Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force

Spin off the GGTF into a new WikiProject?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We've 54 members in the GGTF, and there is a proposal to create multiple, defined tasks for the GGTF. I think that this task force would work better as a new WikiProject, not under WikiProject Countering systemic bias. It used to be that the task force was about gender bias, but now it's been changed into a gender gap task force. This implies that the reason to get rid of the gender gap is to counter systemic bias, which may be a primary reason for getting rid of the gender gap, but I'm sure many people here have alternative reasons for trying to counter the gender gap. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 13:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm here because this is part of CSB. What is your alternative reason? --GRuban (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

[Later insert: I've become more aware since posting the below that Grognard/User:chess has had a bit of interest in the Men's Right Movement, though whether it is just interest or support is not clear from the dozen odd diffs I saw in his/her contributions. I'm wondering if there is any relation to this proposed change? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc: Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 21:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue of the relation has been addressed here before: SlimVirgin’s question on “If MRM people are causing a problem here, this page is ipso facto covered by the sanctions” plus continuing discussion and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force&diff=615215802&oldid=615177554 Bbb23 writes: “I am taking the view that this project and its talk page may be subject to MRM probationary sanctions, depending on the content of a contribution or a discussion.” So this is not a new concern. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's hope not. Putting this under the soul-sucking dominion of WP:AE would be the surest way to kill broad participation. —Neotarf (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC) No, wait, MRM is under community sanctions, not ArbCom. —Neotarf (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Way back in June-July Arbitration sounded like a good thing to a couple editors, but since then it has become clear it's just one more nail in the coffin of this project. That's what I fear this move would be. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't see what connects arbitration, men's rights and calling the task force a wikiproject. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

This archived thread on a past Men's rights disruption, continuing disruptions and possible solutions discusses possible Arbitration as a solution (see last three posts especially). So if a men's rights person was proposing something, without technically invoking community sanctions by discussing men's rights, one might be a little concerned about the reasons. But if no one else thinks it's a possible problem, I'll relax. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

If User:Carolmooredc believes that I am somehow disrupting the project, I would suggest that she takes it up with me or creates a section on this talk page. In response to her saying that this move is the doings of an MRA trying to kill "this project" (italics mine), I would like to point to Wikipedia:Comment on the content, not the contributor again, as you have not provided any evidence that any perceived viewpoint of mine would somehow affect the content of this proposal or of any of my actions or comments related to the GGTF or any topic that may be covered under community sanctions. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 22:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It's easier to just ask for someone's point of view and get a positive reply that it's not an issue than to feel one must go through a bunch of diffs and their full context, which can clarify certain comments. But never mind if you don't want to discuss it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind moving it to WikiProject Gender Gap. I started it under the systemic bias wikiproject only to give it a home (which is why it first had "bias" in the title, and is one of their "task forces"). But as it grows, a separate wikiproject might be more appropriate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I have several concerns. Having one active project under Counter Systemic Violence [Bias] helps support the others. Having a lone project might make it harder to find if it goes dormant and might make it easier to target as "against Wikipedia policies" if it becomes its own project and people keep harping on non-issues like "2 men to revert a woman" proposal, "political activity", "rabble rousers", etc. Just like a Stand Alone Wikiproject, this one can easily create a few more tabs and pages. At this point there isn't even a proposed need for separate pages, except for a resources page will I'll come back to in a few weeks (i.e., one less "kitchen sinky" than my big one). Then there is dealing with practical bureaucratic concerns on redirects, changing various links already in place throughout, etc. etc. So I would not be so quick to jump upon the idea. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm with @SlimVirgin:. Split this off. Systemic bias (not "violence") is a content issue; gender gap is a participation issue. This page is just a dramafest and useless to helping solve either issue. Montanabw^(talk) 18:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This is probably the best reason I've seen expressed for splitting it off. Because it emphasizes the issues that are keeping women from participation: incivility, battleground alliance behavior, harassment/wikihounding, etc. I do feel some hope that by splitting it away from bias just the opposite will happen - it can be claimed this project only is about getting more articles about women. In truth, which ever the project is called, it's going to do pretty much the same thing. But what will happen to Countering Systemic Bias/gender gap task force? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting distinction I hadn't considered. I have felt that the gender gap issue did not neatly belong in the systematic bias wiki project but for other reasons. The gender gap issue seems to me to be a big enough issue that it could stand alone as a project. Obviously that project could have links to other relevant projects such as the systematic bias project to help ensure that it doesn't become orphaned but I see value in establishing it as its own project.

Whether it is moved to a new project or remains here it would also be useful to think about the interplay between this page and the gender gap page on Meta. It isn't clear to me how these two interrelate. Conceptually, one would think that the meta-page would be the main page covering the issue from the perspective of all of Wikimedia while this specific page would concentrate on those aspects especially relevant to the English Wikipedia. However that does not seem to be the way they are organized, which is almost certainly due to the non-hierarchical nature of this enterprise and the fact that some contribute to one or the other while a few try to make sure there is some overlap in material.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I think there's support. User:Carolmooredc is the only one disagreeing. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 00:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

And I assume that if anyone gets trollish and finds the "higher level" of Wikiproject some sort of Feminazi plot to take over and destroy Wikipedia, you'll be defending that choice to the hilt. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Meta-wiki already has its own gender gap project. This task force is already essentially its own WikiProject, and making a new one will just be a bureaucratic formality. Being under CSB is a vestige of when countering the gender gap was seen as primarily an objective to remove bias from Wikipedia because everything was written from a male centric viewpoint. Now, it is a moral goal unto itself. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 14:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

OK. We got Chess/Grognard down for a "moral crusade" [later clarification: as critics doubtless will later paint it]. Only other definitive reason give below was regarding systemic bias as a content issue vs. gender gap as a participation issue. (I'm pretty sure it will do both in either place.) For future reference I think it's probable that most of those who signed on to this specific propsoal did so for practical not moral reasons. (Please feel free to explain reasons further.) So any future naysayers can argue with Chess/Grognard on the morality issue. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc: It's not a "morality" issue, but a practicality and categorization issue. Currently, as other people said, Meta-wiki has a gender gap project. A major focus of the 2014/2015 year for the WMF is to fix the gender gap, and this task force seems to have grown enough to become a WikiProject, as well as having a goal important enough to be a WikiProject. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 01:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I was just quoting you. In any case, right now there's not a clear consensus to change it. Perhaps we should wait anyway until the conclusion of the ongoing Gender Gap Task Force arbitration Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't archive yet, bot. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying

I've been watching this page and thinking about this question. To me, there's more than one aspect to closing the gender gap: there's increasing the number of article about women and "women-friendly" topics, there's increasing the number of female editors, there's working to change processes to make the project more welcoming for all, and there's probably even more parts to this whole thing. IMHO, each of these aspects is a task in and of itself and could be its own task force under a broader, over-arching Gender Gap WikiProject. Therefore, I think this Task Force should be spun out into a WikiProject. Ca2james (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

But who's going to do it? Interest has pretty much evaporated since the Arbcom case started. There's Carol, and ....Carol. —Neotarf (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Straw poll

• Perhaps we could have quick straw poll to see whether there's support.

• Support setting this up as a wikiproject. We have only these two pages at the moment, so we would only have to move the main page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender gap and this to the talk page, plus move archives, and edit some templates and the intro. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• Ambivalent - I see the concerns people raise about the scope being too broad. I'm leaning toward "keep GGTF to focus on user-related issues and allow other projects like WP:XX to deal with issues of article content and checking for WP:GNL. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• No in-principle objection. Tony (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support as originator of the idea. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 20:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support Lightbreather (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
• Query: is there any value in using both locations? —Neotarf (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• If you mean retaining this task force page and setting up a wikiproject, I don't think there would be any value in that – not that I can think of. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, although I would leave a redirect at a minimum, and possibly a placeholder page with a link.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: Per previous comments I feel safer in the "Countering systemic bias" nest. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: Hopefully, changing it will not encourage more disruption, even as such disruption does not happen at Wikiprojects LGBT, Latino, African Diaspora, Disability, etc. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons I've already discussed. Ca2james (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: close

As I wrote in re-opening, let an editor who has not repeatedly publicly opposed the project and members close it. Especially at the end of the Arbitration. We'll know more tomorrow. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no point in trying to keep this from archiving. The situation has changed completely since the questions were asked, what with the ArbCom case. The poll is stale...and meaningless. —Neotarf (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Good point! After all Arbcom might rule that this project has a right to organize any thing it wants and that sincere members who support all projects (more articles/more women/more civility/etc.) have the right to kick off anyone suspected of being here to trash the project, including men's rights/anticivility/wikihounders/etc. In which case, individuals driven off the project by trolls and/or fear of becoming involved in an Arbitration might return with different opinions or different proposals. Now that seems like a good reason to close this as stale/irrelevant. Wait til things calm down, in say January, and revisit the issue. It's not necessarily a bad idea, just in current context looks suspicious. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that this is an administrative move of a task force that currently doesn't fit into CSB. I'm not opposing this task force at all. I do not know where you got that statement. Also, the consensus above was that we should move. But there is a currently pending ArbCom case, so the move is postponed. Also, User:Carolmooredc, comment on content, not on the contributor. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You can't deny that many editors who have a sincere interest in all aspects of this topic have been run off this group by hostile individuals (men's rights/anticivility/wikihounders/etc). Why else are we having this Arbitration which was requested by someone fed up with such individuals. In that context, a lot of things look suspicious and saying an alleged consensus holds is problematic. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc: And when have I publicly opposed this? Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

