How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic

[Vigilant]

Someone needs to say this: the Gender Gap Task Force loony fringe feeding stories like this Atlantic piece to the mainstream media — as they clearly did — are the ones fueling a "hostile environment" on WP. They're running a self-interested PR campaign and it attracts bad actors to the scene.

They've got no interest in actually scientifically analyzing and working to fix the gender gap at Wikipedia. For them its all about socializing with like minded others, maybe getting a little snort of WMF cash from time to time, and whiling away the hours — feeling self-righteous all the while.

A timeless quote from a person in the news...

"...On the woman issue, the WMF's approach does more harm than good. their research on the percentage of female editors is fatally flawed, and they have used those bogus numbers to negate the existence of those of us who are female editors, to condescend, and to divide the community. Seeing pop-up ads inviting people to apply for grants to fix the problem that I don't exist alienates me. Being told in a blog post by the past head of the WMF that half a dozen of her friends know better than me about what turns off women from editing Wikipedia—about the fact the lady assumes I don't exist—alienates me. (Most of these turn-offs don't matter to me at all, by the way.) The constant advertising of editathons on women's issues, for women, is divisive. The demonizing of editors who dare to question the statistics while being male-identified is divisive and counterproductive ... as well as condescending. I left the Gender Gap Task Force alone because hey, each to her own, but it does not speak for me and the WMF's promotion of this political effort and lionization of those women who spend their time yacking there instead of actually writing the encyclopedia chaps my butt."

linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =650955377[/link]

RfB

This is spot on.
This is the very same dynamic going on with the GamerGate debacle as well.

[Jim]

"...On the woman issue, the WMF's approach does more harm than good. their research on the percentage of female editors is fatally flawed, and they have used those bogus numbers to negate the existence of those of us who are female editors, to condescend, and to divide the community. Seeing pop-up ads inviting people to apply for grants to fix the problem that I don't exist alienates me. Being told in a blog post by the past head of the WMF that half a dozen of her friends know better than me about what turns off women from editing Wikipedia—about the fact the lady assumes I don't exist—alienates me. (Most of these turn-offs don't matter to me at all, by the way.) The constant advertising of editathons on women's issues, for women, is divisive. The demonizing of editors who dare to question the statistics while being male-identified is divisive and counterproductive ... as well as condescending. I left the Gender Gap Task Force alone because hey, each to her own, but it does not speak for me and the WMF's promotion of this political effort and lionization of those women who spend their time yacking there instead of actually writing the encyclopedia chaps my butt."

There is an issue. Wikipedia could be more welcoming to women. Politicising, headlining and polarising is not the way to achieve anything but notoriety for the "politicians". In the process, it can alienate those it purports to serve, like this.

[Oblia]

"...On the woman issue, the WMF's approach does more harm than good. their research on the percentage of female editors is fatally flawed, and they have used those bogus numbers to negate the existence of those of us who are female editors, to condescend, and to divide the community. Seeing pop-up ads inviting people to apply for grants to fix the problem that I don't exist alienates me. Being told in a blog post by the past head of the WMF that half a dozen of her friends know better than me about what turns off women from editing Wikipedia—about the fact the lady assumes I don't exist—alienates me. (Most of these turn-offs don't matter to me at all, by the way.) The constant advertising of editathons on women's issues, for women, is divisive. The demonizing of editors who dare to question the statistics while being male-identified is divisive and counterproductive ... as well as condescending. I left the Gender Gap Task Force alone because hey, each to her own, but it does not speak for me and the WMF's promotion of this political effort and lionization of those women who spend their time yacking there instead of actually writing the encyclopedia chaps my butt."

OK, so now I'm to blame for all of the sexist problems on the site. Eric and myself are to blame for it all!

I have no comment on Eric. But, yes your attitude and those who share it are a major part of the problem here. That what you state above seems to be sarcasm rather than understanding is sad. That you do not understand that dismissing and trivializing genuine harm contributes to the environment that allows that harm, and worse, is sad. That you would rather argue against the existence of a problem rather than helping address the issue by, at a minimum, simply stopping talking is, well, more than sad, it is abusive. I know Wikipedia culture frowns on personal characterizations of behavior but what you have been doing on this thread is bigoted and abusive. You are re-victimizing victims by dismissing and trivializing their complaints. You have derailed a thread that could have been used to address the issue into polemic about whether harassment occurs and if it does then, well they should not have been so active. The debate has moved beyond whether there is a problem - recognize that - the question is how can Wikipedia address the problem in its own space. My firm opinion is one step is to not accept any editor denying that there is a problem. Call them on their bullshit and tell them to stop it. So... stop it.

Link

[Jim]

Blofeld was an ass, and rightly called out for it. He was obviously embarrassed - he edited his comments in a panic, to attempt not to look so bad. That failed. Certainly behaviour like that is unacceptable and should be stamped on, whenever and wherever it occurs. It happens too often, and needs dealing with.

This is unrelated to the point Yngvadottir makes.

[Randy from Boise]

Someone needs to say this: the Gender Gap Task Force loony fringe feeding stories like this Atlantic piece to the mainstream media — as they clearly did — are the ones fueling a "hostile environment" on WP. They're running a self-interested PR campaign and it attracts bad actors to the scene.

