How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
- AnimuAvatar
- Critic
- Posts: 219
- kołdry
- Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 12:33 am
How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
>on a Wikipedia criticism board
ishygddt
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
- Midsize Jake
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9951
- Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
- Wikipedia Review Member: Somey
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
Wikipedians probably have some reason to hope that this story won't go much further up the MSM food chain than magazine sites like The Atlantic though, if only because Ms. Lightbreather is not willing to divulge her real name. The bigger the venue, the more they insist on that... Still, it's a black eye, and they had to know it was coming, but AFAIK their only counter so far has been a statement by one or two Arbcom members - which almost anyone reading a story like this will see as woefully inadequate.
- The Adversary
- Habitué
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:01 am
- Location: Troll country
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
"the administrator Eric Corbett"
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
Doesn't the Atlantic have a reputation for not taking strong political stances on issues, like the Christian Science Monitor? If so, that gives the article more credibility, because the publication isn't trying to use the article to push an agenda.Midsize Jake wrote:It took a few months, but Mr. Vigilant's prediction of July the 12th, which I immediately agreed with, is finally coming to fruition. (I just felt like I should point that out, since about half of our predictions don't seem to do that for some reason and it's terribly frustrating.)
Wikipedians probably have some reason to hope that this story won't go much further up the MSM food chain than magazine sites like The Atlantic though, if only because Ms. Lightbreather is not willing to divulge her real name. The bigger the venue, the more they insist on that... Still, it's a black eye, and they had to know it was coming, but AFAIK their only counter so far has been a statement by one or two Arbcom members - which almost anyone reading a story like this will see as woefully inadequate.
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
The Adversary wrote:"the administrator Eric Corbett"
Requests for adminship/Malleus FatuarumWannabe admin?
Captain Mandrake: Yes. (he begins to chuckle nervously)
Ripper: Are you beginning to understand?
Mandrake: Yes. (more laughter)
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
She needs to be careful on that front. If it gets too far up the MSM food chain, they'll out her regardless of how carefully she covered her tracks.Midsize Jake wrote:Wikipedians probably have some reason to hope that this story won't go much further up the MSM food chain than magazine sites like The Atlantic though, if only because Ms. Lightbreather is not willing to divulge her real name. The bigger the venue, the more they insist on that... Still, it's a black eye, and they had to know it was coming, but AFAIK their only counter so far has been a statement by one or two Arbcom members - which almost anyone reading a story like this will see as woefully inadequate.
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
She's saying that we all have long 4th fingers? That's the thing about the internet, you usually can't see people's hands and associated digit ratios, so it's hard to tell how much testosterone they're carrying around with them. Some of my women friends (as well as my wife) have 4th fingers that are longer than their index fingers, and yes they are, in general, more dominant, competitive, and athletic than the women (and men) I know with the opposite digit ratio. Could it be that most of us here have high 2D:4D ratios? Who would have known? If Lightbreather has a problem with the amount of testosterone present in WO, then there's not much we can do about that.greybeard wrote:Lest we pat ourselves on the back over this, note that on her blog, Ms. Lightbreather contemplates coming here to seek redress, then rejects that idea, stating that Wikipediocracy is "more testosterone fueled than Wikipedia". I'll state upfront that I did not follow the details of the case, but nonetheless, this is not a complaint we should take lightly.
However, if she believes our forum is dominated by sexism and intolerance, that's another matter and can be addressed.
-
- Critic
- Posts: 240
- Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:22 pm
- Wikipedia User: GorillaWarfare
- Actual Name: Molly White
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
My ring fingers are also quite a bit longer than my index fingers, but perhaps, just perhaps, that's not what Lightbreather was referring to.Cla68 wrote:She's saying that we all have long 4th fingers?
- Randy from Boise
- Been Around Forever
- Posts: 12242
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
- Wikipedia User: Carrite
- Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
- Actual Name: Tim Davenport
- Nom de plume: T. Chandler
- Location: Boise, Idaho
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
Lightbreather is an identity politics professional victim at their most grating — that's the basic problem. She'll be back, just because it's all about ME ME ME ME and the attention has to come from somewhere...greybeard wrote:Lest we pat ourselves on the back over this, note that on her blog, Ms. Lightbreather contemplates coming here to seek redress, then rejects that idea, stating that Wikipediocracy is "more testosterone fueled than Wikipedia". I'll state upfront that I did not follow the details of the case, but nonetheless, this is not a complaint we should take lightly.
RfB
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
Well, without defending her specific articulation, the problem seems like a real one. Of course the reference to testosterone is a metaphorical one, rather than literal.Cla68 wrote:However, if she believes our forum is dominated by sexism and intolerance, that's another matter and can be addressed.