A) I wasn't talking about you; B) as the proposer it should be someone else; C) waiting til after Arbitration is good and over and some editors feel it is safe to come back might be a good idea. At this point I really just care about the am addressing process points, as I allude to above where I write I may have been over concerned because "disruption does not happen at Wikiprojects LGBT, Latino, African Diaspora, Disability, etc" so it shouldn't happen here. Also the discretionary sanctions should help stop any real disruption. And the worst has been done with the proposal to disband the project. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, per comments above about what role would the Countering Systemic Bias gender bias task force play if gender gap project split off, left message about this discussion at: main project talk page. Better late than never. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

If no one objects I'd like to close this shortly. We ought to wait until the arbcom case has finished, then we can revisit it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You closed it after three hours' notice? Wow, that's not the first time something like that has happened here. I do not understand the rationale, despite the commentary above. The only difference that the arbcom case might make is that certain people will no longer be able to participate here but that does not invalidate what they may have said above. - Sitush (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

NPOV: pornography portal/ project, but no anti-pornography portal / project?

Should there be a Pornography portal / project and an Anti-pornography portal / project, or should the existing one be re-named "Pornography debates" or something similar, with more being added to the anti-pornography POV? Before anyone says, "Just because it is called the pornography portal / project doesn't mean that it is pro-porn." I would say look at the project's scope and the portal's list of categories. There isn't much for those looking for the anti-pornography POV. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a need for the anti-side to be presented. I'm also intrigued by the misogynist troll dramafest that will undoubtably erupt if either method is tried, but given that there are only 24 hours in a day and some of us have to eat and sleep as well as work for a living, I'd recommend waiting until Gamergate and the ArbCom case die down so those of us who are useful in a street fight aren't pulled 16 ways by other dramas the way we are at the moment. There are more trolls, and they don't have to eat or sleep as much because I suspect that they all just live in their mommy's basement. In the meantime, I'd spend some time and energy finding more allies who will be useful so that when you do drop the hammer, you don't have to fly solo, but you also won't have flaky allies who will pull your efforts off into some sort of stupid thing that is mostly a personality conflict like this stupid ArbCom case. Montanabw^(talk) 21:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

First, can we be civil with others' proposal and not insult both alleged pornography users and allegedly flakey "allies" or call the project stupid? It's really uncalled for and tacky.

In any case, it's only worth creating the "anti-pornography project" if a) you have enough articles to support a project and b) enough participants interested in keeping it going and and c) enough energy to put up with the brouhaha. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProjects shouldn't have a point of view. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 00:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I should have said: and if you survive a challenge to the existence of the project based on whatever arguments editors might offer. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking aloud more than anything. It just occured to me that there is a portal for Conservatism (selected article: the Bricker Amendment), and a portal for Socialism (selected biography: Karl Marx).

Selected articles / biographies on the pornography portal are generally about porn stars, porn films and - a newly added feature - erotic literature. When anything relating to anti-pornography is featured then there is an over-arching tone of "that bunch of censorship nutters" e.g. radical feminists (for 'radical' read 'lunatic'). The second paragraph of the article on pornography is typical of how the anti-pornography movement tend to be portrayed, 'various groups ... with varying degrees of success ... censorship and other legal restraints to publication' rather than 'a number of associations and organisations ... achiving success in reducing the amount of material that they regard as harmful'. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 08:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Since even voluntary censorship of viewpoints is such a big "no no" on Wikipedia - especially if it's censorship of things demeaning to women - a more successful approach might be to focus on pornography-related issues. For example, the addictive aspects of pornography, the psychological reasons males have poor relationships with women and thus are sexually frustrated, the "male surplus" issue leading to too few women available for males during the last 30 odd years[1], and any and all studies indicating a relationship of pornography to any sort of violence against others (women, children, men, animals). Articles about, and Project/portal mentions of, the dysfunctional aspects of pornography is something they can't complain is censorship. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep as is - I see Anti-Porn categories within the Porn portal, which seems the way reality is as well -- the anti is reaction to and part of porn generally, not a topic that would exist separate of the porn nor could porn ignore or not have anti happen. A title change to 'discussion' seems inappropriate as not expectable -- if the portal is only to discussions then is there to be another portal actually on porn itself is too conflusing, simpler to have the one portal on the simpler title and everything there. I think the current Portal title is the best fit and that there should not be a separation to two portals. Markbassett (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Need active peer reviewers

The projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism/Peer review, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History/Peer review, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies/Peer review really need active peer reviewers, so if some people could click on those articles and add their usernames under the Active Peer reviewers section that would be great. Thanks!

Wikipedia:Meetup/Feminists Engage Wikipedia

Here is the list of red-links from that event in 2013, that may pique someone's interest. (#TooFew)

• Suzy Castor

Working on. User:GRuban/Suzy Castor. --GRuban (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Nancy Feagin
• DJ Kuttin Kandi
• Marie-Laurence Jocelyn-Lassègue
• Sister Singers Network
• Artemis Singers
• Mimi Kim
• Creative Interventions
• Allied Media Conference
• Disability Justice (should probably be at Disability justice
• Women's Joint Congressional Committee (United States)
• Techno-Orientalism
• Erasing the Distance
• Ourika (TGOW)
• J Mase III
• National Dalit and Adivasi Women's Congress of 2013
• Third World Majority
• Anne Emery

Note: I rescued Chela Sandoval from AfC - other articles may exist in draft space.

Not impressed that these are still red links - makes me doubt whether those who put the event together actually take this seriously.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC).

Actually, these red links are the way editathons work! You add way more links than you expect to finish, to ensure there is a variety of material that will be of interest to attendees. Whatever red links you don't finish get picked up by someone else, and put in a place where they'll attract interest, just as you have done.

Editathons are more like a drop-in quilting bee where everyone pitches in for a few hours on an existing project. You need either skilled editors or subject experts to get major results / outcomes. When the right people show up, lots happens; other times, with newbies, the event is mostly training, coaching, and general outreach. (A few newbies have told me they decided it's easier to donate money than edit themselves ... :)

Established editors may or may not change their editing patterns to finish off an editathon task list. More likely they go back to whatever they like to do after the event.

For sustained efforts on a specific task list, you need a series of events.

The program evaluation folks would have more statistics ... Have you considered holding an event or two yourself? Even an editor as prolific as you could use a boost from others willing to pitch in on your areas of interest :) -- Djembayz (talk) 03:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course, you are right, and indeed I have looked at the results of every editathon I could find, up to a few months ago. And this editathon did well, as did the series of women's ediathons earlier this year - in terms of "work produced during the session". My comments were not made in a vacuum, however, one of the editors Moya Bailey (who probably comes near needing an article of her own) specifically spoke to Al-Jareeza about the event and stressed the Disability justice article as being important. Hence my disappointment that, not only was it not created during the editathon, but has not been created in the 18 months since.

It seems that it is, just maybe, also easier to organise an editathon than to edit oneself.

(And if anyone wants me to organise/run an editathon, provided they can arrange to pay my fares, I would be happy to do so. If not WMUK does them by the bucketload.)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC).

Research article: Emotions under Discussion

Iosub, Daniela; Laniado, David; Castillo, Carlos; Morell, Mayo Fuster; Kaltenbrunner, Andreas (August 20, 2014). "Emotions under Discussion: Gender, Status and Communication in Online Collaboration". PLoS ONE. 9 (8). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104880.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Conclusions/Significance

Emotional expression and linguistic style in online collaboration differ substantially depending on the contributors' gender and status, and on the communication network. This should be taken into account when analyzing collaborative success, and may prove insightful to communities facing gender gap and stagnation in contributor acquisition and participation levels.

--72.223.98.118 (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

In view of the generally negative atmosphere that some seem to experience around here, I would like to draw attention to something positive in this report:

The largest human encyclopedia ever written, Wikipedia, is one of the most prominent examples of successful online collaboration to date. In fact, considering the thousands of failed online collaboration efforts, its size and success are quite miraculous. This noteworthy performance has motivated a flurry of research activity on topics ranging from leadership behaviors to motivations to contribute.

