How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic

[Randy from Boise]

Lightbreather reminds me of my Queensland Heeler.

She cannot let a fucking thing go, ever.

It's annoying and exhausting and, eventually, everyone goes, "fuck it, keep your stick, you stupid dog."

I'm not defensive about this stuff. She, in particular, is just not worth the effort.

The full quote is more offensive than its parts... Are you trolling or just grasping?

It's actually a pretty fucking accurate description of MeMeMe's ongoing behavior, as part of GGTF, in the gun control articles, and especially during her ArbCom case — during which she exasperated even her closest allies such as Gorilla Warfare into crossing over to vote for the bye-bye boot.

Like I say, you're trolling, pretty clearly.

RfB

[Parabola]

Carrite, I hardly think you of all people should be accusing anyone else of barging into discussions and making them all about you, lets be real. There hasn't been a discussion you've thought didn't need your opinions.

[Randy from Boise]

Carrite, I hardly think you of all people should be accusing anyone else of barging into discussions and making them all about you, lets be real. There hasn't been a discussion you've thought didn't need your opinions.

Well put, ye of 76 posts.

You might want to link your WP account name here unless you want to be treated like an IP account on Wiki...

RfB

[greybeard]

May I request that everyone here take a step back and try to de-escalate this discussion, please? For my part, I apologize for what may have been a mis-reading of intent and/or an over-reaction. I think everyone has made their points, let's stop the backbiting.

[Parabola]

I'll make this point more diplomatically: you're never going to get your perfect victim. The point is that men are given infinitely more rope at wikipedia, and most likely here, than women. Lightbreathers and Carols get shown the door, but Eric gets blocked today and there's a rending of the veils over it. Assertive but argumentative men are rascals and incorrigible, but a woman with the same traits is a selfish bitch.

Having a dude come in and go "well, women dont have it worse than me!" isn't some grand revelation, it's just boring.

[Parabola]

And unsurprisingly, Blofeld's beating the same worn out drum (with a nice cymbal touch of "all the women on Wikipedia i know agree with me!!!") on Jimbo's talk despite the fact that everyone who deals with this abuse is telling him he's wrong.

And GorillaWarfare slams it out of the park. The wedding dress bit is particularly grody.

[Oblia]

Like I say, you're trolling, pretty clearly.

Before, you asked if I was trolling. Now, you have said that I am. Well, back at ya, Carrite (T-C-L). I know this game and you're clearly trolling.

[Vigilant]

Here's the one where she gets unhappy with my avatar.
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=6365&p=144513&hili ... or#p144513

Umm, did your post about her just previous to her response include the words: "Lightbreather reminds me of my Queensland Heeler" and "fuck it, keep your stick, you stupid dog"? What had she written to deserve those comments? Oh! Here it is!

So are you trolling or just sloppily tendentious with your out-of-context quotations?

Lightbreather reminds me of my Queensland Heeler.

She cannot let a fucking thing go, ever.

It's annoying and exhausting and, eventually, everyone goes, "fuck it, keep your stick, you stupid dog."

I'm not defensive about this stuff. She, in particular, is just not worth the effort.

RfB

Weird. It doesn't look like that to me.
I checked the original thread too.

[Oblia]

May I request that everyone here take a step back and try to de-escalate this discussion, please? For my part, I apologize for what may have been a mis-reading of intent and/or an over-reaction. I think everyone has made their points, let's stop the backbiting.

That is a wise and reasonable request. I'm leaving this topic for a while.

[Oblia]

I'll make this point more diplomatically: you're never going to get your perfect victim. The point is that men are given infinitely more rope at wikipedia, and most likely here, than women. Lightbreathers and Carols get shown the door, but Eric gets blocked today and there's a rending of the veils over it. Assertive but argumentative men are rascals and incorrigible, but a woman with the same traits is a selfish bitch.

Having a dude come in and go "well, women dont have it worse than me!" isn't some grand revelation, it's just boring.