They've got no interest in actually scientifically analyzing and working to fix the gender gap at Wikipedia. For them its all about socializing with like minded others, maybe getting a little snort of WMF cash from time to time, and whiling away the hours — feeling self-righteous all the while.
RfB

This is spot on.
This is the very same dynamic going on with the GamerGate debacle as well.

I was thinking about that today. The dynamic is exactly the same and I suspect there are some people playing both MMORPGs at the same time... (Hi, Mark Bernstein, how ya doin'?!?...)

RfB

[Textnyymi]

Decades ago, when I joined my first feminist group at Uni, I recall we used to say that we will not have equality before females are allowed to be as stupid as men.

Would you support having female page-moving vandals and having female editors who threaten to chop off various anatomical parts of male editors?

[Midsize Jake]

Would you support having female page-moving vandals and having female editors who threaten to chop off various anatomical parts of male editors?

The sooner the better! How is this even a question?

[Oblia]

Blofeld was an ass, and rightly called out for it. He was obviously embarrassed - he edited his comments in a panic, to attempt not to look so bad. That failed. Certainly behaviour like that is unacceptable and should be stamped on, whenever and wherever it occurs. It happens too often, and needs dealing with.

This is unrelated to the point Yngvadottir makes.

Jbhunley's comment wasn't just about Blofeld, and it was absolutely related to Yngvadottir's comment.

[Jim]

and it was absolutely related to Yngvadottir's comment.

How?

Yngvadottir is saying that the WMF and GGTF do more harm than good by researching poorly, over-politicising the issue and polarising the community, and that this can alienate and irritate ordinary female editors who don't wish to be told what is "best for them" by a couple of dozen loud, angry voices.

Jbhunley is saying that people who try to pretend there are no sexist issues on wikipedia, or sarcastically trivialise them, are wrong, disruptive, add to the problem and poison the atmosphere, and shouldn't be allowed to derail discussions aimed at examining the issue.

Both seem valid points of view to me.

They're related in the sense that they are both about the "gender issue", sure, but I don't see where the latter contradicts the former, and it seemed to me that was the intention in your post. Sorry if I misunderstood.

[JapaneseForeigner]

and it was absolutely related to Yngvadottir's comment.

How?

Yngvadottir is saying that the WMF and GGTF do more harm than good by researching poorly, over-politicising the issue and polarising the community, and that this can alienate and irritate ordinary female editors who don't wish to be told what is "best for them" by a couple of dozen loud, angry voices.

Jbhunley is saying that people who try to pretend there are no sexist issues on wikipedia, or sarcastically trivialise them, are wrong, disruptive, and shouldn't be allowed to derail discussions aimed at examining the issue.

Both seem valid points of view to me.

They're related in the sense that they are both about the "gender issue", sure, but I don't see where the latter contradicts the former, and it seemed to me that was the intention in your post. Sorry if I misunderstood.

I see parallels to this and some of the controversies surrounding real world rape etc. Yes its the rapist's fault, but the affectation that we can't give advice to not get drunk and walk alone at night because that's "blaming the victim" is stupidity. Rape and harassment (rl and online) are very real, and problems that need to be addressed. But some of the bullshit that comes out of the ivory towers is very counterproductive. (partially, because it lets people like point out how stupid the ideas are, which distracts from the real problem and real solutions)

[Oblia]

and it was absolutely related to Yngvadottir's comment.

How?

Yngvadottir is saying that the WMF and GGTF do more harm than good by researching poorly, over-politicising the issue and polarising the community, and that this can alienate and irritate ordinary female editors who don't wish to be told what is "best for them" by a couple of dozen loud, angry voices.

Jbhunley is saying that people who try to pretend there are no sexist issues on wikipedia, or sarcastically trivialise them, are wrong, disruptive, add to the problem and poison the atmosphere, and shouldn't be allowed to derail discussions aimed at examining the issue.

Both seem valid points of view to me.

They're related in the sense that they are both about the "gender issue", sure, but I don't see where the latter contradicts the former, and it seemed to me that was the intention in your post. Sorry if I misunderstood.

First of all, Yngvadottir's Goodbye statement was over 5,000 words and didn't contain a single link or diff to back-up her opinions. And Dr. Blofeld? Until his 500-word qualified apology this morning he'd already written 1,500+ words expressing his opinions about how women aren't harassed on Wikipedia and similar la-la-la-la-la claptrap. (Not including the words he deleted rather than strike, which is poor form according to WP talk page guidelines.)

Yngvadottir and Dr. Blofeld were both spewing the same unsupported messages: there is no gender-based harassment on Wikipedia; there is no sexism; I haven't seen it nor have colleagues whom I like mentioned it, so it doesn't exist; Sue Gardner and others have seen it and reported it, but what I've seen and heard is true and what they've seen and heard is all lies; take my word for it, but they need to provide (more) proof; I don't like their evidence... and so on.

If Yngvadottir and Blofeld were/are happy editing on WP just as it is, fine. No need to track them down and ask, "Why aren't you complaining?" However, if some were/are unhappy editing on WP there is no need to question their experiences and impede their attempts to improve the editing environment. Go about your business or STFU and listen.

