The female editors who see no evil

MMAR · Unread post by **MMAR** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 4:52 pm

Since it seems to keep coming up repeatedly in the gender gap/sexism/sexual harassment debates as if it was somehow significant, let's examine the phenomena of those female editors on Wikipedia who supposedly have never seen any sexual harassment/sexism on Wikipedia, and certainly don't accept the gender gap effects include differential treatment of male and female editors.

While it's almost a given that on Wikipedia, many male editors of a certain viewpoint don't think twice about equating their anecdotal experiences as the accepted reality in these fields, it's nonetheless surprising that some women can too. This is tangentially related to the 'gender gap gap' thread, which deals with the topic of deliberate/willful ignorance in the face of evidence. I'll quote here part of one paper I recently posted about there, which, among other things, the (male) author observed:

there are women who are part of the asshole consensus, who use misogynist techniques alongside men to protect a privileged status that allows them to move through Wikipedia in uninhibited ways. This is the nature of misogynist infopolitics: conformance to sexist norms or ejection from the game.

This seems to be an apt description of the women I've seen who see no evil. Certainly a common thread that binds them all is their close collaboration with many of the male editors who most actively obstruct efforts to bring Wikipedia into the 21st Century. Associations which they would presumably not be willing to endanger - a trade off if you will between their ability to write a Featured Article and their ability to look themselves in a mirror at the end of the day.

To ground this thread in reality, let's consider Gandydancer (T-C-L). In a couple of interesting posts made to Wikipedia talk:Harassment (T-H-L) in response to a proposal to introduce a sexual harassment section/policy, we see this sort of commentary:

Speaking as a woman, a feminist, and an editor for almost 10 years, I can't recall ever seeing "Lewd comments, unwanted advances, demeaning remarks" either. Perhaps they are common at articles that I don't edit, though a great deal of my editing is for woman-related issues. I'd sure appreciate a link as well. Gandydancer (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose As I say above, I've never seen examples of sexual harassment to the point that we need a special policy to address it. If I have somehow missed the sexual harassment that many editors believe is going on unaddressed and can read examples of it, I will change my mind and agree that we need a new policy written especially for sexual harassment. But until I see the evidence, IMO a new policy would only mean that Wikipedia caved in to meet the demands of a small group of very verbal editors that feel victimized. Gandydancer (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

She's obviously felt strongly about this for a while, at the top of her talk page are two banners, declaring:

My understanding of feminism is that it requires the cooperation of males and females to ensure that both sexes have equal rights and equal opportunities, it's not a war between the sexes."

This editor has joined the opposition to the targeting of editors by the politically-correct and ideology-driven so that we can keep this the encyclopedia anyone can edit, not just the one that only those who haven't yet done something unacceptable to the easily-offended can edit. Don't let the octopus of the easily-offended bring down the entire project!

I have no clue what incident/s motivated these banners, but I think it's safe to say that the thinking that leads someone to describe the ongoing efforts to bring Wikipedia into the 21st Century as a 'war against men by the easily offended' can only have one real source, and it's certainly not objectivity, and it sure as shit isn't feminism.

Interestingly, seeing her comments opposing the anti-harassment proposal, WMF liason and female admin User:WhatamIdoing went to her talk page to try to tell her why she might not be best placed to be a fair witness, since, among other things, as you would hope, examples of sexual harassment are not widely broadcast, and are often cleared up quickly, and are ultimately deleted in that special way that means they're not visible after the fact, unlike say, redacted personal insults. Suffice to say, she was unconvinced.

WhatamIdoing, sure I am aware that there have been some incidents of severe harassment and it go es without saying that certain people are going to be targeted by those that have a grudge against them. I can't see that a new sexual harassment policy will help, but sure, if others understand these things better than I do, by all means write one.
But if it turns out that your new policy does not help to make the Wikipedia women (and men) feel safe, I hope that it at least does not create further harm. IMO, the talk in the media of Wikipedia as a hotbed of sexual harassment is the result of a few incidents blown way out of proportion to make it appear as though harassment is common here. But in my WP experience, the men here have been unusually sensitive to women's issues rather than, as one woman put it, like male dogs pissing on the fence and scaring off the women. Of course I'm not an admin, so my view is quite limited according to you. Gandydancer (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Showing some stark similarities with the gender gap denialists, there's a distinct unwillingness here to accept any evidence or facts, not even counter-factual anecdotal experiences, if it goes against their own evidently strongly held personal view that what they see is all there is. And I find it inconceivable given the people she knows and the incidents she's observed, that she has never seen, at the very least, examples of women being demeaned simply because of their sex (or by extension, their 'feminist' views). I suspect the realty is that she's seen them, but for some reason, despite claiming to be a feminist, fails to see their gender based origin. And of course, mindful of one of the other common strawman arguments prevalent in this field on Wikipedia, I'm not classifying someone who argues politely and respectfully against someone else's idea/proposal/observation as a misogynist asshole just because it might have a 'feminist' origin.