While that is as may be, I think you should consider the possibility that it is the "uppity" people who bring these problems to light. The criticism that she is self-involved may be at once true and also not relevant to the underlying criticism.Randy from Boise wrote:Lightbreather is an identity politics professional victim at their most grating — that's the basic problem. She'll be back, just because it's all about ME ME ME ME and the attention has to come from somewhere...
- Mrs Conclusion
- Contributor
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 3:03 am
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
More like , though I suppose it's nice she's found a venue where people aren't tired of listening to her.
- Randy from Boise
- Been Around Forever
- Posts: 12242
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
- Wikipedia User: Carrite
- Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
- Actual Name: Tim Davenport
- Nom de plume: T. Chandler
- Location: Boise, Idaho
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
I note that she wheels out her claim to fame, being recipient of the ill-mannered and illiterate Eric Corbett quote, for the 12th time to another new audience. LB sees herself as a veritable Rosa Parks of Wikipedia...greybeard wrote:Well, without defending her specific articulation, the problem seems like a real one. Of course the reference to testosterone is a metaphorical one, rather than literal.Cla68 wrote:However, if she believes our forum is dominated by sexism and intolerance, that's another matter and can be addressed.While that is as may be, I think you should consider the possibility that it is the "uppity" people who bring these problems to light. The criticism that she is self-involved may be at once true and also not relevant to the underlying criticism.Randy from Boise wrote:Lightbreather is an identity politics professional victim at their most grating — that's the basic problem. She'll be back, just because it's all about ME ME ME ME and the attention has to come from somewhere...
:barfbag:
RfB
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
Anyway, back on topic, do we really have a problem here with giving our self-identified female members a hard time?
- Randy from Boise
- Been Around Forever
- Posts: 12242
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
- Wikipedia User: Carrite
- Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
- Actual Name: Tim Davenport
- Nom de plume: T. Chandler
- Location: Boise, Idaho
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
ArbCom members get a hard time.Cla68 wrote:BTW, I wonder how many of our readers who weren't previously aware of the 2D:4D concept just checked-out their hands? Talking about that ratio is one of my favorite bar stranger conversation starters, as most people are fascinated to learn about it.
Anyway, back on topic, do we really have a problem here with giving our self-identified female members a hard time?
Wikipedians get a hard time.
People who drama quit and come running for the WPO entrance get a hard time.
TL;DR blather machines fighting personal vendettas get a hard time.
Gamergaters and Anti-Gamergaters get a hard time.
WMF employees get a hard time.
WMUK lackeys get a hard time.
Jimmy Wales gets a hard time.
Women do not get a hard time. Do not heed the crazy person...
RfB
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
That is an observably counter-factual and ludicrously wrong position, in general and on the Internet. What the fuck are you thinking? Women are demonstrably harassed online in ways they are not in real life, and even in real life woman are demonstrably disadvantaged in important ways. To deny that is tin-foil-hat territory.Randy from Boise wrote:Women do not get a hard time. Do not heed the crazy person...
- Randy from Boise
- Been Around Forever
- Posts: 12242
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
- Wikipedia User: Carrite
- Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
- Actual Name: Tim Davenport
- Nom de plume: T. Chandler
- Location: Boise, Idaho
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
You will note that my lines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 refer to Wikipediocracy — not "in general" or "on the internet."greybeard wrote:That is an observably counter-factual and ludicrously wrong position, in general and on the Internet. What the fuck are you thinking? Women are demonstrably harassed online in ways they are not in real life, and even in real life woman are demonstrably disadvantaged in important ways. To deny that is tin-foil-hat territory.Randy from Boise wrote:Women do not get a hard time. Do not heed the crazy person...
Therefore, logically, my line 9 also refers to Wikipediocracy — not "in general" or "on the internet."
I suggest greater effort to read closely and less effort to make poignant speeches.
RfB
- Moral Hazard
- Super Genius
- Posts: 3401
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 4:46 pm
- Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
- Nom de plume: Kiefer Wolfowitz
- Contact:
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
Please provide direct links to the original source, rather than links to a blog, e.g., of Lightbreather (T-C-L).
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a ... en/411619/
Emma Paling. How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women Oct 21, 2015 The Atlantic
The Atlantic's Paling has a hypothesis, which she illustrates. She never makes any attempt to suggest an alternative explanation or to put her hypothesis to a test.
For example
- There's no mention of the specific behaviors that got Lightbreather banned. There's no mention of the paid editing that got Sarah Stierch (T-H-L) dropped.