[Oblia]

First of all, Yngvadottir's Goodbye statement was over 5,000 words and didn't contain a single link or diff to back-up her opinions. And Dr. Blofeld? Until his 500-word qualified apology this morning he'd already written 1,500+ words expressing his opinions about how women aren't harassed on Wikipedia and similar la-la-la-la-la claptrap. (Not including the words he deleted rather than strike, which is poor form according to WP talk page guidelines.)

Yngvadottir and Dr. Blofeld were both spewing the same unsupported messages: there is no gender-based harassment on Wikipedia; there is no sexism; I haven't seen it nor have colleagues whom I like mentioned it, so it doesn't exist; Sue Gardner and others have seen it and reported it, but what I've seen and heard is true and what they've seen and heard is all lies; take my word for it, but they need to provide (more) proof; I don't like their evidence... and so on.

If Yngvadottir and Blofeld were/are happy editing on WP just as it is, fine. No need to track them down and ask, "Why aren't you complaining?" However, if some were/are unhappy editing on WP there is no need to question their experiences and impede their attempts to improve the editing environment. Go about your business or STFU and listen.

In other words, Jbhunley's comment, "But, yes your attitude and those who share it are a major part of the problem here," applies to Y and B and all others who keep saying these things.

[Oblia]

I see parallels to this and some of the controversies surrounding real world rape etc. Yes its the rapist's fault, but the affectation that we can't give advice to not get drunk and walk alone at night because that's "blaming the victim" is stupidity. Rape and harassment (rl and online) are very real, and problems that need to be addressed. But some of the bullshit that comes out of the ivory towers is very counterproductive. (partially, because it lets people like point out how stupid the ideas are, which distracts from the real problem and real solutions)

First, Blofeld's comment wasn't about getting drunk and walking home alone at night. Blofeld's comment was about being an "enforcer" while female. He said, "I think it's because you're seen as a female aggressor you become an easy target for this sort of abuse."

Could you clarify, "partially, because it lets people like point out how stupid the ideas are"? Also, have you said these things on Wikipedia?

[Vigilant]

Bill Clinton, of all people, is trying to dome something substantive about the gender gap.
http://www.kbzk.com/story/30342253/bill ... appearance

"There has been a lot of talk about breaking the glass ceiling," Clinton said. "I am tired of the stranglehold that women have had on the job of presidential spouse."

[Poetlister]

Bill Clinton, of all people, is trying to dome something substantive about the gender gap.
http://www.kbzk.com/story/30342253/bill ... appearance

"There has been a lot of talk about breaking the glass ceiling," Clinton said. "I am tired of the stranglehold that women have had on the job of presidential spouse."

If his wife gets the job, does that mean that he becomes First Gentleman?

[Vigilant]

Bill Clinton, of all people, is trying to dome something substantive about the gender gap.
http://www.kbzk.com/story/30342253/bill ... appearance

"There has been a lot of talk about breaking the glass ceiling," Clinton said. "I am tired of the stranglehold that women have had on the job of presidential spouse."

If his wife gets the job, does that mean that he becomes First Gentleman?

It's not that uncommon anymore.

List_of_first_gentlemen_in_the_United_States (T-H-L)

[Poetlister]

It's not that uncommon anymore.

List_of_first_gentlemen_in_the_United_States (T-H-L)

Good to see the gender gap closing. The article's completely unreferenced, of course.

[thekohser]

It's not that uncommon anymore.

List_of_first_gentlemen_in_the_United_States (T-H-L)

Good to see the gender gap closing. The article's completely unreferenced, of course.

I hear people say that the cool thing about Wikipedia is that you can go to the references on each article to truly begin your research about a topic.

[JapaneseForeigner]

I see parallels to this and some of the controversies surrounding real world rape etc. Yes its the rapist's fault, but the affectation that we can't give advice to not get drunk and walk alone at night because that's "blaming the victim" is stupidity. Rape and harassment (rl and online) are very real, and problems that need to be addressed. But some of the bullshit that comes out of the ivory towers is very counterproductive. (partially, because it lets people like point out how stupid the ideas are, which distracts from the real problem and real solutions)

First, Blofeld's comment wasn't about getting drunk and walking home alone at night. Blofeld's comment was about being an "enforcer" while female. He said, "I think it's because you're seen as a female aggressor you become an easy target for this sort of abuse."

Could you clarify, "partially, because it lets people like point out how stupid the ideas are"? Also, have you said these things on Wikipedia?

I think I was a poor communicator on this one. I wasn't referring to Blofeld, but the GGTF. My point was that one can agree that there is a harassment or gender gap problem, but think that proposed solutions are crazy. Those crazy solutions then become cannon fodder for those such as Blofeld/EC/Giano/etc which shifts the focus away from the actual problem area.