Not to get too hyperbolic, but I notice that these views are unlikely to translate well as feminist opinions in the real world. We're constantly being told that conviction rates for rape are so low the rape statutes can effectively be considered ineffectual and that the mere fact of trying to enforce them often causes more harm - by her logic do we simply strike all rape statutes down? And needless to say the notion that lawmakers would choose whether to support or oppose a rape statute based simply on whether they've personally seen a rape occur, is quite nonsensical.

There's a few other female editors like this on the project. Two that come to mind instantly are J3Mrs (T-C-L) and MontanaBw (T-C-L) - but there are others.

Since one of the central planks of the gender gap denialist's theory is that you can never tell for sure whether an editor is the gender they self-declare as, based on these sorts of comments from people who claim to be female and claim to be feminists, I wonder if it isn't time for Wikipedia to distrust anyone who self-identifies as a feminist at all (and anything else -ist for that matter) as a matter of course in these sorts of debates, lest it turn out they are anything but.

Sitush · Unread post by **Sitush** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 5:51 pm

Looks like yet another rant based from the outset on house of cards, Tarc/Kaldari or whoever you are. Which of the people you name have denied that a gender gap might exist?

MMAR · Unread post by **MMAR** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 6:10 pm

Sitush wrote:Looks like yet another rant based from the outset on house of cards, Tarc/Kaldari or whoever you are. Which of the people you name have denied that a gender gap might exist?

House of Cards you say? First, let's examine your accusation - where in the above did I say any of the named editors deny the gender gap might exist? I use the term denialist in the general sense, to cover both the people who deny it exists, and those who accept it does but refuse to accept it has any gender delineated effects. Do you deny the named editors meet that definition? If you do, I await evidence of statements to that effect.

Nobody here should be in any doubt why you were the first person on the scene here - you are without doubt one of the best examples of the denialist mindset. As seen in the gap gap thread, as well as being one of the most consistent spreaders of anecdotes as truth and other denialist nonsense, you're also the source of quite a lot of the more ridiculous feminazi conspiracy theory bullshit, stuff which you could never in a million years prove, even to an anecdotal standard.

sparkzilla · Unread post by **sparkzilla** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 6:11 pm

Wikipedia's software rewards the most aggressive and fanatical, whether they are male or female. However, the earliest users were mainly fanatical, aggressive males whose actions repelled women users more than male users. Some women survive because they play the game, but that does not mean that there isn't systemic bias. Just because Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister does not mean that all women have equal opportunity. The aggression and fanaticism also repels men, but they are more willing to fight for content to be added to the site. Ultimately most reasonable people give up though -- it's not worth the trouble. The question I have been working on this past year is: why should it be so difficult to add content to a site? Wikipedia makes it incredibly difficult to add even simple factual information, and the follow-on question is: who benefits?

Wikipedia's gender gap cannot be fixed socially. Any attempt to try to change the culture will not work. If you remove the most aggressive editors they will simply be replaced by newer, aggressive editors. It's easy to blame the people, but the real problem is power, specifically the concentration of power in the hands of entrenched editors. That power comes directly from the software that allows these editors to build and maintain their position. Wikipedia's flat structure gives power to the worst people, and makes every content dispute about so much more than the content itself. It's a system that is built for accumulating editorial power, not for creating quality content.

The crimes were 1) not to identify the problem earlier 3) not to create systems that would devolve power from entrenched groups and make a more level playing field, so that everyone could participate without harassment. Sue Gardner is primarily to blame, as she had years to fix the problem and did nothing, except feeble window dressing.

It's no surprise that people inside the group think that there is no problem. That's typical of all power systems. To extend a metaphor: If Wikipedia editors discussing Gender Gap are like lions at the waterhole wondering why the zebras aren't thirsty, then be wary of lionesses inviting you to drink.

Sitush · Unread post by **Sitush** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 6:29 pm

You were trying to associate those three contributors with what you consider to be the argument of "gender gap denialists". I am not aware that there even are any such denialists, although there are certainly sceptics both regarding statistics and effect.