Sarah had funding for an intervention that apparently had no (positive) effect. She and Paling suggest that she was let go because of sexism rather than because it was a waste of money and because she had damaged the WMF by writing propaganda for money, engaging in a real conflict of interest.“The 25-percent thing became a joke for anybody who was actively working in the gender gap,” said Sarah Stierch, who spent a year on contract with the Wikimedia Foundation to make the site more friendly to women. During her tenure, she helped to create programs that would encourage women to participate, like the Teahouse, a space for new editors to ask questions and find mentors. In late 2014, she was told her contract would not be extended.
There's no mention that Eric is from Scotland and Northern England, and that he applies "cunt" androgynously, like calling Jimbo Wales (T-C-L)/ Jimmy Wales (T-H-L) "a dishonest cunt", which I believe is the only direct application of "cunt" he's made.
Charles Sanders Peirce wrote: If the settlement of opinion is the sole object of inquiry, and if belief is of the nature of a habit, why should we not attain the desired end by taking any answer to a question, which we may fancy, and constantly reiterating it to ourselves, dwelling on all which may conduce to that belief, and learning to turn with contempt and hatred from anything which might disturb it?
the instinctive dislike of an undecided state of mind, exaggerated into a vague dread of doubt, makes men cling spasmodically to the views they already take. The man feels that, if he only holds to his belief without wavering, it will be entirely satisfactory. Nor can it be denied that a steady and immovable faith yields great peace of mind.
Perhaps Paling attempts to think in another of her pieces?
Many editors on Wikipedia have suffered gender-based attacks.
Complaints that "administrators lack the balls" are often made, and have been made against myself and also against Eric Corbett (T-C-L)/ Malleus Fatuorum (T-C-L), for example, here: linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... scourse.22[/link]
Notice the Eric's critics, who claim to be feminists or otherwise opposed to sexism, still have not even responded to this sexist attack.
There was a discussion by administrators (including at least one sitting arbitrator) of "administrators having the balls to block an editor" (perhaps me), if my memory is correct. I suggested that
- (1) the phrase "having the balls" is sexist and
(2) "having the balls" was especially inappropriate to use with respect to an editor displaying the Livestrong (T-H-L)user-box for survivors of testicle cancer (T-H-L).
At that point, the "having the balls" comments increased dramatically. Finally, administrator Kaldari (T-C-L)responded to my email request, and told the mob to shut up. (This was one of several examples where WMF-employee Ryan Kaldari behaved honorably and courageously.) Soon afterwords, most of the participants apologized publicly or privately (or both). The incident seems to have been deleted from Wikipedia, but a search of my contributions at the time of my RfC/U should be able to find it.
From this incident, what conclusion should be drawn?
I concluded nothing new. As a normal adult or like an intelligent child, I had learned early that even nice people are prone to conformism and group think and build group solidarity by belittling a disempowered person (often an outsider).
I had later conflicts, e.g., with WTT (who worked with Demiurge1000 (T-C-L) to have me banned from Wikipedia), but I don't think I ever referred to his conduct in that incident, since it was a short-lived, gross aberration from his normal behavior.
It never occurred to me either to promote myself as a martyr of sexism or to pursue a blood-feud against anybody who (even after they were told that I'd had testicle cancer) deliberately and publicly joked about "having the balls". Eric has never obsessed against sexist attacks made against him.
Perhaps Lightbreather has different needs and interests...?
“Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.”
Neal Stephenson (T-H-L) Cryptonomicon
- Poetlister
- Genius
- Posts: 25599
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
- Nom de plume: Poetlister
- Location: London, living in a similar way
- Contact:
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
Lightbreather could be seen a slightly annoying, but my memory is that she got far harsher treatment than most much dumber editors get. E.g., User:Johnpacklambert was frantically creating woman-only categories in 2013 during the Amanda Filapacchi controversy (small bit of the drama), but he got little real ridicule. Meanwhile lady folks like Lightbreather and Carol Moore (who is a bit of a loon, but not that much by normal wikipedia standards) get banned.
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31786
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... e_to_Women
The majority can't seem to figure out if they want to protect Eric, lambast Lightbreather for being 'difficult' or get into another scrap with one of their nemeses who showed up on the stalk page.
Also, Wnt trying to get more naked pics on en.wp.
Good work, Wnt.Let's not forget that we can attack the fake-porn harassment from the far end. WMF should make a clear policy that it will not discriminate against any employee, volunteer, or editor based on whether he or she has appeared naked, whether in a fraud, "revenge porn", or legitimate erotica. By setting a standard that this is not a legitimate ground for discrimination, we can take away a bit of the power of people who try this kind of stunt anywhere, against any woman known or unknown, and move a little bit closer to the day when such harassment will never occur because people know it cannot be effective. Wnt (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
Women quit or are sent packing more often than men from Wikipedia. Why aren't there more women participating here on WO?Randy from Boise wrote:... Women do not get a hard time [on Wikipediocracy].