[Vigilant]

I'll make this point more diplomatically: you're never going to get your perfect victim. The point is that men are given infinitely more rope at wikipedia, and most likely here, than women.

I went to look for banned/retired accounts here.

Banned

5 The Devil's Advocate Wed Jun 13, 2012 4:19 pm 1715 Banned
6 mac Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:21 pm 845 Banned
7 MMAR Sun Apr 26, 2015 6:54 am 735 Banned
8 Neotarf Sun Jul 14, 2013 8:09 pm 370 Banned
9 Marinka Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:57 pm 45 Banned
10 Soham321 Sun Sep 27, 2015 10:24 am 44 Banned
11 Quark's_lobe Thu Jan 22, 2015 10:28 am 18 Banned
12 Randomstuff207 w Sun Sep 20, 2015 12:37 pm 11 Banned
13 Linda_Shires Sat Mar 14, 2015 6:49 am 6 Banned
14 Doletryy Thu Aug 06, 2015 9:48 pm 3 Banned
15 NotImportant Wed Dec 17, 2014 7:28 am 1 Banned
16 guesxsxsxsx Mon Oct 12, 2015 9:47 pm 1 Banned

I think there are 3 women on that list.

Retired

28 DanMurphy Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:58 pm 2865 Retired
29 dogbiscuit Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:32 pm 2642 Retired
30 Triptych Wed Mar 13, 2013 4:35 pm 1910 Retired
31 Notvelty Fri Mar 23, 2012 3:51 am 1780 Retired
32 Malleus Thu Apr 26, 2012 6:48 am 1260 Retired
33 Abd Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:42 am 304 Retired
34 Willbeheard Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:49 pm 271 Retired
35 rd232 Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:46 pm 209 Retired
36 Lightbreather Mon Mar 02, 2015 4:00 pm 155 Retired
37 Sitush Thu Oct 23, 2014 3:12 pm 144 Retired
38 3 to 20 characters Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:00 pm 49 Retired
39 keemanan Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:50 pm 14 Retired
40 Deltahedron Sat May 17, 2014 10:53 pm 4 Retired

I count 1 in this list that I can confirm

[Cla68]

So far, as far as I could see, no one has brought up any incidents of us being unusually mean, unfair, or intolerant of a female participant here.

[greybeard]

So far, as far as I could see, no one has brought up any incidents of us being unusually mean, unfair, or intolerant of a female participant here.

I don't know that this is the accusation, or whatever. I think "awash in testosterone" has more to do with overall culture, manner of discourse, and general demeanour, rather than overt hostility. I'll start by saying that I'm likely as guilty of promoting that culture as anyone.

Whether we can be a more accommodating environment and still as effective in our criticism is another question.

[Randy from Boise]

So far, as far as I could see, no one has brought up any incidents of us being unusually mean, unfair, or intolerant of a female participant here.

I don't know that this is the accusation, or whatever. I think "awash in testosterone" has more to do with overall culture, manner of discourse, and general demeanour, rather than overt hostility. I'll start by saying that I'm likely as guilty of promoting that culture as anyone.

Whether we can be a more accommodating environment and still as effect in our criticism is another question.

The accusation that this site is "awash in testosterone" is no more than a sexist jibe by a slightly unhinged identity-politics warrior as far as I'm concerned.

Don't feed the trolls by accepting their premises or prescriptions...

RfB

[Zoloft]

This topic is awash in unintentional irony. Are we here at Wikipediocracy hewn from the same material as Wikipedia? Of course; most of us edit there, or were ejected from there.

Do we stoop so low as them in our treatment of women members? I hope not.

Open pledge: if any woman here is being harassed by any of our communication means (post, private message, email button), report it to me or SB_Johnny, by private message or email (support@wikipediocracy.com). We'll verify the offense and act immediately.

Note: We actually know the difference between harassment and whatever the hell Arbcom thought was happening.