I will not be reading any more of your tripe. At this rate, you'll soon find you are talking to yourself.

DHeyward · Unread post by **DHeyward** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 6:49 pm

I haven't paid much attention to the gender gap. I'll relate a known gender gap in industry, though, as food for thought.

I work in high tech as many in WP do. There is a gender gap in numbers of male engineers to female engineers. The high profile company I worked for had URM hiring and retention goals. (URM = "Under represented minority" and "hiring and retention" meant HR had more money for targeted groups). Contrary to popular belief, the majority of staff was not white males.

The reasoning was simple: We only hired MSEE and PhD's from certain schools when we hired New College Graduates. We had a different requirement for hiring from other companies.

The simple fact was that the majority of MS and PhD students that were graduating were foreign born males. Our hiring, more or less, reflected what came out of Universities and it also set the culture. As the company grew its presence around the world, local hiring also fell into the mix but there were plenty of ex-pats being sent to these locations as well.

the reality is that the gap is/was a product of the pipeline and short of changing the pipeline, the gap will exist. Trying to fix he gap at the end point has led to very difficult positions for a lot of women that were promoted too soon as well as the perception that retention goals have made it difficult to assess competence. Two personal situations I was involved in had a manager quit because his lowest performing worker was female and he was forced to promote her - or rather he recommended no promo, no raise and no stock. His highest performer was also female and she received the largest raise, stock, etc. HR took money and stock from the highest performing female and gave it to the lowest performing female for retention reasons. This would never have happened to a male employee (the higher performer would have kept his money, and the lower performer likely fired). In another case, a female manager who was performing fine in her new management role was suddenly bumped up a level she wasn't prepared for yet. Rather than returning her to a previous position that would have looked like a demotion, they shuffled her to the side at the same level but no chance for career advancement. This happens to men as well but usually after they have lots of experience. She was relatively young to career limited and she ended up leaving. She did fine in her new company at a level commensurate with her experience.

The point is that women do face unique challenges in tech. There is a gap that is not necessarily related to the end environment but also what feeds that environment (i.e. schools). And in an environment that is 90% male, 90% of the assholes are male. It's a mistake to presume that the culture of Wikipedia is what drives the gender gap when it could very well be just a reflection of what attracts editors to be Wikipedians. Other groups are also over and under represented but I doubt it has much to do with WP culture.

MMAR · Unread post by **MMAR** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 7:09 pm

Sitush wrote:You were trying to associate those three contributors with what you consider to be the argument of "gender gap denialists". I am not aware that there even are any such denialists, although there are certainly sceptics both regarding statistics and effect.

I will not be reading any more of your tripe. At this rate, you'll soon find you are talking to yourself.

Don't worry Sitush, it's not like I was actually expecting you to reply to what I wrote. A pathetic flounce like this was entirely expected, it's what happens when denialists are confronted with the truth. But bonus points for introducing the concept of denialist denialism, I love that. And for the record, a sceptic who 'questions' statistics and effects using only their own wilful ignorance, is a denialist.

MMAR · Unread post by **MMAR** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 7:24 pm

DHeyward wrote:I haven't paid much attention to the gender gap.
...........
It's a mistake to presume that the culture of Wikipedia is what drives the gender gap when it could very well be just a reflection of what attracts editors to be Wikipedians. Other groups are also over and under represented but I doubt it has much to do with WP culture.

I don't want to appear rude, but I don't think it's a coincidence that lack of attention to the issue leads to posts like this which, while interesting, don't really focus on the issue as it is currently understood. And while your last point did at least cover one of the issues, there's a lot of data and studies out there that have already addressed it. The reality is, it is a cultural issue, and one which some people argue won't even disappear even if the gender mix was somehow rectified to 50:50.

Indeed, if you do want to get involved, I would advise you not to go anywhere near concepts like Affirmative Action - it is not and likely never will be proposed - it only ever appears whenever someone is attempting to do a bit of concern trolling to discredit the people actually trying to come up with serious proposals. In the AA context, gender gap issues on Wikipedia are better thought of as trying to explain and mitigate for the observation that women who are just as qualified as men still have to fight harder and endure much harsher examination/scrutiny than male editors just to gain 'jobs' like being an admin. And to bring that back to this thread - you'll find women on Wikipedia denying that ever happens, based exclusively of course on their own experiences or observations. With other contrary observations simply being ignored/discounted/explained away as something other than being caused by gender bias.

sparkzilla · Unread post by **sparkzilla** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 7:39 pm

The reality is, it is a cultural issue, and one which some people argue won't even disappear even if the gender mix was somehow rectified to 50:50.