Who are you referring to as crazy?Randy from Boise wrote:... Do not heed the crazy person...
Captain Mandrake: Yes. (he begins to chuckle nervously)
Ripper: Are you beginning to understand?
Mandrake: Yes. (more laughter)
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31786
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
Do you really think that?Oblia wrote:Women quit or are sent packing more often than men from Wikipedia. Why aren't there more women participating here on WO?Randy from Boise wrote:... Women do not get a hard time [on Wikipediocracy].
I assume that the reason there are few women on WO is that there are proportionally fewer women on en.wp and those that are there tend to get in fewer prolonged dogfights on the dramah boards, on average, than the men.
- thekohser
- Majordomo
- Posts: 13410
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
- Wikipedia User: Thekohser
- Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
- Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
- Location: United States
- Contact:
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
Assuming you mean percentage-wise, do you have any credible statistic to back up that claim?Oblia wrote:Women quit or are sent packing more often than men from Wikipedia.
You can't possibly mean a raw count comparison, as that would be practically impossible.
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
I see that Cullen328 (T-C-L) has become a Lightbreather basher. I think many of the men who carry-on about LB either disliked that she said critical things about guns and porn on WP, or she showed them the error of their ways when they tried attacking her or something she said. Take for example this exchange between Cullen and LB. (I considered not copying it here, because it's long, but decided if discussion ensues, better to have it here to refer to.)Vigilant wrote:Some ongoing hand wringing on Jimbo's stalk page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... e_to_Women
The majority can't seem to figure out if they want to protect Eric, lambast Lightbreather for being 'difficult' or get into another scrap with one of their nemeses who showed up on the stalk page.
Cullen328 wrote:Doesn't the Bill of Rights of the Constitutution of the United States guarantee a right to "keep and bear arms", Lightbreather? And haven't the highest courts of the United States consistently interpreted that as an individual right? Everyone knows that the U.S. Constitution does not apply to other countries, but that certainly does not means that editors who understand and appreciate the Bill of Rights in the U.S. are incapable of editing articles about gun rights in other countries. I certainly hope that you do not oppose the Bill of Rights in the U.S. where it has applied for 225 years. Do you? 08:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Lightbreather wrote:I certainly hope that you do not oppose the Bill of Rights in the U.S. where it has applied for 225 years. I cannot believe that you're questioning my patriotism. I proudly helped my dad get his SAR membership. My oldest son was in the HHC, 1st Batallion of The Old Guard. He helped to honor many veterans buried at Arlington. He fired salutes at one of Bush's inaugurations. My heart still pounds to remember being at the National Mall on July 4, 2000, as those guns fired to the 1812 Overture. He later served in Iraq, was nearly blown up by an IED, and came home - to my home - with PTSD. I'll thank you to never again question my love of country and what my family has sacrificed for her.
As for your lecture on the Second Amendment: Yes, the highest court ruled - in a split decision - that it gives individuals a right to own arms. But even uber-conservative [U.S. Supreme Court Assoc. Justice Antonin] Scalia, in delivering the majority opinion, wrote:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those 'in common use at the time' finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
But you'll rarely find the Wikipedia pro-gun crowd cramming that into the lead of gun-related articles. If you went by the lead in the many articles they've loaded with their RKBA BS, you'd think every man, woman, and child in the U.S. has the right to roll down the street in a tank with a rifle in one hand and a pistol in the other. Further, in the first section of these articles' bodies, you'll find quotes by Aristotle, Cicero, and Locke making it sound like every human on the planet has the right - perhaps even the duty - to be armed to the teeth. They might even go so far as to say (or to hint) that God himself wants all his children to be packing.
So, to reiterate what I've said before. My father owns guns. My brothers and oldest son own guns. My grandfathers owned guns. I've been taught to handle guns myself. I support the Second... but I believe the minority had it right in Heller (as do many), and even if I didn't, the majority in that decision made it clear that "well regulated" still means something. And my work on Wikipedia, when it comes to gun related articles, is to make sure that 2A arguments are not given WP:UNDUE weight, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. Anyone who thinks I'm trying to do anything else should consider an appropriate DR process, or keep their opinions to themselves. 16:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
A common intimidation tactic with the American gun crowd is playing the Patriot card, which Cullen tried to do here.Cullen328 wrote:Thank you for your patriotism and I greatly appreciate your son's service. I feel no need for any formal dispute resolution, but reserve the option to express my view on any manner pertaining to this encyclopedia. By the way, I certainly do not maintain that Second Amendment rights are unlimited. As a matter of fact, I personally favor universal background checks and have not owned a gun for decades. 20:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Captain Mandrake: Yes. (he begins to chuckle nervously)
Ripper: Are you beginning to understand?