[Zironic]

And unsurprisingly, Blofeld's beating the same worn out drum (with a nice cymbal touch of "all the women on Wikipedia i know agree with me!!!") on Jimbo's talk despite the fact that everyone who deals with this abuse is telling him he's wrong.

And GorillaWarfare slams it out of the park. The wedding dress bit is particularly grody.

Does it matter if women are equally or more harassed then men on wikipedia? I don't see how oppression olympics help anyone and the one thing that everyone seems to agree on is that Wikipedia is a damn hostile place. If that hostility is addressed it will make Wikipedia a better place for both women and men.

[milowent]

So far, as far as I could see, no one has brought up any incidents of us being unusually mean, unfair, or intolerant of a female participant here.

Do you mean on this forum? Or "here" generally including on Wikipedia? You started the fake proposal re lowering the % at RFA for self-declared females. I don't know that it was "unusually" intolerant by general wikipedia standards, but it was masterful trolling.

I'll make this point more diplomatically: you're never going to get your perfect victim. The point is that men are given infinitely more rope at wikipedia, and most likely here, than women. Lightbreathers and Carols get shown the door, but Eric gets blocked today and there's a rending of the veils over it. Assertive but argumentative men are rascals and incorrigible, but a woman with the same traits is a selfish bitch.

Having a dude come in and go "well, women dont have it worse than me!" isn't some grand revelation, it's just boring.

The idea that there needs to a Rosa Parks or Jackie Robinson to blaze a path is crazy. Lightbreather and Carol Moore can only be themselves, they might have gotten along better with others if they frankly told people to f*** off who bothered them, which is what Eric does, it created years of space for him to do what he wanted.

[Moral Hazard]

So far, as far as I could see, no one has brought up any incidents of us being unusually mean, unfair, or intolerant of a female participant here.

Do you mean on this forum? Or "here" generally including on Wikipedia? You started the fake proposal re lowering the % at RFA for self-declared females. I don't know that it was "unusually" intolerant by general wikipedia standards, but it was masterful trolling.

I'll make this point more diplomatically: you're never going to get your perfect victim. The point is that men are given infinitely more rope at wikipedia, and most likely here, than women. Lightbreathers and Carols get shown the door, but Eric gets blocked today and there's a rending of the veils over it. Assertive but argumentative men are rascals and incorrigible, but a woman with the same traits is a selfish bitch.

Having a dude come in and go "well, women dont have it worse than me!" isn't some grand revelation, it's just boring.

The idea that there needs to a Rosa Parks or Jackie Robinson to blaze a path is crazy. Lightbreather and Carol Moore can only be themselves, they might have gotten along better with others if they frankly told people to f*** off who bothered them, which is what Eric does, it created years of space for him to do what he wanted.

Cla68 was not trolling. His most frequent complaint is that science is male European and that Wikipedia should be more inclusive of popular beliefs, particularly those held by the colonized and women, e.g., homeopathy.
I would suggest that Wikia or a blog would be better for such beliefs than an encyclopeda, even a crowd sourced encyclopedia.

[Moral Hazard]

Young Swedish women on Facebook often get sexual propositions and dick pictures from around the world. One in three has been stalked, if my memory is correct.

In response, many choose more matronly profile pictures or only show their profile pictures to friends. Some change their FB gender-setting to male or anything but female.

What did GorillaWarfare expect would happen at Wikipedia, a place attracting only obsessives (especially activists and socially maladjusted losers), when she was posting her pictures?

I have trouble thinking of any woman who has sense who has posted a picture of herself on Wikipedia.

I wonder whether Arbcom-candidate Hahc21, who has returned, can comment on his experience posting pictures of a handsome dude (apparently half his age) on his page?

I am sorry about FN's nasty page at ED, as I am about Ironholds/Oliver Keyes's, which is even worse. Keyes is a male, and the sexual harassment of him there seems to be as bad as anything I have seen. (I won't bother seeing what happened to Lightbreather, for benchmarking.)