For example, the Atlantic article mentioned LB's aborted women's only project, but brought up that there are similar proposals. I opposed LB's proposal, because I think a gender exclusive project is counterproductive (while I yet acknowledge that some men went to GGTF purely to stir the pot). I note that the "similar" proposals Atlantic mentions are not gender exclusive. (Though I would be interested to hear in what way they are different than the GGTF, other than having a different name/leadership)

Regarding "point out stupidity", I was referring more to real world stuff than wiki but saying that wiki antics reminded me of the real world situations.

such as places that have actual written contracts for sexual activity consent (which was amazingly predicted and parodied by a humor video years before it was proposed in the real world). See also "you have been accused of rape, you are guilty unless you can prove otherwise, and by the way you can't prove otherwise" standard being used on college campuses these days. "Solutions" like these cause more problems than they solve, and allow for distraction because you start fighting about the crazy idea and stop talking about the real problem

I have not had this meta discussion on wiki, because frankly its a dangerous area to go in , and not a primary focus of my interests. The current discussions both on wiki and here show ample examples of people on both sides of the debate willing to twist words completely out of context to raise strawmen or try and get people in trouble. WO is a much safer space to have this type of discussion.

[Jim]

My point was that one can agree that there is a harassment or gender gap problem, but think that proposed solutions are crazy. Those crazy solutions then become cannon fodder for those such as Blofeld/EC/Giano/etc which shifts the focus away from the actual problem area.

Ding! We have a winner.

[milowent]

Someone needs to say this: the Gender Gap Task Force loony fringe feeding stories like this Atlantic piece to the mainstream media — as they clearly did — are the ones fueling a "hostile environment" on WP. They're running a self-interested PR campaign and it attracts bad actors to the scene.

They've got no interest in actually scientifically analyzing and working to fix the gender gap at Wikipedia. For them its all about socializing with like minded others, maybe getting a little snort of WMF cash from time to time, and whiling away the hours — feeling self-righteous all the while.

The "loony fringe" only has power if the press will write about it, and they are interested in the "Wikipedia gender problem" because its an inherently a good story, i.e., one that draws in readers and gets lots of attention. (OMG! Wikipedia is the 21st century Mad Men!) ACORN, which was a fairly powerful group, got taken down by "reporting" much shoddier than the Atlantic. The "gender problem" could take down Wikipedia, theoretically. I don't see it happening because the ACORN and Planned Parenthood battles are ideological battles for power funded and supported by conservatives. liberals don't want to see Wikipedia taken down.

"For them its all about socializing with like minded others" - this is much of what happens on wikipedia. If Carol Moore and Lightbreather and others were just left alone at GGTF, instead of harassed by malcontents like Corbett, the atlantic story wouldn't exist.

[JapaneseForeigner]

The "loony fringe" only has power if the press will write about it, and they are interested in the "Wikipedia gender problem" because its an inherently a good story, i.e., one that draws in readers and gets lots of attention. (OMG! Wikipedia is the 21st century Mad Men!) ACORN, which was a fairly powerful group, got taken down by "reporting" much shoddier than the Atlantic. The "gender problem" could take down Wikipedia, theoretically. I don't see it happening because the ACORN and Planned Parenthood battles are ideological battles for power funded and supported by conservatives. liberals don't want to see Wikipedia taken down.

ACORN was powerful, but also had a fairly narrow band of support, and more importantly a narrow band of funding (virtually 100% federally funded). Topple one or two pegs and the whole thing collapses.

To my knowledge wikipedia does not suffer from such a centralized funding mechanism, already has a huge bank account that it could run on fairly indefinitely (especially if expenses were cut back to core operations), is run mostly by volunteers, and in the worst case scenario the actual content can be forked and live elsewhere.

[Oblia]

I see parallels to this and some of the controversies surrounding real world rape etc. Yes its the rapist's fault, but the affectation that we can't give advice to not get drunk and walk alone at night because that's "blaming the victim" is stupidity. Rape and harassment (rl and online) are very real, and problems that need to be addressed. But some of the bullshit that comes out of the ivory towers is very counterproductive. (partially, because it lets people like point out how stupid the ideas are, which distracts from the real problem and real solutions)

First, Blofeld's comment wasn't about getting drunk and walking home alone at night. Blofeld's comment was about being an "enforcer" while female. He said, "I think it's because you're seen as a female aggressor you become an easy target for this sort of abuse."

Could you clarify, "partially, because it lets people like point out how stupid the ideas are"? Also, have you said these things on Wikipedia?

I think I was a poor communicator on this one. I wasn't referring to Blofeld, but the GGTF. My point was that one can agree that there is a harassment or gender gap problem, but think that proposed solutions are crazy. Those crazy solutions then become cannon fodder for those such as Blofeld/EC/Giano/etc which shifts the focus away from the actual problem area.

For example, the Atlantic article mentioned LB's aborted women's only project, but brought up that there are similar proposals. I opposed LB's proposal, because I think a gender exclusive project is counterproductive (while I yet acknowledge that some men went to GGTF purely to stir the pot). I note that the "similar" proposals Atlantic mentions are not gender exclusive. (Though I would be interested to hear in what way they are different than the GGTF, other than having a different name/leadership)

Regarding "point out stupidity", I was referring more to real world stuff than wiki but saying that wiki antics reminded me of the real world situations.

such as places that have actual written contracts for sexual activity consent (which was amazingly predicted and parodied by a humor video years before it was proposed in the real world). See also "you have been accused of rape, you are guilty unless you can prove otherwise, and by the way you can't prove otherwise" standard being used on college campuses these days. "Solutions" like these cause more problems than they solve, and allow for distraction because you start fighting about the crazy idea and stop talking about the real problem

I have not had this meta discussion on wiki, because frankly its a dangerous area to go in , and not a primary focus of my interests. The current discussions both on wiki and here show ample examples of people on both sides of the debate willing to twist words completely out of context to raise strawmen or try and get people in trouble. WO is a much safer space to have this type of discussion.