Mandrake: Yes. (more laughter)
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31786
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
I sympathized with Lightbreather's situation with the porn stuff and wanted to see Scalhotrod, who I didn't know from Adam prior to this, drawn and quartered for being a superdouche. BTW, fuck you ARBCOM and your weak sauce response to that stuff.Oblia wrote:I see that Cullen328 (T-C-L) has become a Lightbreather basher. I think many of the men who carry-on about LB either disliked that she said critical things about guns and porn on WP, or she showed them the error of their ways when they tried attacking her or something she said. Take for example this exchange between Cullen and LB. (I considered not copying it here, because it's long, but decided if discussion ensues, better to have it here to refer to.)Vigilant wrote:Some ongoing hand wringing on Jimbo's stalk page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... e_to_Women
The majority can't seem to figure out if they want to protect Eric, lambast Lightbreather for being 'difficult' or get into another scrap with one of their nemeses who showed up on the stalk page.
On the other hand, she was as annoying as Abd and Ottava Rima rolled into one with pat answers that everything, even including my avatar's armor (:boggle:), was related to gender.
It's not and she's got massive blinders on.
Disagree with her, however polite and cogent, and you're a nasty misogynist who's out to oppress all women due to your personal failure at the genetic level.
I quickly realized that trying to have a conversation with to her was truly a pointless exercise.
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
Vigilant wrote:Do you really think that?Oblia wrote:Women quit or are sent packing more often than men from Wikipedia. Why aren't there more women participating here on WO?
I assume that the reason there are few women on WO is that there are proportionally fewer women on en.wp and those that are there tend to get in fewer prolonged dogfights on the dramah boards, on average, than the men.
1. Consider what we know as a fact from the past year: Two ArbCom cases that ended up banning women for their "behavior" and keeping men despite their behavior.thekohser wrote:Assuming you mean percentage-wise, do you have any credible statistic to back up that claim?Oblia wrote:Women quit or are sent packing more often than men from Wikipedia.
You can't possibly mean a raw count comparison, as that would be practically impossible.
2. Think of what we've observed or maybe even how we've behaved as Wikipedians and WO-ans. (Assuming, probably unconsciously, that other editors are men and behaving as we would knowing that the other editors are men.)
3. Ponder this: WP:Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia’s Gender Imbalance. Here's a quote from page nine:
Lam et al wrote:H1a Gap-Exists and H3b F-Reverted-More indicate that females who become contributors stop editing Wikipedia sooner than males. Furthermore, both H3b F-Reverted-More and H3d F-Blocked-Less (reversed to F-Blocked-More!) suggest that females encounter more adversity in Wikipedia. Together, these data suggest that while females appear interested in becoming collaborators, they have more difficulty in making the transition for a variety of reasons.
Captain Mandrake: Yes. (he begins to chuckle nervously)
Ripper: Are you beginning to understand?
Mandrake: Yes. (more laughter)
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
Would you mind sharing a link to these conversations?Vigilant wrote:Disagree with her, however polite and cogent, and you're a nasty misogynist who's out to oppress all women due to your personal failure at the genetic level. I quickly realized that trying to have a conversation with to her was truly a pointless exercise.
Captain Mandrake: Yes. (he begins to chuckle nervously)
Ripper: Are you beginning to understand?
Mandrake: Yes. (more laughter)
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
I do mean percentage-wise, but that would effect numbers seeking asylum, to some degree, wouldn't it? Assuming Lam and the "Clubhouse" authors are on to something (that women quit/give up more) and keeping the math simple:thekohser wrote:Assuming you mean percentage-wise, do you have any credible statistic to back up that claim?Oblia wrote:Women quit or are sent packing more often than men from Wikipedia.
You can't possibly mean a raw count comparison, as that would be practically impossible.
Say you have 100,000 active editors, but 90,000 are men and 10,000 are women.
Say 1,000 editors a year are banned, but 50% of those are women. (So rather than 900 men and 100 women a year getting banned, it's 500 men and 500 women.)
Further, say 9,000 men and 1,000 women take up editing each year, but 1,000 new editors quit each year - and 50% of the quitters are women.
At the end of a year, shouldn't you have 1,000 men and 1,000 women who might potentially be WO allies?
Captain Mandrake: Yes. (he begins to chuckle nervously)
Ripper: Are you beginning to understand?