Wikipedia is not a safe space. Eric Cartman should not post pictures of himself there, thinking that he is looking "ripped", and expect compliments. Perhaps the WMF should hire Butters to filter Wikipedia emails?

[milowent]

What did GorillaWarfare expect would happen at Wikipedia, a place attracting only obsessives (especially activists and socially maladjusted losers), when she was posting her pictures?

I have trouble thinking of any woman who has sense who has posted a picture of herself on Wikipedia.

I guess I just don't like that world. Just like i didn't like the world where my grandmother called black people n******s with abandon, and no one said anything about it. What did those n*****rs expect, moving into her town?

Surely there is some way to improve the current situation. Some homeopathic remedy perhaps.

[Vigilant]

What did GorillaWarfare expect would happen at Wikipedia, a place attracting only obsessives (especially activists and socially maladjusted losers), when she was posting her pictures?

I have trouble thinking of any woman who has sense who has posted a picture of herself on Wikipedia.

I guess I just don't like that world. Just like i didn't like the world where my grandmother called black people n******s with abandon, and no one said anything about it. What did those n*****rs expect, moving into her town?

Surely there is some way to improve the current situation. Some homeopathic remedy perhaps.

I can now recommend high colonics for everyone!

[Randy from Boise]

What did GorillaWarfare expect would happen at Wikipedia, a place attracting only obsessives (especially activists and socially maladjusted losers), when she was posting her pictures?

I have trouble thinking of any woman who has sense who has posted a picture of herself on Wikipedia.

I guess I just don't like that world. Just like i didn't like the world where my grandmother called black people n******s with abandon, and no one said anything about it. What did those n*****rs expect, moving into her town?

Surely there is some way to improve the current situation. Some homeopathic remedy perhaps.

Oh, come now, you can't be advocating that we feed thin-skinned individuals a pixel from the letter S blended into two gallons of tapwater...

RfB

[Parabola]

What did GorillaWarfare expect would happen at Wikipedia, a place attracting only obsessives (especially activists and socially maladjusted losers), when she was posting her pictures?

I have trouble thinking of any woman who has sense who has posted a picture of herself on Wikipedia.

Yes, and did you see what she was wearing? She was practically asking for it.

[Ming]

The thing about the sexism on Wikipedia is that Eric Corbett is the kind of typical net jackass who calls all women who cross him "c**t", and who calls all men who cross him "d**k". It's OK for him to treat women badly because it's OK to treat everyone badly; the difference, Ming would hazard to guess, is that fewer women are willing to put up with that kind of treatment.

[JCM]

The thing about the sexism on Wikipedia is that Eric Corbett is the kind of typical net jackass who calls all women who cross him "c**t", and who calls all men who cross him "d**k". It's OK for him to treat women badly because it's OK to treat everyone badly; the difference, Ming would hazard to guess, is that fewer women are willing to put up with that kind of treatment.

I think that is a big part of it. Whether that is in part due to the fact that some women might perceive themselves as being more regularly subject to similar denigrating conduct off-wiki as well is probably a factor as well, or, alternately, whether males are just more regularly used to being called, "d**ks" by others, including maybe women in particular, and, I suppose, whether their content earns such description, is probably something that only sociologists can answer.

[Auggie]

Wikipedia is hostile, particularly to women.

I remember in the early days of Encyc we had a female administrator and she took quite a bit of abuse from trolls and vandals. As quickly as we would whack them down they would be back. Fortunately she was an experienced Wikipedia administrator and had already seen it all.

I have a lot of respect for women who take on leadership roles within Wikipedia.

[Parabola]

The thing about the sexism on Wikipedia is that Eric Corbett is the kind of typical net jackass who calls all women who cross him "c**t", and who calls all men who cross him "d**k". It's OK for him to treat women badly because it's OK to treat everyone badly; the difference, Ming would hazard to guess, is that fewer women are willing to put up with that kind of treatment.