This would seem to suggest that we are doing some things right. We should bear this in mind. --Boson (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Study of gender differences on Wikipedia discussion pages

Later note: this is same study as one linked above so put them together. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Via a Wikipediocracy forum link[2], I noted this Spanish news article on a recent study that asserts that women are more constructive editors on Wikipedia discussion pages than men. Edits of 12,000 editors on the English wikipedia with at least 100 edits were reviewed. Nine percent of these editors were identified as women. The research paper is in English and can be found here.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Pretty soon I'll update the research page with last few entries. But a dozen plus editors are trying to get me topic banned from here and even site banned (since they know I'll never totally quit). So others may have to keep adding material to:

• List of research studies on the Gender Gap on Wikipedia sponsored by Wikimedia Foundation and independent entities
• List of mainstream and tech media articles
• List of Wikimedia.org and en.Wikipedia Gender Gap action projects
• List of Related resources: projects and writings

Don't cry for me, GGTF, if my head goes to the chopping block for thinking that incivility and harassment of women editors are just as important GGTF issues as the number and quality of articles about women. Some even may want women shoved into a ghetto of only working on articles about women. By we also have a right to edit in articles in the political and economic spheres where males dominate and some (not all) want to keep it that way. And they'll use nitpicking and personal attacks and harassment to drive us off.

But being an optimist, I say, ONWARD AND UPWARD! If the worst happens, I'll have the time and energy to take my opinionated uppity woman act into the larger world. Plus one can still do GGTF stuff off wikipedia. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The basic flaw in that research is the problem of identifying the female editors, since it is well known that a number of users who identify as women online are actually men, who are trying to "act female" whatever that is. So until you are able to identify the actual gender of users in real life, say at a live WP event instead of by analyzing edits, the results are going to be skewed in favor of reinforcing rigid gender stereotypes. And then you get self-fulfilling prophecy, echo chamber, etc. —Neotarf (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

RE: original topic of Spanish study saying "women are more constructive editor". Neotarf is correct about the "identifying the female editors" of course. A careful analysis of overlapping findings from various studies, many of which have the same flaws, still might come up with some interesting findings that also might overlap with outside studies where the sex of the editors actually is known.

[Later add paragraph that fell out of sandbox draft:] The reprint linked does confirm my own experience of feeling less under pressure in discussions dominated by women and more collaborative males. Unfortunately, once I get in a high testosterone competitive atmosphere my own abundant testosterone heats up. Anyway, there are some other relevant studies.

Off the top of my head (since who has time to review all that good stuff on the GGTF/research page), I think the finding that editors who say they are women tend to make larger edits and not change them as much as those who say they are males. This would accord with outside findings that a) more women have advanced degrees and therefore may have more educational and research/writing experience and b) women are more careful to vet and cross check their work and present it as whole cloth because they also tend to be nitpicked and criticized more, so they want to have as few errors as possible.

In general I tend to do the latter myself when I'm allowed to focus on editing, creating a couple of paragraphs at at time or even revamping a whole article in draft form, polishing it for days and zapping it up there. (Though over the years I've taken a bit more to the alleged "male style" of just throwing stuff up there with a reference and seeing what happens.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think you need to physically confirm the actual gender of every editor by personal observation to have a valid study; every phone-based political poll bases gender on self-reporting. However, I agree it could be a weak point. The study says this on the subject: "While information on editor status is available through the Wikipedia API, collecting gender information is less straightforward and can prove challenging. In this case gender identification was possible using a combination of methods, ranging from using Wikipedia's API to crowdsourcing the gender identification task to Crowdflower (see [20] for more details)." That explanation doesn't tell me what they really did.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure the real live researchers have a good handle on how to regard gender reports. And phone surveys obviously more reliable. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

If someone wants to start with some less questionable links to archive, I have been looking through the links in the email I received, and they are definitely not a waste of time. —Neotarf (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The last link has to do with bullying, and different tactics chosen based on the bully's gender. [3] —Neotarf (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully will have time this weekend to add various new links to appropriate pages. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

"Five campaigns against sexual harassment that you should know"

• Examples from different countries: Five campaigns against sexual harassment that you should know, from Deutsche Welle -- Djembayz (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No.4 - " French short film reverses gender roles" - does sound problematic. Even if women were 3/4 of the population, I doubt they'd form gangs or militias or militaries. Of course, you know there'd be guys taking advantage of it building harems and staking out territory where they could control their women.

[4][5] --GRuban (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

But the other four are good observations. Patriarchal culture just enforces such behaviors instead of making it clear the "terms of use" of being human frowns upon them.

I wonder how far Monica Lewinsky will go with her new campaign against online harassment and cyberbullying. She has said "Having survived myself, what I want to do now is help other victims of the shame game survive, too."

• Lewinsky makes emotional plea to end cyberbullying, CNN, Lewinsky joins Twitter, CNN, Monica Lewinsky Speaks: 'It's My Mission To End Cyberbullying', Forbes, and lots more articles from last week.

Maybe she'll open a Wikipedia account with a female handle, identify as female (but obviously not as herself!), and learn the ropes and see the editor reaction and do a 6 month report. :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The examples in the article are interesting. Each example is a bit exaggerated to make their point but even so, they provide an interesting place from which we can start a conversation. Personally, I don't know that there would be more male-controlled harems or men controlling women in a predominantly female culture. Logic tells me that people raised in a predominantly female culture will have different goals and ideals than we have in our culture. Is there research to suggest that men would become more controlling and dominant in this kind of culture?

it will be interesting to see where Monica Lewinsky focuses her anti-cyberbullying efforts and what kind of results she'll get. It would be nice if she was here but I suspect that her priorities are elsewhere what with the whole gamergate thing and all. Ca2james (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Frida Kahlo

Thought some people here might be interested - there's a campaign to get Frida Kahlo in the Mustache Hall of Fame, as she was proud of her mustache and often included it in her self-portraits. You can nominate her (or anyone else you like) here: http://mustachehall.com 12.186.136.234 (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds off topic. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 16:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Created page need help

So I created the page Sheila Shulman about a influential female rabbi, but there seems to be some problem with the access dates I can't figure out. If anybody could fix that I'd be really grateful.Maranjosie (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done. It looks like the "accessdate" parameter wants the day to have two digits—that is, it prefers dates of the form "2014-11-03" rather than "2014-11-3". —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!Maranjosie (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it will accept "5 July 2014", July 5, 2014" or "2014-07-05". We should really be fixing missing zeros by bot. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC).

Teahouse Women

I have found being a Teahouse hostess has been a positive experience and though, of course I am not objective, I do believe that I have raised the standards for civility and have helped the Teahouse project turn into something other than a place where young men still produce a techie atmosphere and answer questions partly for the purpose of showing off their mastery with Wikipedia acronyms. I run into a lot of women at the Teahouse. They often don't make it through their first editing experience, unfortunately. Sometimes they get chewed up pretty bad by other more experienced editors.

I not only have a problem with gender issues, but there seems to be significant problems with the participation of older women. I believe older woman bring a totally different worldview into Wikipedia. We geriatric folk have seen the development of the Internet and computers in general and have been astounded at the pace at which technology has taken. Most other Wikipedians take for granted almost everything having to do with computers and Internet. In addition, I believe older women are far less likely to get offended or put off by other editors- we've been dealing with family issues for decades and Wikipedia doesn't hold a candle to most of our most notable experiences.

Please consider becoming a Teahouse hostess, it has been very rewarding.

Best regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  03:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bfpage, "Teahouse" is great! You are right about the issues a starting editor has, and also that more experienced editors sometimes incorrectly make life difficult for new editors (possibly due to the Dunning–Kruger effect).

I have corrected the link on your user page to the metrics on Meta - this inter-wiki linking trick is very useful.

Teahouse was designed to be polite and to avoid the "old school" short answers, simply referring the enquirer to a WP page. It is a shame if it has diverged form that path.

It remains to be seen whether it has had a measurable effect on editor retention as a whole, and on women in particular. The findings on Meta have blanks, that were supposed to be filled in by Friday (some Friday in 2012), and the solid conclusion "People who ask questions at Teahouse do better than those who don't." doesn't demonstrate causality.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC).

User:Bfpage You wrote "but there seems to be significant problems with the participation of older women". I'm not sure what you meant. That they leave quicker but would be good to keep around to deal with issues? Or something else. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI thread involving respect for women reopened, than reverted back to closed

An ANI thread involving respect for women was closed immediately, when I posted the following remark:

Are the folks in this thread really suggesting that all editors here have to accept people swearing at us, because that's where the community wants to set its social norms?