Thanks for clarifying. And yes, discussing sexism on WP is dangerous.

[Oblia]

My point was that one can agree that there is a harassment or gender gap problem, but think that proposed solutions are crazy. Those crazy solutions then become cannon fodder for those such as Blofeld/EC/Giano/etc which shifts the focus away from the actual problem area.

Ding! We have a winner.

There have been very few proposed solutions, because people like Blofeld/EC/Giano/etc derail the discussions before they can get that far. Blofeld only days ago finally conceded that there is a problem. That's what's crazy. Which solutions have been proposed and which of these were "crazy"?

[Oblia]

Someone needs to say this: the Gender Gap Task Force loony fringe feeding stories like this Atlantic piece to the mainstream media — as they clearly did — are the ones fueling a "hostile environment" on WP. They're running a self-interested PR campaign and it attracts bad actors to the scene.

They've got no interest in actually scientifically analyzing and working to fix the gender gap at Wikipedia. For them its all about socializing with like minded others, maybe getting a little snort of WMF cash from time to time, and whiling away the hours — feeling self-righteous all the while.

The "loony fringe" only has power if the press will write about it, and they are interested in the "Wikipedia gender problem" because its an inherently a good story, i.e., one that draws in readers and gets lots of attention. (OMG! Wikipedia is the 21st century Mad Men!) ACORN, which was a fairly powerful group, got taken down by "reporting" much shoddier than the Atlantic. The "gender problem" could take down Wikipedia, theoretically. I don't see it happening because the ACORN and Planned Parenthood battles are ideological battles for power funded and supported by conservatives. liberals don't want to see Wikipedia taken down.

"For them its all about socializing with like minded others" - this is much of what happens on wikipedia. If Carol Moore and Lightbreather and others were just left alone at GGTF, instead of harassed by malcontents like Corbett, the atlantic story wouldn't exist.

I don't know if you're a man or a woman, but either way I want to give you a big kiss for that post.

[JapaneseForeigner]

There have been very few proposed solutions, because people like Blofeld/EC/Giano/etc derail the discussions before they can get that far. Blofeld only days ago finally conceded that there is a problem. That's what's crazy.

I absolutely agree that Blofeld's (and other's) denials that a problem even might exist was idiotic. Also their strawman arguments (intentionally?) conflating no women/some women/all women as the scope of the problem.

I'm also astonished by the level of wailing, rending of clothes, and other dramatic overtures that any hypothetical consequences toward eric bring. Likewise the soapboxing about how the real villain was Kiril.

As I said in my case statement, I would have given Eric a pass in this particular instance, as the article and thread were substantially about him. However, once applied it was a valid sanction (though one that he would have a good chance to appeal).

However, I would also have probably banned him previously as too disruptive, regardless of whose fault that disruption is. If he is the cause, then obviously there is cause for the ban. On the other end of the spectrum, sometimes a perfectly innocent victim is still too much of a catalyst of disruption, and the project will run better without. Similar logic has applied to others in the past (some of whom are banned)

[Randy from Boise]

However, I would also have probably banned him previously as too disruptive, regardless of whose fault that disruption is. If he is the cause, then obviously there is cause for the ban. On the other end of the spectrum, sometimes a perfectly innocent victim is still too much of a catalyst of disruption, and the project will run better without. Similar logic has applied to others in the past (some of whom are banned)

It seems 100% clear that the end result of the six week circus to come will be an indef ban of Eric Corbett by ArbCom. Oh, he'll be "free to appeal" in 12 months, per their normal bullshit boilerplate, but there basically will not be a legal path back for him any more than there is one for Kumioko. He'll either sock like hell or move to Simple English WP or both...

To your point: should he have been banned long ago as an example of the dreaded Net Negative to The Project? Arguably. He's a symbol of a bigger fight now, both to his supporters and his detractors.

RfB

[Konveyor Belt]

It seems 100% clear that the end result of the six week circus to come will be an indef ban of Eric Corbett by ArbCom. Oh, he'll be "free to appeal" in 12 months, per their normal bullshit boilerplate, but there basically will not be a legal path back for him any more than there is one for Kumioko.
RfB

I'd say this path is probably not the one going to be taken here. In typical ArbCom fashion they'll either bring the hammer down on everyone and anyone, or just not do anything.

[Oblia]

My point was that one can agree that there is a harassment or gender gap problem, but think that proposed solutions are crazy. Those crazy solutions then become cannon fodder for those such as Blofeld/EC/Giano/etc which shifts the focus away from the actual problem area.

There have been very few proposed solutions, because people like Blofeld/EC/Giano/etc derail the discussions before they can get that far. Blofeld only days ago finally conceded that there is a problem. That's what's crazy. Which solutions have been proposed and which of these were "crazy"?