Wikipedia's cultural issues are a symptom, not a cause. Read this: The Sexists at the Top of Wikipedia

MMAR · Unread post by **MMAR** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 8:30 pm

Gandydancer has since made it clear that her beliefs stem from this idea that Wikipedia is being corrupted by "a small group of angry Radical Feminists promoting their agenda", and the efforts to introduce things like a sexual harassment policy and tackle the gender gap are the evil result. She goes on to quote this excert of a blog:

Ironically, this new form of Victim Feminism infantilizes women by denying their personal agency (making men 100% responsible for what happens behind closed doors), diminishes women by insisting that those who do not recognize their oppression are suffering from Patriarchal consciousness and require forced re-education, and negates women’s individuality and intelligence by establishing a required dogma that demands uncritical acceptance.

Seriously, where do they get this utter claptrap from? There's nothing in the WMF's gender gap stuff that even remotely comes close to supporting this complete and total feminazi conspiracy nutjob shite.

I'm certainly not questioning her intelligence because she's "suffering from Patriarchal consciousness", I'm questioning it because she keeps saying stupid shit which suggests to me that her ignorance stems not from critical thought, but from her very own application of dogma and other nonsense to diminish opposing views.

Puebla · Unread post by **Puebla** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 10:29 pm

I must be one of those denialists as I dont see sexism behind every corner.

evangeliman · Unread post by **evangeliman** » Mon Aug 17, 2015 11:32 pm

Suggest moving this to Off Topic.

While some of the issues mentioned deserve discussion, the presentation begins, climaxes, and ends with too many poisoned wells for this thread to provide a forum for that discussion.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Tue Aug 18, 2015 12:27 am

evangeliman wrote:Suggest moving this to Off Topic.

While some of the issues mentioned deserve discussion, the presentation begins, climaxes, and ends with too many poisoned wells for this thread to provide a forum for that discussion.

Dunno. The topic is staying on target by criticizing and discussing Wikipedia.

I will go over it for off-topic posts.

MMAR · Unread post by **MMAR** » Tue Aug 18, 2015 1:16 am

Puebla wrote:I must be one of those denialists as I dont see sexism behind every corner.

Not necessarily. Firstly, denialists don't merely lack knowledge, they lack the desire for it. Does that sound like something you would do in the course of identifying sexism on Wikipedia? Second, the knowledge you need to know to avoid being labelled a denialist is not as simplistic as you framed it - the issue isn't just one of sexism. It's entirely possible to be one of the many hundreds of male editors contributing to the exclusion of women, and hence maintaining the existence and effects of the gender gap, without actually doing anything anyone would define as sexism.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Tue Aug 18, 2015 2:07 am

Sitush wrote:Looks like yet another rant based from the outset on house of cards, Tarc/Kaldari or whoever you are. Which of the people you name have denied that a gender gap might exist?

Tarc and Kaldari are Americans, it's not them.

RfB

Puebla · Unread post by **Puebla** » Tue Aug 18, 2015 8:26 pm

MMAR wrote:
Puebla wrote:I must be one of those denialists as I dont see sexism behind every corner.
Not necessarily. Firstly, denialists don't merely lack knowledge, they lack the desire for it. Does that sound like something you would do in the course of identifying sexism on Wikipedia? Second, the knowledge you need to know to avoid being labelled a denialist is not as simplistic as you framed it - the issue isn't just one of sexism. It's entirely possible to be one of the many hundreds of male editors contributing to the exclusion of women, and hence maintaining the existence and effects of the gender gap, without actually doing anything anyone would define as sexism.

That makes no sense at all to me.

sparkzilla · Unread post by **sparkzilla** » Tue Aug 18, 2015 8:39 pm

What he means is that you don't have to be personally sexist to participate in a sexist system. I'm sure most of the people who edit Wikipedia do not consider themselves sexist or racist in any way, yet they are participants in a system that excludes women and minorities. The blame lies higher up, with the people who did not change the system itself, and who do not even appear to understand the cause of the problem.

