be more specific about what other discussions besides on the talk page of the article were started? and B) if there was a problem why not bring it to my talk page where things can be clarified rather than bringing it here and causing a long disruptive thread? If women are going to be attacked every time they post here, this project might as well close itself down now. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC) A) I see no one attacking anyone else, and B) it reasons to follow if there are no attacks, there no attacks against women or men. Your last sentence is polluting the well a bit.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC) If you look at the history of this page there are problems with wikihounding and casting aspersions against members of the project. Since User:Elqueate chose to complain here instead of the more relevant WP:RSN posting or my talk page, it was easy to assume more of the same. Looking more closely above, I assume User:Elaqueate was complaining about my general complaint at WP:RS guideline talk page that conflict of interest and advocacy needs to be mentioned more explicitly so one doesn't have such a hard time convincing people it's relevant. This was not about changing policy but clarifying guidelines detailing existing policy. I did it since it was on my mind and that's when one tends to act. From now on perhaps we should just ask others to move inherently disruptive comments like that to the relevant talk page rather than allowing the disruption, even if it's merely accidental. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC) That is a personal attack on Elqueate. I believe her concern was justified and appropriately articulated. SPECIFICO talk 00:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC) Describing my concern as "inherently disruptive" is not helpful. And if you're admitting you didn't even really read them at first, it's hard to take that judgement seriously. My comments were specific to "systemic bias" concerns, which is why I placed them here, so they were arguably more relevant to this page than your discussion about removing a source you didn't like. I didn't post at the other notifications because I had no objections to those, just, why is that discussion specifically relevant to this problem? Is too much trans advocacy increasing the gender gap? It seems unlikely. (I had asked a number of times what removing a trans-related source had to do with this project, without any response.) I had moved on many comments ago, but my comments kept being misframed as opposition to neutral discussion notices (that I have made myself quite often). There was no need to go from that to "take it to ANI" or insinuating that talking about focussing this project on systemic bias concerns is disruptive. If you don't want to discuss those concerns, then go on to more constructive things, but please don't frame a specific voiced concern as an attack.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC). This is a belated rationale. The only relevant discussion now is how to deal with threads like this. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC) You could consider not starting them in the first place if you don't want to address project-specific concerns they raise.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC) But I've already advised moving on. You are entitled to your own opinion of what "the only relevant discussion" is. I was one of the first editors here to ask people to not bring outside squabbles that have little to nothing to do with the project. I would apply that to you as well, if you can't justify why a discussion you're bringing to the project has relevance to the project, then your addition was problematic even if it was, in your words, "merely accidental". __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC) If this was your real concern you should have asked it. My leaving a message about "why" at the time would have brought accusations of "non-nuetral posting." In short, I don't like the use of non-RS sources to trash women on wikipedia (be it in full biographies or in mere mentions, per WP:BLP). I think that's a concern of this group. Otherwise the reliable source discussion belongs at either Radical feminism talk page or WP:RSN, not here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC) If this was your real concern you should have asked it. I'll assume that's sarcasm offered in good faith. I'm happy at this point to leave it to others to decide how many times I did.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC) I've disputed closure of this section due to the fact that Pork both participated in the discussion at RSN and cannot reasonably and unbiased-ly close this discussion. However, I will not contest a closure based on no decision by the closer; where it's simple closed without comment/minor comment indicating no consensus of sorts. Tutelary (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC) Which section, here on this page or WP:RSN? If that one, please bring the issue there. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC) On this talk page. Tutelary (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC) I took the bold action of closing this section; The sniping is getting out of hand and serving no further purpose. My assessment of the thread at RSN that TA is not a RS is of course, my opinion. An un-involved party would likely (also IMO) come to the same conclusion. I've no problem with you un-doing my closure. I understand this is an emotionally charged topic area.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC) Not so much that, it's just that you !voted in the original RSN which does not make you the unbiased/uninvolved closer which is mandated by WP:CLOSE. Neither would Carol be an uninvolved member either. Tutelary (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC) Not to mention Two kinds of pork's discussion of this topic on Carol's user talk page. Closing this discussion was way out of line. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC) If my action cause you umbrage, I suggest you go find someone else to close this. You are unlikely to get the answer you desire.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC) @Two kinds of pork: I don't desire a specific answer. I already expressed this on the RSN. No one needs to close this anyway. It's not an RfC. Why you closed it in the first place and your comments on Carol's talk page are what bother me. You treat me like some stubborn fool trying to lecture me in high school level logic and going as far as to think of starting an RfC on RSN (which Carol pointed out is nonsensical). I looked into the editor on TransAdvocate and they don't have journalistic experience. Not a good source. Carol was right that it should be treated as an SPS. This whole damn thing is fairly pointless anyway since the BLP issues on Radical feminism have been fixed and better sources have been found. Your battle is over general. At ease. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC) I closed it primarily to end the bickering, I see that I failed. And if you wish to avoid lectures in logic, don't repeat fallacious arguments after it's been pointed out to you more than once.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC) I hope your reading comprehension improves. Start by practicing on WP:CLOSE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC) I'm all for closing it and archiving it to discourage future off topic escapades, but not with a summary of the results. Perhaps we've all agreed it's SPS now, here and at WP:RSN, and the discussion is finished? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Study of "WP Gender gap coverage in media and blogs"

I found a summary of this interesting article at Wikimedia blog: “(Re)triggering Backlash: Responses to News About Wikipedia’s Gender Gap”. Journal of Communication Inquiry 37 (4): 284. doi:10.1177/0196859913505618 2013.