I absolutely agree that Blofeld's (and other's) denials that a problem even might exist was idiotic....

Thanks for elaborating but you missed the question. Which gender-gap solutions were seriously proposed and which of those were "crazy"?

[Oblia]

My point was that one can agree that there is a harassment or gender gap problem, but think that proposed solutions are crazy. Those crazy solutions then become cannon fodder for those such as Blofeld/EC/Giano/etc which shifts the focus away from the actual problem area.

There have been very few proposed solutions, because people like Blofeld/EC/Giano/etc derail the discussions before they can get that far. Blofeld only days ago finally conceded that there is a problem. That's what's crazy. Which solutions have been proposed and which of these were "crazy"?

I absolutely agree that Blofeld's (and other's) denials that a problem even might exist was idiotic....

Thanks for elaborating but you missed the question. Which gender-gap solutions were seriously proposed and which of those were "crazy"?

Also, which gender-gap solutions would you support? Do you think there are any that people like Blofeld/EC/Giano/etc. would support?

[AnimuAvatar]

Thanks for elaborating but you missed the question. Which gender-gap solutions were seriously proposed and which of those were "crazy"?

I proposed a solution here. I don't know how to crosspost on a forum (it probably isn't >>>/n/157473), but here's a direct link. viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6975#p157473
Remove gender (and possibly more) from the equation. IDpolitics are a cancer. The longer it's allowed to exist on wikipedia, the worse it will get. People will become more entrenched in their opinions, continue fortifying their respective hugboxes on all sides of the debate, waste more time on stupidity, and basically solve nothing ever.

[Randy from Boise]

It seems 100% clear that the end result of the six week circus to come will be an indef ban of Eric Corbett by ArbCom. Oh, he'll be "free to appeal" in 12 months, per their normal bullshit boilerplate, but there basically will not be a legal path back for him any more than there is one for Kumioko.
RfB

I'd say this path is probably not the one going to be taken here. In typical ArbCom fashion they'll either bring the hammer down on everyone and anyone, or just not do anything.

If you read between the lines in the acceptance comments, they are definitely sharpening the executioner's axe for EC.

Why they couldn't do that by motion instead of through a full case is a bit of a mystery. Probably because the latest is such an obviously lame block by an antagonistic ex-Arb, with the collateral damage of taking out a self-identified female Administrator. They need the political cover that a full case would give...

The Friendly Spacers will probably go for Black Kite's tools also, but it's difficult to see how they can make that stick.

RfB

[Konveyor Belt]

Thanks for elaborating but you missed the question. Which gender-gap solutions were seriously proposed and which of those were "crazy"?

I proposed a solution here. I don't know how to crosspost on a forum (it probably isn't >>>/n/157473), but here's a direct link. viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6975#p157473
Remove gender (and possibly more) from the equation. IDpolitics are a cancer. The longer it's allowed to exist on wikipedia, the worse it will get. People will become more entrenched in their opinions, continue fortifying their respective hugboxes on all sides of the debate, waste more time on stupidity, and basically solve nothing ever.

The underlying problem here is that there are people on Wikipedia who use their real name and those who are anonymous. The ones who disclose their real name are open to attack from those who do not, as anonymous users feel no irl repercussions from their actions. If all were anonymous, or all required to use real names, there would be no problem.

[Randy from Boise]

Gender Gap solutions:

1. The Gender Gap needs to be seriously studied by WMF. They are rich and this shit is not hard.
a. Cause every single new account pick a gender: Female / Male / Other / Decline to answer — track those numbers over time.
b. Scientifically sample or universally poll the top 50,000 contributors with a pop-up window, same options. A one question quiz. Record and preserve the results.
c. Unobtrusively do follow up study of the "Decline to Answers" to estimate proportion of each gender selecting this option.

2. It has been shown that Edit-a-thons do not create permanent active volunteers at WP. Stop throwing money down that rathole, which is nothing but a red flag in front of the anti-feminists at the local level.
a. Concentrate instead on generating content through women's studies departments, etc.

3. Key Item: start focusing content writers on Women's issues at regular intervals. If there is an unwritten bio that needs to be there, list it. Have four or five or six structured on-Wiki events per year open to all volunteers to contribute content on specific women's topic. Do a history of women's sports one week. Do women in medicine another. And so on. GGTF can gather, gather, gather redlinks throughout the year to be listed up for these events. Make it inclusive and make it fun.

4. Absolutely, positively no identity based on-wiki lists or spaces. That was positively the worst idea to come out of GGTF — LB's "No Boyz Allowed"™ clubhouse.

5. Create a mechanism for aggressive removal of anyone engaging in gender-based targeting. Obviously, this is highly problematic in an environment in which any IP can edit and any ass can create 100 accounts in a day, but that's a separate problem. The point is to take such complaints seriously and to deal with the offenders harshly.

All that would help move things forward, certainly.

RfB

[sparkzilla]

The Gender Gap problem cannot be fixed easily because it is a direct result of two things 1) the wiki software itself, which entrenches power into the existing users, who are overwhelmingly male and 2) the people at the very top of the project (Wales and Gardner particularly) don't understand the problem and exacerbate it through their own sexism. See my essay: The Sexists at the Top of Wikipedia.