MMAR · Unread post by **MMAR** » Tue Aug 18, 2015 8:42 pm

Puebla wrote:
MMAR wrote:
Puebla wrote:I must be one of those denialists as I dont see sexism behind every corner.
Not necessarily. Firstly, denialists don't merely lack knowledge, they lack the desire for it. Does that sound like something you would do in the course of identifying sexism on Wikipedia? Second, the knowledge you need to know to avoid being labelled a denialist is not as simplistic as you framed it - the issue isn't just one of sexism. It's entirely possible to be one of the many hundreds of male editors contributing to the exclusion of women, and hence maintaining the existence and effects of the gender gap, without actually doing anything anyone would define as sexism.
That makes no sense at all to me.

How about this then - evidence of sexism on Wikipedia exists, and is easily available to anyone who really wants to look for it. But sexism is only one aspect of the gender gap issues. Your reaction to both of those statements is what will mark you out as a denialist or not.

The Garbage Scow · Unread post by **The Garbage Scow** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 12:07 am

This an interesting and, I suppose, timely thread, given Morwen's article at Cracked a few days ago.

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experie ... nside.html

Malleus · Unread post by **Malleus** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 12:17 am

sparkzilla wrote:What he means is that you don't have to be personally sexist to participate in a sexist system. I'm sure most of the people who edit Wikipedia do not consider themselves sexist or racist in any way, yet they are participants in a system that excludes women and minorities. The blame lies higher up, with the people who did not change the system itself, and who do not even appear to understand the cause of the problem.

In what way are women and minorities excluded?

sparkzilla · Unread post by **sparkzilla** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 12:49 am

There is less than 10% female participation. Minorities are underrepresented. You can come up with all the reasons you like, but I know that my site, which has broadly similar content, has up to 80% female and minority participation. That tells me that the difference is caused by software. As I have discussed many times, is that the wiki software gives power to incumbent, aggressive editors, mainly male, who crowd out the rest, both men and women. They may not be sexist individually, but as an aggregate they push out less aggressive users. There is basically no reason at all why adding content to any site needs to have the element of aggression, and no reason at all why the contributors to any content site should not be in proportion to the proportion of those groups in society in general.

Puebla · Unread post by **Puebla** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 2:45 am

paint me a denialist then. Just because there is a dearth of a particular kind of participant, it does not mean there is some kind of "system" against them. The "system" favors idiots of all stripes, especially POV warriors, including feminist POV warriors. It's not a fluke that the ones screaming sexism are of this type.

MMAR · Unread post by **MMAR** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 3:28 am

Puebla wrote:paint me a denialist then. Just because there is a dearth of a particular kind of participant, it does not mean there is some kind of "system" against them. The "system" favors idiots of all stripes, especially POV warriors, including feminist POV warriors. It's not a fluke that the ones screaming sexism are of this type.

Thank Christ for that. For a second there, I thought you were going to make me work.

We have a confirmed denialist.

Tag him, pack him and stack him.

Unread post by **tarantino** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 3:46 am

The Garbage Scow wrote:This an interesting and, I suppose, timely thread, given Morwen's article at Cracked a few days ago.

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experie ... nside.html

The hand of God Morwen. Photograph taken by Chris McKenna/Thryduulf (T-C-L)

The Devil's Advocate · Unread post by **The Devil's Advocate** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 4:37 am

The Garbage Scow wrote:This an interesting and, I suppose, timely thread, given Morwen's article at Cracked a few days ago.

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experie ... nside.html

Ah, that piece. "The number one worst problem with how Wikipedia handles women is that time me and my friend got attacked for wanting to move the Bradley Manning article to Chelsea Manning without discussing it first!" was such an obvious tell that I was not even remotely surprised to see Morwen authored it.

Cla68 · Unread post by **Cla68** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 6:53 am

The Devil's Advocate wrote:
The Garbage Scow wrote:This an interesting and, I suppose, timely thread, given Morwen's article at Cracked a few days ago.

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experie ... nside.html
Ah, that piece. "The number one worst problem with how Wikipedia handles women is that time me and my friend got attacked for wanting to move the Bradley Manning article to Chelsea Manning without discussing it first!" was such an obvious tell that I was not even remotely surprised to see Morwen authored it.

Morwen's response to that case is worth a separate thread sometime.

MMAR · Unread post by **MMAR** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 9:18 pm

The Gandydancer case is solved.