Mandrake: Yes. (more laughter)
- Moral Hazard
- Super Genius
- Posts: 3401
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 4:46 pm
- Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
- Nom de plume: Kiefer Wolfowitz
- Contact:
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
Why do people want to recruit women to edit Wikipedia?
Perhaps any gender gap, if it exists, should be celebrated as another example of women not being as stupid as men?
“Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.”
Neal Stephenson (T-H-L) Cryptonomicon
- thekohser
- Majordomo
- Posts: 13410
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
- Wikipedia User: Thekohser
- Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
- Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
- Location: United States
- Contact:
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
Well, that's something, I must admit. However, how many of the users identified by that study as "female" do you think were actually operated by males? Maybe Poetlister could weigh in on this.Oblia wrote:3. Ponder this: WP:Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia’s Gender Imbalance.
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
Women are more likely then men to disengage when they encounter hostility. Joining Wikipediocracy isn't exactly disengaging.Oblia wrote:I do mean percentage-wise, but that would effect numbers seeking asylum, to some degree, wouldn't it? Assuming Lam and the "Clubhouse" authors are on to something (that women quit/give up more) and keeping the math simple:thekohser wrote:Assuming you mean percentage-wise, do you have any credible statistic to back up that claim?Oblia wrote:Women quit or are sent packing more often than men from Wikipedia.
You can't possibly mean a raw count comparison, as that would be practically impossible.
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31786
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
Sure.Oblia wrote:Would you mind sharing a link to these conversations?Vigilant wrote:Disagree with her, however polite and cogent, and you're a nasty misogynist who's out to oppress all women due to your personal failure at the genetic level. I quickly realized that trying to have a conversation with to her was truly a pointless exercise.
Here's the main thread entry
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=6365
Here's the one where she gets unhappy with my avatar.
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=6365&p=144513&hili ... or#p144513
Here's a post in that thread with the ARBCOM offer
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=6365&p=152981&hili ... nt#p152853
- Randy from Boise
- Been Around Forever
- Posts: 12242
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
- Wikipedia User: Carrite
- Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
- Actual Name: Tim Davenport
- Nom de plume: T. Chandler
- Location: Boise, Idaho
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
The fact that LB got the ever-mellow Cullen/Jim's backhair up is a measure of what a manipulator and content warrior she is.
RfB
P.S. Can some administrator fix the width of this page, it is running a screen-and-a-half wide for some reason...
Edit: Placed long URL in link tags. --Zoloft
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31786
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
Dialup on AoL?Randy from Boise wrote:P.S. Can some administrator fix the width of this page, it is running a screen-and-a-half wide for some reason...
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
As for Eric Corbett, LB pressed him to defend his comments on the GGTF talk page - in a discussion Corbett started - and, like Cullen328, was humiliated for it. This is how Eric opened the discussion. I've bolded the parts that don't add up.Vigilant wrote:Some ongoing hand wringing on Jimbo's stalk page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... e_to_Women
The majority can't seem to figure out if they want to protect Eric, lambast Lightbreather for being 'difficult' or get into another scrap with one of their nemeses who showed up on the stalk page.
Eric Corbett wrote:This "male privilege" thing is something I don't get at all. But here's one simple question the answer to which may help the mad-dog male editors such as myself. Assuming the claimed 16% of female editors is somewhere in the right ballpark, what effect has that had on WP's content? Or what would be different if it was 50%? 18:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Lightbreather wrote:What is your opinion, Eric. Assuming the 15/85 ratio is correct, what effect has that had on content? What would be different if the mix was roughly 50/50? 20:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Eric Corbett wrote:Very little would be my answer. What are the topics that would be of more interest to females than males? But let's not misunderstand, I'm in no way against increasing the number of female editors if that can be done in a rational way, just as I'd like to see a lot more older editors. In fact my experience has been that female editors are often much easier to work with, not because they can be browbeaten – which they can't – but because they tend to be more thorough than males. 20:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
At this point Eric tried to change the subject to "repeated accusations that I'm some kind of monster misogynist." After he suggested that Neotarf should provide a diff proving Eric's claim - and of course adding a mention of Jimbo, too - the topic discussion resumed.Lightbreather wrote:... why do you want more women WP editors? 21:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Eric Corbett wrote:I want a broader mix of editors, not too much bothered about this fashionable gender gap. Eric Corbett 21:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Lightbreather wrote:Listen, Eric, you're insistent when one of your questions goes unanswered, so I'm going to be with you: Why do you want a broader mix of editors? ... 21:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Eric Corbett wrote:Because a broader mix of editors means a broader mix of experience and opinion, why else? As for women, I really couldn't care less whether or not more women are recruited. I'm here because I think that too many of you have got your heads up your proverbial arses, attacking windmills that are simply mirages. Eric Corbett 22:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Lightbreather wrote:Ignoring the personal attack, your arguments don't add up. You say the percentage of women editors on Wikipedia has no effect on its content. But you also say you want a broader mix of editors (more women would make a broader mix) because they bring "a broader mix of experience and opinion" - which implies they would improve the project's content. (You also say "they tend to be more thorough," which would also be an improvement.) But you couldn't care less whether or not more women are recruited. So you just want the increase to happen "naturally," considering that the present editing environment is healthy and welcoming to a broad mix of people. And you believe those (many women) who have different experiences and opinions on the matter than your own have their heads up their asses and are tilting at windmills. Dude, if this ever was true - and I doubt it - you and your compadres have become some very real windmills. If you don't mean to be, then please knock it off. 23:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
No, he just said it would have very little effect, which is a very little better opinion.Eric Corbett wrote:I never said that the percentage of women editors on WP has no effect on its content... 18:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
He'd been given evidence numerous times. Again, sorry to post such a long exchange. I won't do it again... soon anyway.Eric Corbett wrote:... it may or it may not. I simply ask for some evidence of what that impact actually is, not pie-in-the sky dreaming. 18:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Captain Mandrake: Yes. (he begins to chuckle nervously)
Ripper: Are you beginning to understand?