Focusing on the individual personalities of editors is misguided. The wiki structure lets sexist and abusive behavior thrive, while giving those editors cover by letting them think the structure is open. That's why I like to say that Wikipedia editors discussing Gender Gap is like the lions round the watering hole wondering why the zebras aren't thirsty. They simply don't know that they are more powerful. They think everything is okay (because they have the power) and that anyone else (who doesn't have the power) is ridiculous to complain. Meanwhile the people who don't have the power are marginalized.

But it's important to note that the abusive editors are not really to blame -- it's the system that they work under that allows it to happen. The real people to blame are Wales, and especially Sue Gardner, who, despite proclaiming to be a feminist, did nothing over the years as Executive Director to fix the core issues. Meanwhile, Wales just milks his status, but has neither the power, nor the will to change the system.

As someone who runs a crowdsourced site that has had up to 80% female participation, solutions include (as noted above) anonymizing the usernames, creating a proper editorial hierarchy , implementing flagged revisions, and disallowing page "ownership". As this changes the nature of the wiki into something else it is unlikely that any of them will happen.

[Oblia]

They'll probably go for Black Kite's tools also, but it's difficult to see how they can make that stick.

Do you think Black Kite has taken his break just to avoid that possibility? Or do only editors whom you like to dis do that?

He says he'll "be back when this place reverts to being somewhere that an encylopedia is built."

[Randy from Boise]

The Friendly Spacers will probably go for Black Kite's tools also, but it's difficult to see how they can make that stick.

Do you think Black Kite has taken his break just to avoid that possibility? Or do only editors whom you like to dis do that?

He says he'll "be back when this place reverts to being somewhere that an encylopedia is built."

You'd have to ask him, I hadn't noticed he had taken a break. We'll just call that "The Lightbreather Maneuver" — and I will remind you how well that worked for her. Actually, come to think of it, she put up a RETIRED banner (but continued to give testimony anyway) and then took it down when the case was over. Bonus points for brazenness...

Any ArbCom worth its salt wouldn't allow such a "defense" — but we saw how well they handled SoCalHotrod, eh? So I wouldn't presume to say they are worth anything.

RfB

[JapaneseForeigner]

Also, which gender-gap solutions would you support? Do you think there are any that people like Blofeld/EC/Giano/etc. would support?

As for the b/ec/g crowd, I have no idea what they would support. Ask them.

Personally I think recruitment, starting at the editor level, and then mentoring to cultivate clerks, admins, arbs. Absolutely no changing of standards, but creating people who can fly through the processes.

Equal enforcement for harassment violations. The issue is not that the standard is here or there. All of the standards are defensible. In every individual instance one can make arguments that the behavior is or is not acceptable depending on where you choose to draw the line. The issue is that different groups get extra rope. This however is a double edged sword, behavior from the other side with twisting of words, personal attacks, and baiting also need to be dealt with.

However, to some degree I think the women need to get a thicker skin in some places. Everything crude is not harassment.

Feminism has two conflicting principles that it spouts out at need
1) There are no differences between men and women
2) The differences between men and women are places that men are wrong and need to change

Wikipedia should be open to people of both (all?) genders, but freedom from offense leads to Fahrenheit 451.

[Oblia]

The Friendly Spacers will probably go for Black Kite's tools also, but it's difficult to see how they can make that stick.

Do you think Black Kite has taken his break just to avoid that possibility? Or do only editors whom you like to dis do that?

He says he'll "be back when this place reverts to being somewhere that an encylopedia is built."

You'd have to ask him, I hadn't noticed he had taken a break. We'll just call that "The Lightbreather Maneuver" — and I will remind you how well that worked for her. Actually, come to think of it, she put up a RETIRED banner (but continued to give testimony anyway) and then took it down when the case was over. Bonus points for brazenness...

Any ArbCom worth its salt wouldn't allow such a "defense" — but we saw how well they handled SoCalHotrod, eh? So I wouldn't presume to say they are worth anything.

RfB

You must really hate her to repeatedly misrepresent her actions as you do. Here are her Post-retirement comments, halfway through the two-month case. Do you think you would have held up as well if 30 15 days into a 60 75-day case someone posted porn pictures at sex.com labeled "Wikipedia editor Carrite"?

[thekohser]

The Gender Gap problem cannot be fixed easily because it is a direct result of two things 1) the wiki software itself, which entrenches power into the existing users, who are overwhelmingly male and 2) the people at the very top of the project (Wales and Gardner particularly) don't understand the problem and exacerbate it through their own sexism.

I don't want to mess with your boilerplate too much, but you do know that Gardner hasn't been at the top of the project now for quite some time, right?

[Randy from Boise]

You must really hate her to repeatedly misrepresent her actions as you do. Here are her Post-retirement comments, halfway through the two-month case. Do you think you would have held up as well if 30 15 days into a 6075-day case someone posted porn pictures at sex.com labeled "Wikipedia editor Carrite"?

I don't misrepresent her actions, I tell the truth about them. Had she not ducked the GGTF case, there would have been no LB case.