Anyone have access and want to improve summary below? Last sentence seems a bit ambiguous. "Gender gap coverage in media and blogs" section summary of article:

"studies how Wikipedia’s gender gap concern has been treated in the news, based on a qualitative analysis of 42 articles from US news media and blogs, and 1,336 comments from online readers. The authors argue that this discussion can be seen as an example of a “broader backlash against women, and particularly feminism” in the U.S. news media and blogs. Reading the article, it appears that the views of this gap in the media represent the variety of views about feminism, from the most concerned and documented to the most stupid and misogynist. However, the synthesis of these opinions and the discussions the authors had with some leaders at Wikipedia/Wikimedia Foundation (among them Sue Gardner) let them argue that this problem has not yet been properly addressed, because of its complexity, but also because of a clear political decision from the management of the project to tackle it."

Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Project notification

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Montanabw/Brat in a bubble. Notifying this project because a link to gender gap issues was part of the page. Montanabw^(talk) 21:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Maryam Mirzakhani Fields Medal

Stanford mathematician Maryam Mirzakhani is the first woman to be awarded the Fields Medal in mathematics. See here. This is a good opportunity for editors to ensure that WP treats this important event with appropriate detail and encyclopedic perspective. SPECIFICO talk 23:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yay! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC).

Amazing that the IMU links her name to Wikipedia. Also, this PDF is public domain which could help a lot. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I really hope that this Project can focus on beefing up the articles about women who are indisputably notable and recognized within mainstream and academic circles. This strikes me as a far more urgent priority than trying to give life support to articles threatened by deletion because their subjects are of marginal interest and known principally to activists and thinkers outside the mainstream. SPECIFICO talk 20:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I certainly could use some help. I added almost direct quotations from that press release. Now I'm worried the source did not get sufficient credit. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Australian women scientists

I stumbled across a project that has just added nearly 100 new BLPs, many of which start with "X is an Australian woman scientist". The pages are listed at Category:Wikibomb2014 and there is a tiny bit more information at WP:Meetup/Canberra/2014-08-14-Wikibomb. Many of the new articles will need help to avoid deletion. I gather that nearly all of them have been written by new female editors, so this is a good opportunity to counter systemic bias. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I don' understand the last sentence. It's a good opportunity to counter systemic bias regardless of who wrote them. Do you mean to counter the editor gender gap? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC).

I think he's talking about new editor retention, and the phenomenon of new editors becoming discouraged when their early attempts are deleted. Some more experienced editors could help deal with the technicalities--find sources, add categories, add internal links, etc--to make these articles stable. —Neotarf (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Taylor Ulhrich

I have been looking for the contact details of this researcher for a while. Her comments here left me with a couple of questions. I would be grateful if anyone could point her to my talk page/email link, or point me to her contact details. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC).

Red links for the International Women of Courage Award

Apologies if this has already been discussed here before, but this has just come across my watchlist. There are quite a few names with redlinks on the International Women of Courage Award list. Having received the award should solve any notability issues for these individuals. Note that there is also a footer available associated with the award.[2] Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Some Notable Women

Here is a group of mainstream notable women whose articles we could beef up as required. [3] SPECIFICO talk 13:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Systematic bias?

You can call this project whatever you wish, but I'm a bit perplexed at the inclusion of the term "systematic". That the WMF has established there is a gender gap for editors is one thing (I don't know their methods, but I'll accept the claim on face value), but where is there any evidence of systematic bias? That's an extraordinary statement. Something that is systematic, by definition requires methodology. Is this "systematic bias" a bias living in wikipedia, or is the systematic bias that been established to be real in society? If it is the former, I'd love to see evidence. If it is the latter (bias in society) then I'd say its really none of our business. We can't make society do anything. We can't make the sources give equal treatment to women. This smacks of victimization.Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The project is called Countering systemic bias. Not systematic. The gender gap in editors is the source of this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

For the benefit of relatively new members of the Project, could you briefly review the ways in which this systemic bias has been demonstrated to affect article content? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 02:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Systemic bias sums it up. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Examples are provided in Lam, S.; Uduwage, A.; Dong, Z.; Sen, S.; Musicant, D.; Terveen, L.; Reidl, J. (October 2011). "WP:Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia's Gender Imbalance" (PDF). WikiSym '11. ACM. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) According to a 2013 comment on the Gender Gap mailing list U of Minn researchers found among other things that contributions of users who identified as women are significantly more likely to be challenged or undone by fellow editors and there is a culture that may be resistant to female participation." (See also this overview.) I know there is at least one male editor who has wikihounded me for a year plus, reverting probably 60-70% of my edits in articles he followed me to, and criticizing me elsewhere. That's individual bigotry, of course, but turn it into a bunch of guys frequently reverting a bunch of edits by those perceived as female, it becomes systemic bigotry. (Good luck getting help from WP:ANI or even ArbCom since that's not recognized as systemic bias.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I completely misread that.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Many "help" pages need improvement so the language is clearer and less unnecessarily technical & other musings

This is listed as one of the "todo" elements. Did Malibu "Math is Hard" Barbie propose this? I hope I'm misinterpreting this, but I'm certain I'm not the only one who will read it as women are less capable then men in understanding technical language. Let's combat bias by assuming bias!

This project looks like it focuses on two areas. The gender gap on Wikipedia, and then BLP content. As for the latter, a lot of that boils down bias in society. Fewer opportunities for women, leads to fewer notable women, and fewer sources about women. We can't control outside forces. Trying to focus on writing more BLPs about women is about all that can be done. Addressing the gender gap on Wikipedia won't do much for this, as women aren't more likely than men to write articles about women. Look at the suffrage movements of the 20th century as a reminder. There is a faulty assumption that more women editors and administrators will fix this and a myriad of other problems this project has tried to identify. The only thing that jumps out at me that more women editors would affect would be in making new women editors feel welcome.Two kinds of pork (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)