Members of GGTF may think it's just fine for anonymous men online to say "****** you!" to women, or they may not. For people interested in closing the gender gap, it's worth taking a look at the situation, and whether any further comment is appropriate at this time. The thread in question is:

• Days after my return to Wikipedia after months away, cursing editor returns to bait me. -- Djembayz (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, attempt to re-open this thread was immediately reverted by User:Sitush, a participant in the current Gender Gap Task Force arbitration case. -- Djembayz (talk) 12:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Here because of your ping. The thread was nothing to do with this project. It was not "involving respect for women" but rather a very specific situation concerning two parties, one of whom alleged incivility and baiting. GGTF need to stop turning umpteen drama board threads into an opportunity to bang a drum. There is a lot more to the gap than just civility and we have a project for that specific issue. - Sitush (talk) 12:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

So, an oversight role regarding the social norms promoted at ANI is not an appropriate task for the GGTF? --Djembayz (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

You are not drawing me into this. If you want to revert me at ANI then please do so. Doubtless someone else will revert you again. - Sitush (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about arguing with specific individuals, it's about getting a little more clarity regarding how the first point in how the Wikimedia Foundation Code of Conduct, "Treat other people with respect" gets enforced around here. At this point, it is becoming abundantly clear that somebody or some group in addition to the administrators at ANI needs to stick up for women. Who is responsible here for sticking up for women and how this gets done is not so clear to me-- even after many hours of looking through the back pages of this site. If it's not the GGTF, who is it, the WMF? And if so, who specifically at the WMF do we contact regarding womens' issues? -- Djembayz (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

In this case, I agree with Sitush, even though he has a negative attitude on whether there is a gender gap. The issue in this case wasn't civility enforcement in general, but two editors who are hostile to each other. In particular, Tenebrae was making too big an issue out of occasional profanity by Winklevi. Although, in my opinion, any profanity is uncivil, it was no more uncivil than Tenebrae going on and on about demanding action. User:Drmies was justified in closing the thread, because nothing was going to come of it. WP:ANI is not where any change in civility enforcement will occur. We already know that civility enforcement at WP:ANI is weak. Any change will have to come from somewhere else. After multiple civility threads have been closed at WP:ANI, thinking that this one would be different was foolish, especially when Tenebrae was being more uncivil in his persistence than Winklevi was with occasional swearing. This was just a case of a petty feud between two editors. It should have been closed either with no action or with a two-way interaction ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a "negative attitude on whether there is a gender gap". I've even said that there is one, just as there is a reverse gap at Facebook. What I've had and expressed is qualms about how this GGTF project has been operating, which has basically been as a civility task force. Happen I suspect that there may soon be a shot fired across the bows of this project courtesy of the Arbcom case that you opened. It will survive that and it will be better for it. - Sitush (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

As to Djembayz's question, who will stick up for women, do the women and men of GGTF really think that swearing is the most important women's issue? In any case, the answer does appear to be the WMF, and for GGTF to advocate. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. There was actually a thread about this here some weeks ago. Someone closed it and I was pretty much told not to argue when I queried why the thing had been dismissed so peremptorily. You'll find the details here. - Sitush (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Er, um. I'm all for civility, but I think that particular thread might not be the best example of it. The person complaining started by posting on the talk page of another, saying "to use language you used to me, stay the hell off my talk page".[6] So he or she wants the other person not to post on their talk, but won't respect their request to do likewise; and objects to their cursing though curses in response. The admin closing the thread had it right; it's hard to say that the complainer was that much more wronged than the complained-against. --GRuban (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• I closed that thread. Djembayz, your suggested chain of cause and effect is incorrect: I closed it not because of your comment, as you suggest with "was closed immediately, when I posted...". Drmies (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It's highly inappropriate that involved editors Sitush and Drmies closed the thread. Uninvolved editors/admins should have done so. We also never had a conversation about how best to deal with these "Fuck you" etc. situations as a group. Do we want to try now? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I imagine you have excluded me from that group, Carolmooredc? And what group is that? I suggest you read up on WP:INVOLVED, and ask yourself if you could convince anyone that I am somehow involved with Tenebrae and Winkelvi and the word "fuck". This is, again, nothing more than a ruse. I don't even think you believe there are uninvolved admins, uninvolved with anything. But if you do find one, ask them if they think that that particular ANI thread should have led to sanctions. It's a clear example of misreading and overreaction--and I say this having criticized Winkelvi and praised Tenebrae in the past. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

How was User:Drmies an involved administrator anyway? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Drmies has forgotten that relevant evidence vs. Sitush in regards to Djembayz was presented in GGTF Arbitration evidence? That Sitush wrote on Djembayz talk page: I'm sure that the families of Twatt, Orkney will be impressed. Especially those whose spelling is poor ;) because she had protested the use of "c*nt"? [7] And that you [Drmies] commented at Arbitration on some of my other evidence against Sitush? Like I said, others should have dealt with it. Considering you closed the ANI right after Djembayz commented on the larger issue of this kind of language on Wikipedia, a concern of many on this project, one has to wonder.Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

But that is "Sitush in regards to Djembayz", the thread was about Tenebrae and Winkelvi. Drmies claims (and I have no reason to doubt) that he is not involved with Tenebrae and Winkelvi. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC).

Clarification from Sitush and follow-on

Thank you, User:Sitush, for clarifying about a gender gap. As you say, the gender gap is not primarily a civility gap. On the one hand, civility does appear to be an issue that is of greater saliency to female editors, statistically, than it is to male editors. On the other hand, I don't think either that civility is the primary gender issue, or that profanity is the primary civility issue. (Personal attacks and insults are a greater civility issue.) I would prefer that there be no profanity in Wikipedia. However, editors who make too much of an issue about profanity, at least about occasional profanity, set themselves up for dismissal by contributing to a chain of reasoning. The chain of reasoning is, first, civility is about the avoidance of certain bad words. Second, the use of those bad words shouldn't be that much of an issue. Third, therefore, the civility policy can be allowed to be a dead letter. I would prefer that there be no profanity in Wikipedia; however, other battles are more worth fighting than that one, including against personal attacks. (Why should telling a user to "fuck off" be worse than calling a user a "blithering idiot"?) Making too much out of incidents of profanity not only wastes pixels; it also discounts the case for civility in general. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Good gosh, is it really necessary to explain that women are admonished to avoid angry males using sexualized language, due to the potential for unwanted physical contact, and in worse case, physical injury or unwanted pregnancy? "Blithering idiot" does not have these connotations. This is the GGTF message board, specific to women's issues-- not the general "civility" message board. If women speaking up impedes the general efforts on civility, that's truly unfortunate, especially for someone like Mr. McClenon who is making the extra effort to work for a better atmosphere here.-- Djembayz (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. To call someone a "blithering idiot" is an insult, but not particularly threatening except perhaps to one's ego. But to tell someone to "fuck off" is insulting and threatening. "Fuck you" is even more threatening. All are personal attacks, in my opinion, but "fuck" language is violent language. To someone who knows what it's like to feel truly, physically threatened, there's a huge difference. My chances are good in an intellectual fight, but not in a physical one. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

"Fuck" language gets the adrenaline up. For most men (not all) it gets their "fight" instincts up. For most women (not all) it gets their "flight" instincts up. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Is swearing really the issue where the women and men of GGTF consider it worth advocating to the WMF on behalf of the women of Wikipedia? What about personal attacks? What about article imbalance? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC) In this case, Tenebrae was, in my opinion, more disruptive by being tendentious than Winklevi had been by using profanity. Your opinion may vary. I certainly don't think it is worth the GGTF advocating about that thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I had "clarified" weeks ago. The problem has been that the general noise levels here and the amount of mud being thrown drown out my occasional comment on the subject. There have been some at least half-decent suggestions made on this page but they are getting lost. - Sitush (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, there does need to be a guided and rational discussion of how to deal with civility and harassment issues. I don't know if that's possible here, given the number of editors who lurk looking to oppose such discussions. Editors (mostly female) complaining (and usually rightfully) about specific civility or wikihounding issues, of which this is an example, haven't been too fruitful, except for dealing with obvious issues that actually happen here. Thus discussions inevitable will happen elsewhere. Such efforts may have been dampened and/or delayed by the arbitration. But there's lots of time in the future and lots of forums where systematic strategies can be designed and implemented. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, I think that, if you want to talk about civility, you're going to have to take back the above unfounded accusations you leveled at me. Civility isn't just about specific words.

In addition, I refuse to accept these essentializing remarks of yours, or any essentializing for that matter, and I do not appreciate being pigeonholed in that way; I wonder if someone should maybe give you a Diane Fuss book for your birthday. I have been in many a hounding case and many a civility case, and I do not see the disparity that you see. Maybe I spend too much time in article space, where I work with male editors, female editors, and editors whose gender I don't know. And one more thing: you can't seriously think that an ANI thread on one particular instance of supposed incivility is the proper lead-in to a "guided and rational discussion" on civility and harassment. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Bad words are just the far end of the spectrum. Of course, others will accept bad words and come up with abstruse and even phony arguments to mis-characterize innocuous comments of others. (And I'm speaking in generalities here.)

I wrote above: We also never had a conversation about how best to deal with these "Fuck you" etc. situations as a group. Do we want to try now? This thread just reminded me about this issue. If someone wanted to start a separate thread on it, great. I wasn't going to.

