Comments for Sue Gardner's Blog

Comment on What Wikimedia can learn from the Quakers, Part 2 by Saiful

Saiful — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 13:24:43 +0000

> Same goes for women, and other uenrreeprdsented groups in our community.Great! As a critic (surely an uenrreeprdsented group!), how much “stack” do I get? That would be a pleasant change from the “fair game” status , where policies against civility and personal attack are suspended against certain targets.> But it would be so much healthier for us all to take responsibility for creating a constructive spaceI can’t take this seriously if you don’t apply it to “insiders”, and bluntly, you won’t.

Comment on On editorial judgment, and empathy by heinrichboellstipendiaten

heinrichboellstipendiaten — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 10:01:20 +0000

[...] My trust in the German Wikipedia was unsettled recently when I stumbled over the ongoing discussions in the community on censorship, where antifeminist tendencies seem to emerge and spread. I tend to forget the people who are [...]

Comment on Nine Reasons Women Don’t Edit Wikipedia (in their own words) by Richie

Richie — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:14:17 +0000

Is the information on Wikipedia sound?

As in correct, useful, reliable?

If yes – does it matter who put it there?

Comment on Some particularly interesting media coverage of Wikipedia’s 10th anniversary by U.S. History - University at Buffalo Libraries

U.S. History - University at Buffalo Libraries — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:44:33 +0000

[...] – although not all in the same way. For reflections occasioned by its 10th anniversary, visit Sue Gardner’s Blog, 14 January 2011. Gardner is the executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit [...]

Comment on Unlocking the Clubhouse: Five ways to encourage women to edit Wikipedia by Mädchenmannschaft » Blog Archive » Frauen in der Wikipedia: Die Debatte geht weiter

Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:45:16 +0000

[...] also ist zu tun? Kommentatorin Angelika wies damals schon auf einen Artikel von Sue Gardner hin, der aufzeigt, wie Frauen fürs Programmieren (und damit auch Wikipedia) gewonnen werden [...]

Comment on Nine Reasons Women Don’t Edit Wikipedia (in their own words) by LadyofShalott

LadyofShalott — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 19:33:31 +0000

The ArbCom case did not arise “because a long time editor continues to call women ‘cunts’”. That is entirely inaccurate. Do try to get your facts right.

Comment on Nine Reasons Women Don’t Edit Wikipedia (in their own words) by Anne Gray (@zer_netmouse)

Anne Gray (@zer_netmouse) — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 04:39:11 +0000

I got involved in a (successful) Article Rescue Squadron effort to rescue the article on Lily Collins in late 2009. Not a topic I would normally be interested in, but I found it notable that editors were insisting the subject was not a model, even though she had been designated as a Best Model by a major magazine. I don’t remember the details but I believe if you scan the talk page and the (now archived) AfD, you can see what I mean. There was also a particular editor who would not listen to women who were saying that particular activities by the subject (that had received media coverage and were not otherwise in dispute) were in fact considered notable in the world of fashion. He actually came and discussed it on my talk page – he thought they were saying that he was being unreasonable he should have heard of the subject before, when nobody in the AfD had said that. They were quoting publications indicating the subject was notable, and he was failing to see their point.
I have since studied issues of racism and other forms of oppression and you tend to see that sort of pattern – the person in power has trouble following the logic of the minority, gets defensive about any suggestion his (power-causing attribute, e.g. gender) is affecting his perception of the situation, and tends to perceive the minority as being much more upset and unreasonable than they are really being.

As an aside, I think there really are quite a few subjects that don’t get coverage in media that some Wikipedia editors respect. I have in the past been involved in defending pages about webcomics, for instance, which are almost never discussed in print media – the entire community of authors, artists, and critics who are interested in webcomics is on the internet, and the only substantial coverage, awards, etc, at the time were all from internet-based or industry-internal sources that some editors insisted were not valid sources. I know of pages that have been deleted on that basis.

Comment on Nine Reasons Women Don’t Edit Wikipedia (in their own words) by MirrorGirl

MirrorGirl — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 01:00:58 +0000

And Cook, you have mis-stated the case: the ArbCom case is not being conducted because a user calls women cunts–he has a habit of using language with other uses of both sexes that some users of both sexes find offensive. Women may be especially shocked at some of the words used, but they are not, as you claim, directed at women exclusively, or because they’re women. In fact, most of the disputes seem to be between male editors.

You yourself have here demonstrated a problem that certainly does exist at Wikipedia: the using by one disgrunted (and in this case, banned) user the comments of others out of context, misrepresenting problems, and personalizing things have nothing to do with you. It is difficult to take anything you say seriously when you’ve lifted bits and pieces of a converstation between friends on a user’s talk page and, without permission from any of us, posted them here and claimed they’re examples of something else entirely. I find that extremely uncivil, and not good faith behavior by any means.

Comment on Nine Reasons Women Don’t Edit Wikipedia (in their own words) by MirrorGirl

MirrorGirl — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 03:18:20 +0000

I would expect that Sue was busy these last few days–the Wikipedia blackout and all, you know?

Comment on Nine Reasons Women Don’t Edit Wikipedia (in their own words) by John Cook

John Cook — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 21:09:21 +0000

Is this blog shut down, no longer accepting comments? If this is the case, say so. My comment above has been there for several days “awaiting moderation”.

There is currently an ArbCom case on Wikipedia (over “Civility”) that arose because a long time editor continues to call women “cunts”. Apparently Arbcom can’t decide whether it is OK on Wikipedia to use terms derogatory to women.

This case cannot be discussed here? Seems to me it pertains to the general topic of why women may not feel comfortable editing on Wikipedia.