Pssst Petra, since you haven't followed all this bullshit you probably don't know, but what this is really all about is that Eric called Jimbo (and one other guy who I can't remember) a cunt. Supposedly as a result the ladies have left in droves and are now so afraid of sexual harassment that we need to write a brand new sexual harassment policy. As for me, I have been thinking oh for the fucking luv of god, can't we just have a little fun around here? This is a great place. Where else could you find an article on United Breaks Guitars. Listen to it: [14]. I fucking love this song! Gandydancer (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

There you have it. The entire controversy about sexual harassment and sexism and the gender gap on Wikipedia, was all only ever about the ongoing crusade to persecute poor little Eric. It should all be just forgotten and everyone should just get back to party time!

Seriously, what the fuck? In an almost perfect illustration of everything that's wrong with the Wikipedia 'community' on this topic - there is absolutely nobody there who has the backbone, the moral integrity, the sense of justice, to confront this sort of utter bullshit head on. This women, who claims to be a feminist, has literally just ignored real evidence of sexual harassment on Wikipedia even after it was put in front of her very face, solely because to admit it exists would endanger the God given right of poor little Eric to say cunt on Wikipedia if he feels like it.

If you're reading this and you consider yourself a 'Wikipedian' who is also genuinely interested in fixing Wikipedia's problems in this area, then don't ignore it. Get angry. Get fucking angry. Because if you don't, then as the saying goes, you know what happens when good people stand by and do nothing.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 9:43 pm

MMAR wrote:The Gandydancer case is solved.

Pssst Petra, since you haven't followed all this bullshit you probably don't know, but what this is really all about is that Eric called Jimbo (and one other guy who I can't remember) a cunt. Supposedly as a result the ladies have left in droves and are now so afraid of sexual harassment that we need to write a brand new sexual harassment policy. As for me, I have been thinking oh for the fucking luv of god, can't we just have a little fun around here? This is a great place. Where else could you find an article on United Breaks Guitars. Listen to it: [14]. I fucking love this song! Gandydancer (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
There you have it. The entire controversy about sexual harassment and sexism and the gender gap on Wikipedia, was all only ever about the ongoing crusade to persecute poor little Eric. It should all be just forgotten and everyone should just get back to party time!

Seriously, what the fuck? In an almost perfect illustration of everything that's wrong with the Wikipedia 'community' on this topic - there is absolutely nobody there who has the backbone, the moral integrity, the sense of justice, to confront this sort of utter bullshit head on. This women, who claims to be a feminist, has literally just ignored real evidence of sexual harassment on Wikipedia even after it was put in front of her very face, solely because to admit it exists would endanger the God given right of poor little Eric to say cunt on Wikipedia if he feels like it.

If you're reading this and you consider yourself a 'Wikipedian' who is also genuinely interested in fixing Wikipedia's problems in this area, then don't ignore it. Get angry. Get fucking angry. Because if you don't, then as the saying goes, you know what happens when good people stand by and do nothing.

Some great pivoting there.

MMAR · Unread post by **MMAR** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 9:58 pm

Vigilant wrote: Some great pivoting there.

?

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 10:06 pm

MMAR wrote:
Vigilant wrote: Some great pivoting there.
?

Gandydancer starts talking about the problem and then pivots to what they want to talk about, ignoring the original part of the conversation.
Politicians do this when asked uncomfortable questions.

MMAR · Unread post by **MMAR** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 10:10 pm

Vigilant wrote:
MMAR wrote:
Vigilant wrote: Some great pivoting there.
?
Gandydancer starts talking about the problem and then pivots to what they want to talk about, ignoring the original part of the conversation.
Politicians do this when asked uncomfortable questions.

Ah, I see. Good point.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 10:54 pm

MMAR wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
MMAR wrote:
Vigilant wrote: Some great pivoting there.
?
Gandydancer starts talking about the problem and then pivots to what they want to talk about, ignoring the original part of the conversation.
Politicians do this when asked uncomfortable questions.
Ah, I see. Good point.

You thought he was about to challenge you there, didn't you?

Acting.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 11:52 pm

Zoloft wrote:
MMAR wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
MMAR wrote:
Vigilant wrote: Some great pivoting there.
?
Gandydancer starts talking about the problem and then pivots to what they want to talk about, ignoring the original part of the conversation.
Politicians do this when asked uncomfortable questions.
Ah, I see. Good point.
You thought he was about to challenge you there, didn't you?

Acting.

Still trying to prove to everybody that I'm not a supervillain every day of the week.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 11:59 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Zoloft wrote:
MMAR wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
MMAR wrote:
Vigilant wrote: Some great pivoting there.
?
Gandydancer starts talking about the problem and then pivots to what they want to talk about, ignoring the original part of the conversation.
Politicians do this when asked uncomfortable questions.
Ah, I see. Good point.
You thought he was about to challenge you there, didn't you?