Then I presented more of my own position: Editors (mostly female) complaining (and usually rightfully) about specific civility or wikihounding issues, of which this is an example, haven't been too fruitful, except for dealing with obvious issues that actually happen here. Thus discussions inevitable will happen elsewhere. Such efforts may have been dampened and/or delayed by the arbitration. But there's lots of time in the future and lots of forums where systematic strategies can be designed and implemented.

In any case, the main issue is should editors who perhaps don't like an editor from this group be quickly shutting them up at ANI by closing a thread right after they respond? That's what it looked like to a couple of us anyway. Others obviously feel differently. Agree to disagree and all that. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's see what we can agree on. You accuse me of administrative misbehavior, acting in a thread where I was supposedly involved. You are proven wrong and cannot prove your accusation, and you refuse to apologize for your mistaken accusation. You'll disagree, no doubt, that I think this is incredibly uncivil, but perhaps you'll understand that I no longer pay any heed to your claims of incivility. Your blatant lack of AGF and your display of poor manners is much worse than using a cussword.

Besides, your avoidance of the issue of essentialism that I raised above suggests you are quite ignorant of the real issues, and I no longer place faith in your comments on the gender issue either. The essentialism you seem to display here is allowable in sophomore college students, but cannot be excused in someone who claims to be fighting a gender gap, in 2014. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I actually am fighting a "sex gap" but that leads to too many misapprehensions by puerile males, so am stuck with gender gap :-) In any case, I admit it's possible you don't remember that Sitush wrote on Djembayz talk page: I'm sure that the families of Twatt, Orkney will be impressed. Especially those whose spelling is poor ;) because she had protested the use of "c*nt"?[8] - memorable as that sound bite might be. And therefore it is possible you did not close it because she was a GGTF person. But evidently you did close it because you saw a civility debate developing and it leads me to suspect you don't think a whole bunch of childish cursing is a problem or something likely to drive off mature editors. Obviously at 66 I'm not very mature or I would have been driven off many years sooner. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what the comment about being 66 has to do with anything. I was born in 1948, and I don't understand the comment. What are you, Carol, saying? I don't see administrative bias, as you apparently do, just a difference of opinion, and a thread that needed closing. Age isn't the issue. Can you explain why you see age as the issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

What's the basis for your argument that calling someone a cunt is childish? In my experience that's a word very rarely used by children. Eric Corbett 02:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Namecalling of any sort is childish. As per our namecalling article, it's the lowest form of argument, least likely to persuade, or, for that matter, to have any positive or useful effect. Hence, childish. (And, of course, sexist, hurtful, generally offensive, and downright stupid, but we're addressing childish now.) Most of us learn with age to use different sorts of argument. --GRuban (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

In your opinion, not as a matter of fact. Eric Corbett 14:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Heh. Well, it's a commonly held opinion; also a cited opinion - you'll notice I cited the article, which cites to other reliable sources that back those statements. Do you really disagree? Would you really like an RfC to test whether "Most of us" believe namecalling to be childish and something that we really should grow out of? Would you agree the point in dispute is "Is namecalling childish"? Or would you prefer closer to your original statement "Is calling someone a cunt childish"? Either one will do. I notice you didn't follow up the last time you proposed a hypothesis on this page, that there wasn't a difference in the way men and women edited articles, and I showed fairly convincing evidence that there was. Are you willing to follow up this time and put namecalling to the test? --GRuban (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Who are "most of us"? And to be clear, I didn't consider your "evidence" to be worthy of rebuttal. Eric Corbett 15:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Whichever you propose, sir; any reasonable interpretation of the word "us". RfCs normally mean "those Wikipedia users that choose to participate", but if you have a different "us" in mind, please explain. --GRuban (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

If you're unable to define your terms then no further commentary is necessary. Eric Corbett 16:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Sir, the terms have been defined by clear implication; and not only that, by objecting to the statement, you have admitted that you have accepted at least some interpretation of them (either that or that you are objecting without knowing what you are objecting to!). "Us", throughout history, clearly refers to the participants. On this page, therefore, "us" may be taken as - "humans" - "Wikipedia users" - or "members of the Gender Gap task force" - (or, if you had a different interpretation when you objected, please say what you interpretation was). In the test, however, it will only mean "those that choose to participate", given that we have no means to force those that do not choose to do so. Frankly, you are backpedaling faster than before. Given the fact that I'm letting you have any reasonable interpretation, you seem to be admitting that there is no reasonable interpretation that won't prove you wrong. --GRuban (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I note that logic isn't your strong suit. Eric Corbett 17:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It might be best if you both drop this. - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• I note that you make a sexist accusation here, and though I'm not 66, I'll see that shortly: please don't call me puerile. I note also that you keep thinking that a dispute between editors A and B somehow has something to do with an dispute between editors X and Y (that's a gap alright), and you seem convinced that I closed a thread because editor X comments in a thread on A and B and editor Y has in the past said something to editor X and I am acquainted with editor Y so I refuse to act against editor A because editor X supports (as the only one, mind you) editor B's position?

  Now, this last claim of yours, about how I "evidently" closed it because I saw a civility debate coming--I could argue how wrong that is, since you have no such evidence, or I could just call it, in common American parlance, complete bullshit. I have no desire to either judge or comment on your maturity, but your lack of AGF and your let's say whimsical logic are quite startling. Good day, and good luck enforcing your sense of civility in this project in which you seem to have a very limited interest. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

All I know is that every time I stick up for somebody here who doesn't like people swearing at them / using sexualized language, I get pushback from a bunch of male editors who think that it really isn't that big a problem when people are swearing / using sexualized language with editors who object to it, that something else is really a problem instead, and that I should just move on, be quiet, and write biographies of women. I thought I was signing up for an encyclopedia here, not a street gang / barbarian hoarde re-enactment. -- Djembayz (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I think its time we amended the TOU to say that anyone who becomes a Wikipedian should be ready and willing to live in a civility environment ( and other shenanigans ) which can be expected in a male dominated street pack in Manchester. Since we are highly resistant to doing better, in the interests of honesty and avoiding the hassle of giving the true picture to those who cannot come to terms with such an environment (after they sign up ), I think this should be done immediately. Either this, or we should make civility an inexcusable imperative, and ditch those admins who think/behave as if application of civility rules should be selective or optional. Cheers. OrangesRyellow (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

What has the city of Manchester got to do with this discussion? Eric Corbett 14:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

"Manchester" has nothing to do with this discussion. IMHO "male dominated street pack in Manchester" is quite different from "Manchester" and I had used the phrase "male dominated street pack in Manchester" because IMHO/subjective perception, it gives a good idea of the what I perceive to be the current accepted level of civility on Wikipedia. Just wanted to get myself understood clearly and I am not saying anything about Manucians in general. Nothing nefarious / blasphemous there.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

So why did you mention Manchester then? Eric Corbett 15:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I just explained in my preceding post that I had mentioned "male dominated street pack in Manchester", rather that "Manchester", which is quite different from "male dominated street pack in Manchester". I had also explained why I had mentioned "male dominated street pack in Manchester".OrangesRyellow (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You have not yet explained anything. Why did you mention Manchester? Eric Corbett 19:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I have already explained what I claim to have explained. I don't see how I am expected to explain it any further.OrangesRyellow (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

What makes Britain great, makes Manchester yet greater!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that this should be dropped also. Oranges sometimes turns up in the hope of winding me up. Best just to ignore, especially since the relevance to GGTF is zero. - Sitush (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Some disagree. Pretty funny video. Now I know where they make all those movies about zombie and alien attacks on england. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This entire thread is ridiculous, its like the whole gang of pro and anti GGTF'ers having a dysfunctional pizza party. Put on the Taylor Swift.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

[Insert:Milowent is correct. Debate about the original posting aside, attempts to deal with real issues of bias/incivility here usually sabotaged. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

What's a GGTF? Wikipedia gives me German Golf Teachers Federation. HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@HiLo48: WP:GGTF. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

In case anyone still has not figured it out, the provocative language did nothing but inflame the situation and lead to more provocative language. The admin should have strongly discouraged the language, and insisted on showing respect for other editors, then when everyone was calmer, addressed the underlying problems: talk page courtesy, BLP issues, RS issues. Nothing can be gained by ignoring a user's psychological safely and expecting them to be a doormat. In this case it only lead to the disturbance spreading from one forum to another. —Neotarf (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

For the Reddit "Men's Rights" members of Gender Gap

Members of the Gender Gap group who are also members of the Reddit "Men's Rights" group may be interested in what a GamerGate party looks like. —Neotarf (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

What is the relevance of this? --Boson (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

None. Just the usual pointed-ness, as in the prior section. - Sitush (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Misogyny on Reddit has been mentioned at GGTF before. And of course there also is the context of one or more editors having repeatedly said that GGTF participants should work more on the problems in the gamergate-related articles. So it is of at least some relevance of reminding GGTF what kind of opposition may be coming here, even if proving it does have outing issues. And it's not like any who might be here would be embarassed enough to leave. Obviously, another issue that can't be dealt with in a forum unmoderated for disruption and incivility. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Love this article! It shows that there is humanity in everyone! These people never even met him and they worked up an entire system to get his wheel chair into the truck! I hope Brennan will love a long and healthy life! And everyone was very nice to Sarah, according to the article, there was no misogyny! I never knew a Gamergate party would be so diverse! Men, women, a guy in a wheelchair, African Americans, Asians, this is a very diverse party!