Mandrake: Yes. (more laughter)
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31786
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
Turd in the punchbowl.
- The Adversary
- Habitué
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:01 am
- Location: Troll country
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
Have you ever been harassed the way Lightbreather was, online, or in RL?Vigilant wrote:Disagree with her, however polite and cogent, and you're a nasty misogynist who's out to oppress all women due to your personal failure at the genetic level. I quickly realized that trying to have a conversation with to her was truly a pointless exercise.
I have, online (quite recently), and in RL (years, and years ago).
The thing is: it changes you.
At least it changed me. Into a person I don´t really like at all: extremely aggressive, and absolutely ABF (assuming bad faith) of everyone.
You want to just log-off in the case of on-line harassers....but then, that feels like giving in to them.
(Though in my "cooler" moments; I just pity them.)
SlimVirgin wrote something on Lightbreather`s arb.com case; that she wasn´t "the perfect victim". Which was absolutely true. But do we have the right to expect that?
Both Carol M and Lightbreather had...issues. But the question is: how many male editors don´t we know, who also have...issues? And how often are they banned? Not very often, I think it is fair to say.
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.
On Wikipedia: we are very, very far from that stage.
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
Thanks.Vigilant wrote:Sure.Oblia wrote:Would you mind sharing a link to these conversations?Vigilant wrote:Disagree with her, however polite and cogent, and you're a nasty misogynist who's out to oppress all women due to your personal failure at the genetic level. I quickly realized that trying to have a conversation with to her was truly a pointless exercise.
Here's the main thread entry
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=6365
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!Vigilant wrote:Here's the one where she gets unhappy with my avatar.
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=6365&p=144513&hili ... or#p144513
Lightbreather wrote:... As for assumptions here, on Wikipediocracy, the one I drew first, and not particularly quickly, was that men here talk with each other as they do on Wikipedia - as if there are no women around, or at least no women who complain about the agonism, or who maybe even are "cool" and join in. If you think it's not about gender, OK, but I do think gender is a primary component of the style that is endorsed here and on WP. And when that gets articulated, you (plural) get defensive.
Captain Mandrake: Yes. (he begins to chuckle nervously)
Ripper: Are you beginning to understand?
Mandrake: Yes. (more laughter)
- Midsize Jake
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9951
- Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
- Wikipedia Review Member: Somey
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
Speaking only for myself, and let me reiterate that this is me speaking only for myself, I absolutely agree with what I think your point probably is here. Wikipedia's gender gap should be celebrated as an example of women not being as stupid as men - at least when it comes to how they spend their time online, anyway.Moral Hazard wrote:Civilians think that only crazy people would bother editing Wikipedia.
Why do people want to recruit women to edit Wikipedia?
Perhaps any gender gap, if it exists, should be celebrated as another example of women not being as stupid as men?
However, that doesn't mean Wikipedians should celebrate it, because it's clear enough that much of the gap is due to their ill-mannered, rulemongering behavior, and much of that behavior is due to the way Wikipedia is designed on a very basic level. So, it should still be valid to criticize that behavior without invalidating the point that women are smart(er) than men for avoiding WP (proportionally-speaking).
I should say, in our defense, this line of criticism was mostly a background thing until the WMF decided they could fix their gender gap by making the software "easier to use," leading in turn to the Visual Editor and related debacles and near-debacles. Before that, I remember our attitude being much closer to "good for them, they're a lot smarter than us guys" than it is now.