Acting.
Still trying to prove to everybody that I'm not a supervillain every day of the week.

Nobody is askeerd of you no more since you changed your avatar...

RfB

MMAR · Unread post by **MMAR** » Thu Aug 20, 2015 8:00 pm

Zoloft wrote:
MMAR wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
MMAR wrote:
Vigilant wrote: Some great pivoting there.
?
Gandydancer starts talking about the problem and then pivots to what they want to talk about, ignoring the original part of the conversation.
Politicians do this when asked uncomfortable questions.
Ah, I see. Good point.
You thought he was about to challenge you there, didn't you?

Acting.

No.......I simply didn't understand his point. Maybe it's a Brit thing - we simply don't use pivot in that context, which is odd, since finding different ways to describe the dubious ways politicians try to control the message is practically a national hobby.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Aug 20, 2015 10:47 pm

MMAR wrote:
Zoloft wrote:
MMAR wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
MMAR wrote:
Vigilant wrote: Some great pivoting there.
?
Gandydancer starts talking about the problem and then pivots to what they want to talk about, ignoring the original part of the conversation.
Politicians do this when asked uncomfortable questions.
Ah, I see. Good point.
You thought he was about to challenge you there, didn't you?

Acting.
No.......I simply didn't understand his point. Maybe it's a Brit thing - we simply don't use pivot in that context, which is odd, since finding different ways to describe the dubious ways politicians try to control the message is practically a national hobby.

To be fair, 'pivot' being used as a verb to describe politicians who redirect questions to their canned talking points is a fairly new usage.
I spend an inordinate amount of time following the presidential election cycle this time through and end up using their vernacular in odd moments.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Mon Aug 24, 2015 3:17 am

sparkzilla wrote:...I know that my site, which has broadly similar content, has up to 80% female and minority participation. That tells me that the difference is caused by software.

Have you considered that your site offers small payouts for tasks performed, while Wikipedia (on the surface) offers no payments for content creators? Could be that women aren't as gullible as men, who can apparently be tricked into working for free for con-artists like Jimbo.

sparkzilla · Unread post by **sparkzilla** » Mon Aug 24, 2015 4:05 am

Even though both sites have broadly the same content goals -- at least for news and biography pages -- different motivating factors (which are deliberate choices made by the publishers of a software product) can attract different kinds of people.

The writers we had (at least in our initial phase when we paid $1-per-post) were from the work-at-home community -- a large community of workers across the web looking for small writing jobs, and other tasks. These people are mainly women and minorities who are just trying to get by. Every dollar is important to them. I had several cases of people asking me to pay out in advance so they could by food or pay their phone bill, which I was happy to do. These kind of writers absolutely do not want to waste any time adding content. They don't want conflict. For them time really is money. They would NEVER work for free. I'm pretty sure they see Wikipedia as a fool's errand.

On the other hand, we have a bunch of (mainly) guys who will spend months trying to add a single sentence into a Wikipedia article (as many of us have). A situation which is driven by egotistical desire to gain power over other users. There are few greater powers than determining whether someone else can speak. Wikipedia is primarily a tool for the creation of power fiefdoms. It also allows some people to make content. I think Wikipedia's power structure ultimately gives readers poorer quality content. Mob rule results in censorship, bias and harassment. The back-and-forth also makes the process of creating content unnecessarily time consuming.

I have taken specific steps to make sure power does not accumulate on Newslines, and to make content addition as fast as possible. Ironically, these changes mean that the site is less addictive to Wikipedia users -- they are so used to fighting to add content they can't believe there is any other way, or are so jaded, they can't bring themselves to work on a far more streamlined system. That's why we are building up our own, distinct, community. We are actually trying to find a middle ground now: people who will work for free now, with a larger pay off through revenue-sharing as the value of the content grows.

Oblia · Unread post by **Oblia** » Tue Aug 25, 2015 6:45 pm

MMAR wrote:... let's examine the phenomena of those female editors on Wikipedia who supposedly have never seen any sexual harassment/sexism on Wikipedia, and certainly don't accept the gender gap effects include differential treatment of male and female editors. ...

I thought there are two women who are arbitrators? SagaciousPhil 15:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

(See discussion at Re: Examining Arbcom 2015)

Why does the GGTF feel it has the right to claim it speaks for the majority of female editors? SagaciousPhil 21:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

(It hasn't.)