I think that is a big part of it. Whether that is in part due to the fact that some women might perceive themselves as being more regularly subject to similar denigrating conduct off-wiki as well is probably a factor as well, or, alternately, whether males are just more regularly used to being called, "d**ks" by others, including maybe women in particular, and, I suppose, whether their content earns such description, is probably something that only sociologists can answer.

Or maybe all the women who are telling you it's a problem can answer the question? Like, y'all are scribbling all over the walls to try and figure out beautiful mind-style how this is definitely a problem for men too, but maybe just maybe theres an occams razor to cut that gordian knot, and it's just called listening.

[Moral Hazard]

The thing about the sexism on Wikipedia is that Eric Corbett is the kind of typical net jackass who calls all women who cross him "c**t", and who calls all men who cross him "d**k". It's OK for him to treat women badly because it's OK to treat everyone badly; the difference, Ming would hazard to guess, is that fewer women are willing to put up with that kind of treatment.

Uncharacteristically, Ming made mistakes with quantification: "All"?

Eric called Jimbo Wales a dishonest cunt. He made his "If you don't want to be called a cunt" remark to Lightbreather, whose name is androgynous, at their first meeting (according to Lightbreather). I have had disagreements with Eric, and I have never been called a dick or cunt by him, obviously. Women like Sandy G, etc., have have had disagreements with Eric....

[Poetlister]

The point is that men are given infinitely more rope at wikipedia ... than women.

I have one word: SlimVirgin.

[Liz99]

Banned

5 The Devil's Advocate Wed Jun 13, 2012 4:19 pm 1715 Banned
6 mac Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:21 pm 845 Banned
7 MMAR Sun Apr 26, 2015 6:54 am 735 Banned
8 Neotarf Sun Jul 14, 2013 8:09 pm 370 Banned
9 Marinka Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:57 pm 45 Banned
10 Soham321 Sun Sep 27, 2015 10:24 am 44 Banned
11 Quark's_lobe Thu Jan 22, 2015 10:28 am 18 Banned
12 Randomstuff207 w Sun Sep 20, 2015 12:37 pm 11 Banned
13 Linda_Shires Sat Mar 14, 2015 6:49 am 6 Banned
14 Doletryy Thu Aug 06, 2015 9:48 pm 3 Banned
15 NotImportant Wed Dec 17, 2014 7:28 am 1 Banned
16 guesxsxsxsx Mon Oct 12, 2015 9:47 pm 1 Banned

I think there are 3 women on that list.

Retired

28 DanMurphy Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:58 pm 2865 Retired
29 dogbiscuit Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:32 pm 2642 Retired
30 Triptych Wed Mar 13, 2013 4:35 pm 1910 Retired
31 Notvelty Fri Mar 23, 2012 3:51 am 1780 Retired
32 Malleus Thu Apr 26, 2012 6:48 am 1260 Retired
33 Abd Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:42 am 304 Retired
34 Willbeheard Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:49 pm 271 Retired
35 rd232 Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:46 pm 209 Retired
36 Lightbreather Mon Mar 02, 2015 4:00 pm 155 Retired
37 Sitush Thu Oct 23, 2014 3:12 pm 144 Retired
38 3 to 20 characters Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:00 pm 49 Retired
39 keemanan Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:50 pm 14 Retired
40 Deltahedron Sat May 17, 2014 10:53 pm 4 Retired

I count 1 in this list that I can confirm

The Devil's Advocate isn't banned, he just posted here a few weeks ago. I remember because we are frequently at odds with each other. And I believe Lightbreather was posting over the summer. I don't think these dates are correct.

Are retirements all by choice?

[Moral Hazard]

What did GorillaWarfare expect would happen at Wikipedia, a place attracting only obsessives (especially activists and socially maladjusted losers), when she was posting her pictures?

I have trouble thinking of any woman who has sense who has posted a picture of herself on Wikipedia.

Yes, and did you see what she was wearing? She was practically asking for it.