And yes, some of us do get too defensive when it comes to how women are treated here, including myself on occasion.
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31786
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
I haven't been for a long, long time.The Adversary wrote:Have you ever been harassed the way Lightbreather was, online, or in RL?Vigilant wrote:Disagree with her, however polite and cogent, and you're a nasty misogynist who's out to oppress all women due to your personal failure at the genetic level. I quickly realized that trying to have a conversation with to her was truly a pointless exercise.
I've been online since before AoL and learned my lessons there.
That's a fair point.The Adversary wrote:I have, online (quite recently), and in RL (years, and years ago).
The thing is: it changes you.
At least it changed me. Into a person I don´t really like at all: extremely aggressive, and absolutely ABF (assuming bad faith) of everyone.
You want to just log-off in the case of on-line harassers....but then, that feels like giving in to them.
(Though in my "cooler" moments; I just pity them.)
At some point, I'd just go IRL.
Nothing ends an online feud faster than having all of their neighbors receive porn in their mailboxes with your enemy's name on it.
Lightbreather and Carol Moore were both terrible test cases.The Adversary wrote:SlimVirgin wrote something on Lightbreather`s arb.com case; that she wasn´t "the perfect victim". Which was absolutely true. But do we have the right to expect that?
Both Carol M and Lightbreather had...issues. But the question is: how many male editors don´t we know, who also have...issues? And how often are they banned? Not very often, I think it is fair to say.
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.
On Wikipedia: we are very, very far from that stage.
Recalcitrant, intractable, etc
- Vigilant
- Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
- Posts: 31786
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
- Wikipedia User: Vigilant
- Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
- Ihatemyusername
- Critic
- Posts: 251
- Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2015 12:41 am
- Wikipedia User: Bosstopher
- Actual Name: another pseudonym/a pen name
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
There are similar examples of what could be put down in part to gender double standards. GregJackP adds a few citation needed tags to Richard Jensen's BLP after an onwiki dispute and is torn to pieces at ANI. Sitush starts writing drafting an article on Carol Moore to spread word of her alleged looniness, and 13 people actually vote to keep it!Oblia wrote: 1. Consider what we know as a fact from the past year: Two ArbCom cases that ended up banning women for their "behavior" and keeping men despite their behavior.
Another good example is the different ways people respond to Lfaraone and GorillaWarfare. Lfaraone has done almost everything Gorillawarfare has been criticised for doing (attractive photo on userpage, unrecusing from a case, blocking people to enforce his own arbcom decisions), but absolutely no one cares. Instead he's probably managed to be one of the most uncontroversial arbs on the committee.
- Randy from Boise
- Been Around Forever
- Posts: 12242
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
- Wikipedia User: Carrite
- Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
- Actual Name: Tim Davenport
- Nom de plume: T. Chandler
- Location: Boise, Idaho
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
So are you trolling or just sloppily tendentious with your out-of-context quotations?Oblia wrote: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!Vigilant wrote:Here's the one where she gets unhappy with my avatar.
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=6365&p=144513&hili ... or#p144513
RfBVig actually wrote: 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.
- AnimuAvatar
- Critic
- Posts: 219
- Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 12:33 am
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
The article was the trailer. The thread is the movie.Mrs Conclusion wrote: More like ...
I swear he was banned last I checked. Well this should be fun fun fun.
>on a Wikipedia criticism board
ishygddt
- The Adversary
- Habitué
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:01 am
- Location: Troll country
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
It is difficult to argue with that....except that at any one time we could name a dozen or more male editors who are the same, ....and they for some reason never ends up before arb.com.Vigilant wrote: Lightbreather and Carol Moore were both terrible test cases.
Recalcitrant, intractable, etc
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
The full quote is more offensive than its parts... Are you trolling or just grasping?Randy from Boise wrote:So are you trolling or just sloppily tendentious with your out-of-context quotations?Oblia wrote: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!Vigilant wrote:Here's the one where she gets unhappy with my avatar.
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=6365&p=144513&hili ... or#p144513
RfBVig actually wrote: 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.
Captain Mandrake: Yes. (he begins to chuckle nervously)
Ripper: Are you beginning to understand?
Mandrake: Yes. (more laughter)
Re: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women - The Atlantic
The Adversary wrote:It is difficult to argue with that....except that at any one time we could name a dozen or more male editors who are the same, ....and they for some reason never ends up before arb.com.Vigilant wrote: Lightbreather and Carol Moore were both terrible test cases.
Recalcitrant, intractable, etc
Captain Mandrake: Yes. (he begins to chuckle nervously)
Ripper: Are you beginning to understand?
Mandrake: Yes. (more laughter)