Thank you for sharing this link, User:Neotarf! What a fascinating and human group of people! Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 01:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. And interestingly, two women for about ten guys seems roughly comparable to the gender parity here. --Djembayz (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure any other women could join gamergate if they agreed that SJWs are evil. To be honest, most people that play video games are men, so it would be natural that GG would be mostly men. There's still lots of women in gamergate, and now there's more women in gaming now, just because they like different types of games, like social games. Really, on Wikipedia, you have to identify what obstacles block women from editing Wikipedia, based on what women say and what you see. For example, we now have a friendly teahouse which has improved editor retention rate. We also have visual editor (I personally hate it but it works for editor retention), and a toolbar at the top of the editing box. Those work, and I'm sure if we focus on those types of usability we'd get more women. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 18:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

So why do you call them SJW and why do you believe they are evil? —Neotarf (talk) 05:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Chess: By "majority" you mean that literally, right? Because they are they majority by 2%. Don't think GG is 48% women... wonder why. Anyway, continue with the "SJWs are evil" nonsense. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, well, well, "Women older than 18 are 36 percent of the game-playing population, while boys younger than 18 are only 17 percent" and "The number of female gamers age 50 and older increased by 32 percent from 2012 to 2013." And your grandma is probably not going to be amused by the "dead woman in a freezer" meme, or whatever. —Neotarf (talk) 12:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

What's a SJW and is Wikipedia a game? Killing off others' text, articles and desire to edit does seem to be a game with some editors. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll say it's paternalistic and an enforcement of your privilege to say that women can't support Gamergate and play video games. I'm sure the women in Gamergate don't think it is misogynistic. When you're criticizing misogyny against women when the very women you want to "protect" don't agree with you, you are reverting us back to the 1500s when women couldn't defend themselves on their own or have their own opinions. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

How the tropes work, for anyone who has not seen what they are trying to censor: [9] —Neotarf (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

First of all, those of us who don't play online games may be confused by all this and the Gamergate controversy article doesn't make it clear in the first paragraph. What it really is about is that a woman who decided to criticize sexism in the video games was accused of sleeping with a critic and that's the alleged "gate". (Same characters probably put lots of dirt in her Wikipedia bio; deja vu.) Despite the article's euphemistic lead sentence, its really about guys having fits because females (like many groups) don't like being stereotyped, being seen as desirable targets of violence, etc. I see the article is a lot longer than Sexism in video gaming.

Re video Neotarf linked to: looks like a lot of guys get off on the kidnapped/murdered woman stereotype since they have no idea how to related to an alive or empowered female.

Also, looking at Reddit, at least each group can have guidelines and moderate posts and kick out the trolls immediately, rather than having to put up with them month after month, noticeboard after noticeboard, arbitration after arbitration. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, Gamergate started after an independent female video game developer's ex-boyfriend falsely accused her of sleeping with a journalist in order to get positive reviews for the game. Gamergate followers use this falsehood to show how unethical video game journalism is. Unethical video game journalism does exist but it's much bigger than independent designers or women (it involves a lack of separation between major video game development companies and the major journalists who cover them). At around the same time, a videogame critic was speaking out against misogyny in video games and gamergate people objected to this. Ca2james (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

So can we agree that it's actually about ethics in gaming journalism? Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 21:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The unofficial motto of Gamergate—"actually, it's about ethics in game journalism"—has now morphed into Internet shorthand for someone arguing in bad faith. Tumblr now has a collection of memes to drive home the point. —Neotarf (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Or is it about ethics in online activism? AnonNep (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc: Also, Reddit's subreddits are "governed" by moderators, who are essentially dictators. They get their positions by being first to create that subreddit, or by taking it over from another person. The reason why the accused trolls haven't been kicked out of this group is that nobody rules this group, and every single person on Wikipedia, de jure, has the same amount of stature on the GGTF talk page. That essentially means you need to get a consensus involving everyone on Wikipedia, and currently, Wikipedia hasn't been able to come to a consensus. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 21:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate people would very much like others to think that they're all about ethics but I don't think that's their actual focus. The people involved have only focused on a few women while completely ignoring blatant examples of ethical problems in video game journalism. Also, some members have doxxed and sent death threats to women. The majority of the movement hasn't condemned or denounced these extremists so the whole group ends up being painted as misogynistic. I most certainly do not agree that they're about ethics in video game journalism. Ca2james (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Even those who have taken a great interest in GamerGate seem to make statements that are wrong, or at least unverifiable, on their face. For this reason I don't think there is much to be gained by discussing the matter here. Even less is there any point "accusing" - even unnamed - members of the GGTF of being also members of some outside group. I feel that starting threads such as this is counter productive, and urge contributors to concentrate on what I see as the three legitimate interests that the task force are likely to have in common

1. General research into the Wikipedia Gender Gap
2. Recruiting or encouraging women editors
3. Improving coverage of women and women's issues

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC).

The point, Rich, is when people who identify with Gamergate and misogyny start closing polls they have started and reverting stuff without discussion. Why would a member of Reddit "Men's Rights" want to be active here? —Neotarf (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

They have? You didn't say that in your opening remarks. And who are the Reddit members that you allege are here? Why does it matter if they are here or not, given that this is not a closed community? This all looks like a lot of vague mud-slinging to me. As Rich says, this (and several other threads that you have started) really have no use here: they are counter-productive. Perhaps even an attempt to foment disruption by inciting bad reactions. Rich makes some good points regarding where the focus of this project should be. Alas, it tends to be anywhere but in those areas, with the possible exception of the linkfarms that have been created. - Sitush (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Could we put those three points in a big box at the top of the page, archive the rest, and start again? --Boson (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Because of past disruptions, we really haven't had an in depth discussion of the scope section, which mostly has been written or tweaked by SlimVirgin. I know there's one or two things I'd add back or investigate more. Something else that probably should await the outcome of the Arbitration. Hopefully these have ended and some of us will recover soon from the Post Traumatic Stress, which I see this and other somewhat "off" threads as being examples of. However, there is another issue that some editors keep downplaying and I've added it as a number 3, since people are drawing up lists:

1. General research into the Wikipedia Gender Gap
2. Recruiting women editors
3. Dealing with issues women editors believe discourage their editing
4. Improving coverage of women and women's issues

Note that "Dealing with issues women editors believe discourage their editing" is subjective, just as are many of the policies on Wikipedia. Women do not have to cite a $50,000 research project to say something distresses us. And we don't need men saying "no, you don't feel that" or "your feelings are not important." That's been the crux of the problems here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You've split my point 2 into your points 2 and 3, and tweaked 3 slightly - the splitting is a good thing, probably. It's worth discussing our difference of emphasis on point 3.

• The research into the Gender Gap has thrown up some surprising results, as well as a lot of expected ones, that's why the research is done, and is worth doing. These surprising results (apparently) contradict our gender stereotypes, they certainly show us that we cannot extrapolate from our own feelings/point of view to the universal or even dominant. Indeed we should recognise that it is very common that people (and by extension ourselves) do something for one reason and believe it is for another. (I would recommend Thinking, Fast and Slow and The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat to understand just how much our brains can - unintentionally - deceive us.) So firstly feelings provide a valuable place to start, and, if we have no better information, they needs must be the basis of our our actions to deal with environmental issues. But it is better, where we can, to have hard evidence. Secondly if our initial take on something suggests a line of action that is widely considered a good thing or at least harmless, there is no need to wait for better evidence that it addresses GG before acting on it - we should, if possible, build measurement into our efforts to see what effect they actually have.
• Secondly we need to be careful that we do not conflate "the women who edit Wikipedia now" with "women editors" in the abstract. It would be a mistake to do something which suits this cohort (who are likely to be more similar to the male cohort than, say, a random group of women) but which discourages new entrants.
• Thirdly you've chosen to focus on the conflict "issues that discourage". I prefer a more positive "encouraging", which certainly might include, let us say, reducing some of the unnecessarily complex rules, or being more supportive over wiki-stalking, but would also include things like the "thank" interface, or Tea House.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC).