Please re-read what I wrote again, particularly when I noted that many Swedish women take action to reduce their receipt of propositions and pictures from strange men.

Perhaps the surprising popular confusion of Switzerland and Sweden causes trouble also for the Swiss?

[Parabola]

Yes, women often take steps to lower their profile to avoid harassment. They don't need dudes to tell them to do it, because they're socialized for it already because of the harassment!

When you see a factoid like that, your instinct should never be to say "I need to tell other women about this!". If they wanted to lower their profile, no shit they could. The point is the culture that makes that harassment normalized and "Well its just gonna happen!"

Gendered harassment isn't an act of God, nor a force of nature. The victims of this know that they can choose to become invisible and avoid harassment, and the fact that you're encouraging that instead of accepting that we need to make it possible for them to have the same visibility as men is bullshit.

[Moral Hazard]

What did GorillaWarfare expect would happen at Wikipedia, a place attracting only obsessives (especially activists and socially maladjusted losers), when she was posting her pictures?

I have trouble thinking of any woman who has sense who has posted a picture of herself on Wikipedia.

I guess I just don't like that world. Just like i didn't like the world where my grandmother called black people n******s with abandon, and no one said anything about it. What did those n*****rs expect, moving into her town?

Surely there is some way to improve the current situation. Some homeopathic remedy perhaps.

Zoloft can vouch that I have quickly requested that comments about GorillaWarfare, etc., be removed, at different times.

So others should emulate me in making Wikipediocracy/ Wikipedia/ The World safe spaces for women, furries, persons with intellectual disabilities, etc.

Vigilant's inspiration:

The Caravan of Love

One by one we're gonna stand up with pride
Warm the carpet tonight, stand up, stand up
From the highest mountain, valley low
We'll join together, with hearts of gold

Now the children of the world can see
There's a better place for us to be
The place in which we were born
So neglected and torn apart

Every woman, every man
Join the caravan of love
Stand up, stand up, stand up
Everybody take a stand
Join the caravan of love
Stand up, stand up, stand up

I'm your brother
I'm your brother, don't you know
She's my sister
She's my sister, don't you know

We'll be living in a world of peace
On the day when everyone is free
We'll bring the young and the old
Won't you let your love flow, from your heart?

Every woman, every man
Join the caravan of love
Stand up, stand up, stand up
Everybody take a stand
Join the caravan of love
Stand up, stand up, stand up

I'm your brother
I'm your brother, don't you know
She's my sister
She's my sister, don't you know

So are you ready?
Are you ready?
Are you ready?
Are you ready?

You'd better get ready
You'd better get ready
You'd better get ready
You'd better get ready

[Moral Hazard]

Yes, women often take steps to lower their profile to avoid harassment. They don't need dudes to tell them to do it, because they're socialized for it already because of the harassment!

When you see a factoid like that, your instinct should never be to say "I need to tell other women about this!". If they wanted to lower their profile, no shit they could. The point is the culture that makes that harassment normalized and "Well its just gonna happen!"

Gendered harassment isn't an act of God, nor a force of nature. The victims of this know that they can choose to become invisible and avoid harassment, and the fact that you're encouraging that instead of accepting that we need to make it possible for them to have the same visibility as men is bullshit.

On Wikipedia, GW already wrote that her action caused a spike in unwanted communications. (I don't believe she said that her action was the only cause.)

Do you think friends were wrong to tell me to avoid specific subway platforms at night? Were they normalizing violence and criminality?

On the contrary, they thought that I should take responsibility for my own safety, and avoid risky behavior.... Crime-rates and muggings were not reduced by posing children lecturing adults that dealing with reality "normalized" criminality....

[Parabola]

Alright, Raylan, I'll dip a toe into ye olde crime metaphor for a just a second, as a favor to you:

When we talk about crime, do we build tunnels underneath these neighborhoods, or do we address crime prevention through public measures and policy changes? Do we hand out disguises on the fringes of "bad neighborhoods" or do we figure out how to make places safer?