I don't hate LB. I save that emotion for people who deserve it. She's a pain in the ass, nothing more, one of very many. I haven't followed any post-retirement comment that wasn't made by her to her cheering fans on WMF's Gender Gap-list, which I monitor regularly to better Mind the Gender Gap Task Force. I simply don't care.

I don't give LB a free pass from having been and continuing to be an identity politics warrior and enormous Net Negative to Wikipedia just because some malicious moron from California Google-bombed her with sexually harassing images. Those two things are quite independent of one another — but it comes as no shock that GGTF/GG-l/Friendly Space sorts would try to play that card...

I've said my piece on the abuse she suffered in multiple venues and helped with the diligence on this site to attempt to identify the culprit. I'll leave the diffs to you since you love them so much.

RfB

[Parabola]

You "don't care", but you "regularly monitor" their mailing list? What?

[Parabola]

Thanks for elaborating but you missed the question. Which gender-gap solutions were seriously proposed and which of those were "crazy"?

I proposed a solution here. I don't know how to crosspost on a forum (it probably isn't >>>/n/157473), but here's a direct link. viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6975#p157473
Remove gender (and possibly more) from the equation. IDpolitics are a cancer. The longer it's allowed to exist on wikipedia, the worse it will get. People will become more entrenched in their opinions, continue fortifying their respective hugboxes on all sides of the debate, waste more time on stupidity, and basically solve nothing ever.

This is essentially akin to saying "Everyone pretend to be men." Male is the default. A lot of the problems here come from an inability, or more likely a refusal, for the men involved to accept that other perspectives exist that they cannot know the entirety of, and that are wildly different from their own.

This idea is perfect in a vacuum, but unfortunately we as a species are too ingrained for it to be at all practical.

[sparkzilla]

I don't want to mess with your boilerplate too much, but you do know that Gardner hasn't been at the top of the project now for quite some time, right?

Yes, I know that. But she still speaks for Wikipedia (notably on the recent 60 Minutes article) and is indicative of the problem: that the people leading Wikipedia, including Jimmy Wales, either don't understand the core problem of the site (in which case they are incompetent), or that they do know it and ignore it, while professing to be feminists/supporters of open systems (in which case they have no credibility).

[Oblia]

You must really hate her to repeatedly misrepresent her actions as you do. Here are her Post-retirement comments, halfway through the two-month case. Do you think you would have held up as well if 30 15 days into a 6075-day case someone posted porn pictures at sex.com labeled "Wikipedia editor Carrite"?

I don't misrepresent her actions, I tell the truth about them. Had she not ducked the GGTF case, there would have been no LB case.

You aren't Nostradamus and you don't know the alternative-universe outcome of the GGTF case.

I don't hate LB. I save that emotion for people who deserve it. She's a pain in the ass, nothing more, one of very many. I haven't followed any post-retirement comment that wasn't made by her to her cheering fans on WMF's Gender Gap-list, which I monitor regularly to better Mind the Gender Gap Task Force. I simply don't care.

Don't be cute. You hate or despise her or somewhere along that continuum. You've made it part of your schtick to show up at any mention of her to shout your two cents. You're like a broken record.

I don't give LB a free pass from having been and continuing to be an identity politics warrior and enormous Net Negative to Wikipedia just because some malicious moron from California Google-bombed her with sexually harassing images. Those two things are quite independent of one another — but it comes as no shock that GGTF/GG-l/Friendly Space sorts would try to play that card...

"Identity politics warrior"? Ridiculous! Instead of seeing her as a woman who tried to be brave in the face of real harassment - gendered and otherwise - you present her as an "identity politics" boogeywoman.

I've said my piece on the abuse she suffered in multiple venues and helped with the diligence on this site to identify the culprit. I'll leave the diffs to you since you love them so much.

Oh, you've said your piece alright. LB was abused and when she complained about it you decided she's an "identity politics warrior." When EC brings abuse on himself - time after time after time - and complains about it, he is a victim. That's a double-standard, man. And don't get cute about the links, either. If you want to be taken seriously, think through your comments before you post them, and give links. Isn't that what we're supposed to do here on WO, so that it's better than WP?

[Moral Hazard]

The newbies are giving orders to the respected long-timers.
No wonder they did so well on Wikipedia.

[Parabola]

The newbies are giving orders to the respected long-timers.
No wonder they did so well on Wikipedia.

Do you need a safe space from the people who are attacking your tiny logical hooverville?

[Randy from Boise]

Obvious GGTF/GG-l/Friendly Space trolls are obvious.

Funny that neither one of them has mentioned linkviewtopic.php?f=6&t=6965&p=157591#p157555[/link]

Why?

They don't give a flying fuck about solving the Gender Gap. It's all Gamergate-style MMORP, baby!!!

RfB

[Randy from Boise]

You "don't care", but you "regularly monitor" their mailing list? What?

I don't care about her.

I do care about them.

Do you understand the difference?

I don't care about Ben Carson.

I do care about the Republican Party coming to power...

See?

RfB

[Oblia]

linkviewtopic.php?f=6&t=6965&p=157591#p157555[/link]

Your first, third, and fifth suggestions I agree with. The other two, I do not. But my questions were for Japanese Foreigner/Gaijin42.

They don't give a flying fuck about solving the Gender Gap.

That's a lie.