• I haven't studied the research sufficiently, but having seen it misreported a number of times as being less damning than it is, will wait to make further comment on how surprising it is or isn't.
• "Women who edit wikipedia now" is an ever shifting group if they keep quiting for various reasons, the most obvious one being biased behavior against them. Women who stick it out actually might be 2/3 stubborn taurus the bulls and hard nosed capricorns or a bunch of ENTJs, like one long-ago survey of libertarian women proved a very large percentage of them to be. (Including me.) Or women who mostly edit in areas of little interest to males (or editors in general) and thus escape bad behavior. But should women who only members of such peculiar classes feel they can continue while the great mass of those who give it a try get quickly turned off?
• I don't have a problem with "encourage" as long as it includes explicit language we are encouraging women to quickly seek help for the kind of bad behavior that most quickly turns women off, be it asking for advice here or taking repeated personal attackers and harassers to ANI or RfC/U (which I've never done because I hear complainants often get trashed more than the subject). Maybe I should quickly write up that essay encouraging women to deal with such nonsense and then we'll have something specific to discuss. (Just been enjoying getting my own stuff done last couple weeks!!) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Question: If, as some posting here seem to feel, the GGTF is not the place for "Dealing with issues women editors believe discourage their editing", where should this be done?

Is there an appropriate venue on-wiki? Does this need to be done offline, or on other websites? -- Djembayz (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

No-one has said that, from what I can see. What has been said is that it would be better to focus on the positive "how to encourage", which obviously would include looking at things that discourage.. It is semantics, but useful nonetheless because the former is more inclusive than the latter. People need to drop the collective "us" word also: there have been plenty of declared female contributors of late who have expressed at best a complete apathy with regard to the issues that have been alleged on this page. In other words, some women may feel discouraged/encouraged but there seem to be many more who just prefer to get on with things. They may benefit from change, of course, but they seem not to want to seek it. - Sitush (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Djembayz The gender gap mailing list certainly can be used to organize strategies and proposals to bring here. Or people can bypass en.wikipedia GGTF entirely if critics dominate it. (Doubters and uncivil people won't last long on the moderated list.) The problem has been not enough editors willing to organize much on mailing lsit for a number or reasons; it's mostly announcements with occasional flareups of discussion. But as long as we don't dominate the list, we certainly can put out well-formulated ideas there for feedback.

Those supportive of the GGTF-empowered as opposed to GGTF-ghettoized (or whatever dictomy) should join the GG email list. There are a number of other related projects linked in our resources that also could be useful, allowing a bypassing of this one.

Here, trying to discuss anything besides finding out which women's articles need beefing up and announcing the occasional content noticeboard/RfC/or male on female wikihounding ANI probably won't fly. Unless Arbitrators "get it" that disruption of wikiprojects is a no no and take effective action.(A girl can dream...) Once arbitration is through it will be clearer what to do for those who want to do it. Or we all can take a wikibreak for the winter and those interested in a more empowered project try again in the spring. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Waaaah! Waaah! I'm upset and should set up a project under CSB right now because the above post is hemispherically biassed. Who's winter? North or South? Or do you mean half of the participants should be active when the other half are not? It just goes to show that people make inadvertent mistakes, I think ;) - Sitush (talk) 07:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

We already know your negative attitudes towards this project which you've blathered out:[10][11][12][13][14] I'm sure these are the same sort of comments in India-related articles that made you so popular with 1.2 billion Indians. To quote sitush vs me: I deal with enough fucking idiots here without having to add you to the list.[15] (Maybe we need a rule that editors can be uncivil to opponents of civility?) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I agree with Rich Farmbrough's list of three main focuses or goals or tasks for this group, and I think that Carolmooredc's additional point is part of the second goal. Here are the goals again just for ease of finding them (along with some comments from me):

1. General research into the Wikipedia Gender Gap. At the moment we have some research and lots of gut feelings but we need more data.
2. Recruiting women editors along with providing support and encouragement for women editors. We need data to help figure out how to recruit and keep more women editors. In the meantime, providing support for women editors would be valuable.
3. Improving coverage of women and women's issues. For some definition of women's issues, of course.

As I've said before, I see each of these three main Tasks as its own Task Force within a broader Gender Gap WikiProject. Right now everything is mixed up together which makes it hard to focus on any one task; worse, it means that people needing support aren't getting it here because people with contrary views are expressing them all over the place here. Those contrary views are needed - they're be valuable in brainstorming and critically examining next steps - but they may be more of a hindrance than a help in other cases.

I believe that this group has the potential to provide a lot of value to Wikipedia and to editors but right now it's a black hole of time and energy. I'd love to be part of this work but at the moment I find this group and its goals difficult to find or pursue.Ca2james (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the need for three different "task forces" but otherwise I agree entirely. - Sitush (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

How about this, four taskforces with none of the anticivility people allowed in the one where women who are insulted and harassed organize to help each other individually or to increase civility on Wikipedia, including organizing, say, a petition to demand WMF start enforcing its rules on civility. Actually one person could start that petition now. Of course how does one promote it without canvass. I know, collect lots of talk page watchers. That should be each of our first tasks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I see that maybe Task forces aren't needed and that all of the work outlined could be done within a WikiProject in.... I don't know, subprojects? I don't know what the right word is for that so I'll just call them sub projects for now.

I'm not sure there's a need for a fourth subproject to support women. Either way, I do think such an area should be positive in intent and tone with an eye towards making the whole Wikipedia project better.

With respect to a petition (rfc?) to ask en-WP or the WMF to enforce the civility pillar, I see that as part of the subproject on gaining more female editors, as I see the support area as offering support and advice only. My thinking is also that ideas around how to change things need to be discussed within the ggtf (maybe someday the ggwp?) first so that potential objections can met.

To me the ggtf has a lot of potential but at the moment its lack of focus means that it's not loving up to that potential. I've thought about this one approach but I have no idea if my ideas are realistic or workable. Ca2james (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Links collection

Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/related resources seems to be turning into something far bigger than the scope of this project. I can understand that treatment of the gap at other venues etc might have some relevance to how it is addressed at this one but the list seems to be gaining a life of its own, becoming a sort of point-y accumulation of advocacy regardless of merit. Surely that is not a purpose for which Wikipedia is intended? Can it not be trimmed so that it just has whatever are the most useful elements? - Sitush (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I've had a think. At what point does something like this become WP:SOAP, WP:LINKFARM etc? - Sitush (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

At what point does this site fail to support the principle of equal opportunity? -- Djembayz (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

That is not relevant to my point. - Sitush (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Gloria Steinem article

Can somebody please fix the date formatting on some of the dates on the Gloria Steinem article? If you scroll down to the references you'll see the ones in red that need help. I'd do it myself but I'm not really good at it. Thanks.Maranjosie (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done. The problem was that the dates were listed as "unknown"—if the date is unknown, it should apparently just be left blank, rather than listed as "unknown". —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!Maranjosie (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2014

Nominations are now open, in case anyone wants to take on the responsibility. Meanwhile, I hope those of us still ambulatory will participate in questioning and commenting on candidates regarding issues relevant to closing the gender gap and making Wikipedia a better place to edit for older people, shy people, civil people, people of color, academics, professionals, feminists and even assertive women like me ;-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It's very relevant to ask about these issues. But be aware that some candidates sour if they get too many questions and then won't answer them; so be selective in what to ask rather than bombarding them with questions. Iselilja (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Just because you repeatedly claim you are assertive, does not mean you are assertive. In fact, many here would make the claim that your relentless grandstanding is not assertive at all, but rather obnoxious.--Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 17:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

[Insert: You know, I'm so used to personal attacks, it didn't even occur to me this might be one. How about removing it?? Thanks. (Talkie-Talkie) ^{Slicin' salami} Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)

Another thing to keep in mind is that (as long as you follow general Wikipedia rules - ie. WP:BLP applies everywhere, no personal attacks, etc.) anyone can produce a Voter Guide. Ask considered questions that can be added to your guide. AnonNep (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) ^{Make 'em squeal!}

Last of the Mohicans

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	Note: there is now a gender-neutral version of this barnstar.

I have put this barnstar on Carolmooreddc's talk page for being the "Last of the Mohicans"--one of the few women who has not yet been driven off the Gender Gap Task Force or the current ArbCom case. —Neotarf (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Lots of other individuals left. Others still chime in and hopefully will do more so after arbitration over. I'm just more of a pest since once you get a stubborn taurus the bull ticked off, they hang in there a lot longer. Whatever happens, I do intend to take a wikibreak to catch up on 8 years of my own projects. But that only should take a couple months. ha ha ha. And I'm sure other supporters of the project and its full empowerment will take up any slack and make 'em squeal. :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Women and user interface (from above) / willingness to participate in dispute resolution

Breaking out part of a comment from above discussion:

... Really, on Wikipedia, you have to identify what obstacles block women from editing Wikipedia, based on what women say and what you see. For example, we now have a friendly teahouse which has improved editor retention rate. We also have visual editor (I personally hate it but it works for editor retention), and a toolbar at the top of the editing box. Those work, and I'm sure if we focus on those types of usability we'd get more women. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 18:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of the assertion that women can't figure out how to edit without Visual Editor. I think the problem here is that women don't want to edit, because of the unfriendly atmosphere. That said, VE may turn out to work better for some groups of editors than others, so it will be interesting to see what the data shows.