I'm saying that women dont NEED you to tell them that somewhere is dangerous. They KNOW that being open about being a woman on wikipedia will attract unwanted attention, but when they DO it, you shouldn't be admonishing them, you should be supporting them!

[Moral Hazard]

Alright, Raylan, I'll dip a toe into ye olde crime metaphor for a just a second, as a favor to you:

When we talk about crime, do we build tunnels underneath these neighborhoods, or do we address crime prevention through public measures and policy changes? Do we hand out disguises on the fringes of "bad neighborhoods" or do we figure out how to make places safer?

I'm saying that women dont NEED you to tell them that somewhere is dangerous. They KNOW that being open about being a woman on wikipedia will attract unwanted attention, but when they DO it, you shouldn't be admonishing them, you should be supporting them!

Why would any editors put pictures of themselves on the top of their homepages?

Arbcom and an encyclopedia differ from high-school popularity contests or community theater, in that acting out drama is not their purpose.

Wnt (T-C-L) is already supporting editors who want to share pictures of themselves, as Vigilant already noted.

[Parabola]

Well you're definitely emulating that Givens temper, alright. Didn't know this was the roleplay subforum.

But if you're not down to discuss, your loss. I'll be waiting for your response! Anyone else have anything to add?

[Jimbo Jambo]

But if you're not down to discuss, your loss. I'll be waiting for your response! Anyone else have anything to add?

You have two groups: blatant harassers (GW's examples) and editors who could be more friendly.

The 2nd group doesn't need fixing. No one's obligated to be friendly. If that hurts your feelings, too bad, grow up.

The 1st group is obviously a problem - and they're banned when they're caught. That's as good as anyone can do. If you have a better solution, suggest it. Their likely is no better solution, short of eliminating anonymity and killing the project, but that's not an improvement.

What you all seem to do is point to the 1st group and say "see! we need to fix the 2nd!" - no. Eric Corbett will never ask GW to marry him or talk about her breast milk. One group has nothing to do with the other and if you want people to take your concerns seriously stop pretending they are.

Relevant

[Parabola]

But if you're not down to discuss, your loss. I'll be waiting for your response! Anyone else have anything to add?

You have two groups: blatant harassers (GW's examples) and editors who could be more friendly.

No, we have a civilization. Six billion people on Earth, roughly half of those on the internet, a much much smaller chunk on wikipedia, and they run the gamut of opinions and ideals. Trying to sort everyone into "bad people!!!" and "mean people but cool" is uselessly reductionist, and everything after this line is trying to deal with this easy to solve false dichotomy you've created instead of trying to grapple with a much more complex reality.

Take for example Kiefer! I don't think he's a bad guy at all! We disagree on this, and I think he stomped out right as we were getting somewhere, but I don't think for a moment he's out there harassing women. I think his approach in this facet of the issue is misguided, and I think thats a problem, is all. Lots of things are problems, of all vary severity. Sometimes I think something is a problem but whatever, fuck it, let it ride. Sometimes I think it's worth saying something. Sometimes I'd support stronger measures depending on the venue. The point is that every situation is unique.

Lots of people have opinions that are regressive. Some of them are still net positives to the discourse, possibly. This is why we discuss.

[Moral Hazard]

But if you're not down to discuss, your loss. I'll be waiting for your response! Anyone else have anything to add?

You have two groups: blatant harassers (GW's examples) and editors who could be more friendly.

No, we have a civilization. Six billion people on Earth, roughly half of those on the internet, a much much smaller chunk on wikipedia, and they run the gamut of opinions and ideals. Trying to sort everyone into "bad people!!!" and "mean people but cool" is uselessly reductionist, and everything after this line is trying to deal with this easy to solve false dichotomy you've created instead of trying to grapple with a much more complex reality.