... when [genuine harassment] does occur, as it has very recently in the way of porn images and death threats being made against an editor on en.wp and Commons, it was very swiftly dealt with.... SagaciousPhil 08:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

(I read something about the death threats being addressed by WMF, but which porn-images harassment was properly "dealt with," and by whom?)

To add an alternate POV, I've not seen the rampant sexism and racism that Ogress has seen. ... Gandydancer 19:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

(If she hasn't seen it, then it must not exist!)

I've not seen it either, quite the opposite but I'm sure that if it's said often enough some people will believe it. ... When male editors disagree with you it is not misogyny, nor is it incivility but unfortunately that's how it's characterised by editors with an agenda. ... J3Mrs 08:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Where is it established that women are leaving in droves? Where is all this rampant harassment and hostility? These sweeping statements are not based on fact. Nobody knows how many women there are so how does anybody know they left? ... J3Mrs 20:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

(These are the same questions Eric Corbett repeated - despite being given links to evidence - before being banned from the GGTF. Is J3Mrs an EC sock?)

MMAR · Unread post by **MMAR** » Tue Aug 25, 2015 8:47 pm

Whoever J33mrs is, she's a complete and total idiot. The full quote here (said on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force (T-H-L)), is informative.

I've not seen it either, quite the opposite but I'm sure that if it's said often enough some people will believe it. I'm not surprised the editor on the Buddhist article was annoyed, if you want to add information from another perspective, it's up to you to do it, not demand others do it. When male editors disagree with you it is not misogyny, nor is it incivility but unfortunately that's how it's characterised by editors with an agenda. I'm not in favour of groups of editors demanding special treatment or indeed editors attempting to push their political agenda. J3Mrs (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

For a start, nobody on that page has been "demanding special treatment" - this is just her inventing dragons in order to slay them. And the political "agenda" is, shock horror, doing something about the male dominated locker-room culture of Wikipedia. As for this "other perspective" she refers to, this was in reference to a complaint from a female user about a male editor who had expanded an article about "a prominent Buddhist religious movement" but in a way which "never mentions women at any point." So there you have it. In the opinion of these women who see no evil on Wikipedia, completely omitting women from articles is merely a different perspective, and in their view it the responsibility of the women who care about such things to correct that. Obviously, with only a small proportion of editors being female, the goal here is presumably to keep them so busy with such corrections, they'll have no time left to organise their political 'agenda'.

Elsewhere on the page, J33mrs tries to claim that someone using the phrase "super-traditional 'do what your husband tells you to do' types" to describe those female editors who are not on board with the GGTF goals is harassment. That's a fair point in of itself, if not a little overblown re. the specific use of the term 'harassment' in both Wikipedia and in the real world - but in this case, obvious troll is obvious. This is the same J33mrs who has no issue with painting all the editors who don't agree with her in terms that are, at a minimum, as equally offensive as that, if not more so.

Unsurprisingly, one of the regular griefers of the GGTF and a fully paid up member of Team Asshole, SagaciousPhil, was all over that like stink on shit. He had nothing to say about anything else going on at the page though, obviously. He'd only dropped by to ensure everyone there knew about this revelation there are now 2 female arbitrators on the panel of 15, up from just 1. These pricks (pun intended) will find literally any excuse to fuck with (pun intended) the GGTF, and none of the admins are in the least bit bothered. It's all just healthy criticism.....

Elsewhere on the page, another editor talks about how what many female editors will often see as harassment, male editors will simply see as normal conversation. Quite.

Malleus · Unread post by **Malleus** » Tue Aug 25, 2015 9:05 pm

Oblia wrote:Is J3Mrs an EC sock?)

No.

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Tue Aug 25, 2015 9:20 pm

Thats what a sock would say....

Malleus · Unread post by **Malleus** » Tue Aug 25, 2015 9:23 pm

Anroth wrote:Thats what a sock would say....

... or someone who's telling the truth.

Oblia · Unread post by **Oblia** » Tue Aug 25, 2015 11:12 pm

MMAR wrote:Unsurprisingly, one of the regular griefers of the GGTF and a fully paid up member of Team Asshole, SagaciousPhil, was all over that like stink on shit. He had nothing to say about anything else going on at the page though, obviously. He'd only dropped by to ensure everyone there knew about this revelation there are now 2 female arbitrators on the panel of 15, up from just 1. ...

Sagaciousphil claims to be a woman. (one diff) She is one of the women editors who "see no evil."