Take for example Kiefer! I don't think he's a bad guy at all! We disagree on this, and I think he stomped out right as we were getting somewhere, but I don't think for a moment he's out there harassing women. I think his approach in this facet of the issue is misguided, and I think thats a problem, is all. Lots of things are problems, of all vary severity. Sometimes I think something is a problem but whatever, fuck it, let it ride. Sometimes I think it's worth saying something. Sometimes I'd support stronger measures depending on the venue. The point is that every situation is unique.

Lots of people have opinions that are regressive. Some of them are still net positives to the discourse, possibly. This is why we discuss.

I don't waste my time with stupid dishonest people.
What is your user name on Wikipedia?

[Jimbo Jambo]

But if you're not down to discuss, your loss. I'll be waiting for your response! Anyone else have anything to add?

You have two groups: blatant harassers (GW's examples) and editors who could be more friendly.

No, we have a civilization. Six billion people on Earth, roughly half of those on the internet, a much much smaller chunk on wikipedia, and they run the gamut of opinions and ideals. Trying to sort everyone into "bad people!!!" and "mean people but cool" is uselessly reductionist, and everything after this line is trying to deal with this easy to solve false dichotomy you've created instead of trying to grapple with a much more complex reality.

Take for example Kiefer! I don't think he's a bad guy at all! We disagree on this, and I think he stomped out right as we were getting somewhere, but I don't think for a moment he's out there harassing women. I think his approach in this facet of the issue is misguided, and I think thats a problem, is all. Lots of things are problems, of all vary severity. Sometimes I think something is a problem but whatever, fuck it, let it ride. Sometimes I think it's worth saying something. Sometimes I'd support stronger measures depending on the venue. The point is that every situation is unique.

Lots of people have opinions that are regressive. Some of them are still net positives to the discourse, possibly. This is why we discuss.

I'm not sorting people, I'm classifying behaviors - either allowed or disallowed.

Without that, if you lump all bad behavior into one group of varying severity, you're left with solving the problem of evil, which is not within wikipedia's purview.

[greybeard]

What is your user name on Wikipedia?

This is off-topic, but here goes: I don't like this tactic when applied by Wikipedians, and I don't like it when it's applied against them either. If someone wanted you to know that, they have ample opportunity to disclose it. If it's a passive-aggressive way of saying "You have a hidden agenda", then I'd prefer you just come right out and say that.

[Moral Hazard]

What is your user name on Wikipedia?

This is off-topic, but here goes: I don't like this tactic when applied by Wikipedians, and I don't like it when it's applied against them either. If someone wanted you to know that, they have ample opportunity to disclose it. If it's a passive-aggressive way of saying "You have a hidden agenda", then I'd prefer you just come right out and say that.

How is "I don't wast time on stupid dishonest people" passive aggressive or not saying "You have a hidden agenda"?

[Parabola]

What exactly do you think I'm hiding?

[greybeard]

What is your user name on Wikipedia?

This is off-topic, but here goes: I don't like this tactic when applied by Wikipedians, and I don't like it when it's applied against them either. If someone wanted you to know that, they have ample opportunity to disclose it. If it's a passive-aggressive way of saying "You have a hidden agenda", then I'd prefer you just come right out and say that.

How is "I don't wast time on stupid dishonest people" passive aggressive or not saying "You have a hidden agenda"?

As is completely evident from what you quoted, that's not what I said and not what I meant.

[Zoloft]

I'll be in and out this evening, and if people are loud, that's fine. If people are attacking each other or acting like they need to drop all their masks to participate, that's not OK.

Mind you, a lot of us here are known people, and it increases your credibility, but we don't demand that.

If I have to hand out a few short vacations from this forum, I will.

Nicen up. I don't see anyone actively evil here.

[Vigilant]

Reality

Love the new avatar

[Moral Hazard]

Reality

Love the new avatar

Thanks.
Posterity may appreciate a permanent image of Reality:

Reality disturbs "safe spaces".Reality crashes a dinner.

[Oblia]

Snidely Whiplash (T-H-L) as "Reality":

Reality schmeality.

[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.

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