Regarding the user interface: this weekend I got the first explanation on women and user interface that's made sense to me. It came from a woman street vendor who's a former gamer, who used to spend a lot of time on various Internet forums. She says that now she only uses Facebook, because the interface allows her to talk only to people she knows; she uses the Facebook interface to block anyone she doesn't know from interacting with her or viewing her posts. This woman is not shy about talking to strangers, since she works as a street vendor; but she says she is finding it very difficult if not impossible to have civilized interactions with men on the Internet. So she is simply refusing to interact anymore on the Internet, at all, except with the people she knows in real life.

At one point, Jimbo Wales proposed something similar here-- a button to block editors we would rather not interact with. (Feel free to add the diff; I don't have Carolmooredc's time and patience for digging out all those diffs!) However, there's a problem: if you let women block anyone we don't want to interact with, as things stand, some of us women Wikipedians would stop interacting with a large number of administrators and ANI participants. If women can't participate comfortably at ANI, it means women won't be comfortable using our conflict resolution process, which puts women at a disadvantage. An interface with a block button would be an interesting experiment, to see exactly how many people block interactions, and who blocks who, but it wouldn't entirely solve the problem. Some group of administrators would need to be designated to interact with the editors who simply block all interactions.

Even an optimized interface could well leave you with a situation much like this one, where User:Carolmooredc is the "last women standing ..."

Perhaps we should just turn this forum over to the male members, rename it "He for She", declare victory and walk away ... ;) --Djembayz (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Motivation is everything. It doesn't matter how friendly the interface, if the interactions suck, who's going to bother? And even if it's a funky interface, if you are being encourage to come here, given decent tools to learn it and encouragement and happy collaboration, you are more likely to stay. Motivation is everything.

What's with dispute resolution in section header? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

If the dispute / conflict resolution boards are intimidating, or don't seem like a safe space, people will avoid using these processes. -- Djembayz (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion taking place about proposal to merge various male and female serial killer categories Cfm

This category is being considered for merging into Category:Various nationalities male and female serial killers. This nomination is part of a discussion of several related categories.

This does not mean that any of the pages in the category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress.
add entry: {{subst:Cfm2|WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force|header=Male serial killers and female serial killers|Various nationalities male and female serial killers|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed merger. ~~~~}}

Administrators: If this category is empty, and all incoming links have been cleaned up, click here to delete.%5B%5BWikipedia%3ACategories+for+discussion%2FLog%2F2014+November+12%23Male+serial+killers+and+female+serial+killers%5D%5D

--The Vintage Feminist (talk) 09:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing to do with CSB, as far as I can see. - Sitush (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Gender specific categories are part of the focus of this wikiproject. Thanks, TVF, for the notification.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, The Vintage Feminist. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

One more disagreeing with Sitush and thanking TVF. It may not seem like "serial killer" would be a desirable category to reduce systemic bias in, but, it is still a systemic bias. --GRuban (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Proposed decision

For those who care to read it; probably all of it will pass.

As a farewell, let me just say:

• On a personal level, I have no problem with topic banning me from GGTF for a good while because as things are now even the most subtly disruptive editors will just keep pissing me off. However, on a political level, Arbitrators are sending GGTF members and the world a bad message - angry defenders of GGTF will be dealt with harshly while its most insistent, insidious, snide and harassing critics mostly will get off scott free.defenders of GGTF will be dealt with more harshly while its most insistent, insidious, snide and harassing critics, most (or all?) of whom will get off scott free.
• The "Non-discrimination policy" section still fails to address disruption of Wikiprojects, including of those trying to end systemic bias. Arbitrators are telling bigots to have at them and and if defenders of the project lose their tempers, critics should try and get them blocked or topic banned. In any case, certain GGTF efforts will have to be taken off En.Wikipedia, which really is not a good sign.
• I obviously am very aggravated in general right now after a year and a half of what I consider partisan and/or sexist harassment that cut my actual editing down to nothing. To see these issues magnified at GGTF was incredibly annoying. I do intend to take a nice long wikibreak to work on my own seriously neglected writing, music and video projects. But I still probably will add the occasional factoid into articles of interest. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

First, don't panic. It's rare that all of a proposed decision passes. Wait for the voting to conclude. (And not panicking even then is advised.) Second, it's absolutely not true that the proposal deals with you or Neotarf more harshly than Eric Corbett, the three proposed topic bans are the same, and Eric even has an additional paragraph. Arguably it would be unbalanced in the sense you spend more time here than he does, of course. One proposed consolation - the proposal doesn't suggest anyone be banned from editing any articles (unless there are any articles about the Gender Gap on Wikipedia) as such, and, well, the changes we make to articles is why we are all here in the end. Right? --GRuban (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for noting that conceptual flub, now corrected. Believe me on a personal level I am relieved to be topic banned for a while anyway. The one arbitration I was in every thing passed, but haven't paid attention to others, so we shall see if they beef up the "Non-discrimination policy" section . I say no more since editors can follow the link if they desire. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

MRuban is correct that things seem to be getting more complicated there, for better and worse. Perhaps some consciousness raising going on? Slightly more elevated discussions than in previous rounds here... Time will tell... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm an old time Wikipedian. I've seen it all. :-) --GRuban (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• So Carol is going to be indeffed? If Corbett is too, I guess I can see that, but holy moly if he is not. And I'm not saying I want that. The findings against Carol seem silly, but I never pay attention to ARBCOM stuff. Yes she made comments about Sitush, the guy who wrote the attack BLP on her, one of the most legendary and clever assaults on a fellow editor ever seen. And supporting articles at AFD by at times claiming similar articles on males wouldn't be deleted is no great sin, its an argument that rises or falls on its merits. There is a gender gap, last I heard.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

If I may, that won't be decided until the case is closed. Arbitrators can easily change their votes, before then. GoodDay (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ouch. A site ban is serious. That would be a shame. So sorry, Carol. --GRuban (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Carol hasn't been banned, as it requires atleast 7 supports at the close of the case. So far, we've not heard from the 12th active arbitrator, so Carol should remain calm. GoodDay (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

This is sort of fascinating how ARBCOM works, if you can get through the red tape. So LFaraone holds Carol's fate in their hands as to an indefinite ban. I do think its odd that two arbcom members who have voted to ban Carol (Beeblebrox and Worm That Turned) have abstained from voting on Eric Corbett. I know the case is not just an Eric v. Carol thing, but it seems strange that a judge can permit himself to abstain from any voting as to one party to a potential bias, but not another opposing party -- that kind of thing surely cannot happen in English or American courts.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Roger Davies is the 12th active arb for that case, yet to be heard. LFaraone, is inactive :) GoodDay (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I just want to say how much I appreciate the members of this group who have spoken up on my behalf at the talk page for the proposed decision. Since Arbcom have proposed to ban me from anything with gender in it, I should probably look over the BLPs of women that have created and see if I can get some of the tags removed from them. I suppose that would prohibit me from attending any edit-a-thons as well, applying for any grants, or anything associated with GLAM. I'm not sure if that would restrict me from working on my BLPs of male subjects or if I would have to concentrate on something like algae.

The Committee has now added a proposal to place this topic, or perhaps this page, under discretionary sanctions. For the last year I have been a very vocal opponent of discretionary sanctions, but I am now leaning towards recommending such a thing to the Arbitration Committee. One of the huge problems with DS is that it is enforced by the WP:AE, a small, all-male group that has a reputation for harshness against non-admins. They can't tell the trolls apart from the editors who are trying to stop the trolls. I can envision the tiny number of women editors being caught up in this system, especially any who were trying to develop their capacity for leadership, and as a result, have some sanction applied to them that would remove them from the pool of potential admins. You can see what has happened to me. If I were to recommend such a thing to the Committee, I think it might carry some weight, at least with some arbs.

Alternatively, you may want to consider closing the Gender Gap project as being much too risky to participate in. This would protect the small number of individuals who are willing to risk editing in gender topics, so that the number of such edits will continue to rise. I can see some value of the group as a notice board, but unfortunately the notices are so buried in walls of arguments that it is often impossible to read them

Finally, there are some lists of resources, and probably some lists of redlinked articles that are at risk of being lost if some of us are topic banned. They should be transferred somewhere where they can be curated and referenced, perhaps to Meta, which already has a tightly reviewed list of resources. I know I have done a little copyediting to such a list, and it is still in very rough form, but it should not be lost. Carol has probably done the most work on such lists and knows what is in them. If she is to be prevented from working on this, the time to tap her expertise on this matter is now, before the case is closed. The arbitration committee usually works slowly, rarely meets its own deadlines, and tries to keep things open as long as possible in the interest of fairness, but in this case the committee has repeatedly been pushed to meet its schedule, whether for protecting a page, or closing a section -- and so far has been responding to these requests. Carol needs to ignore the trolls, something she is not very good at doing, and now concentrate on the tasks she is good at, and that will continue to benefit those who do not wish to see women shut out of the Project for years to come. —Neotarf (talk) 11:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Actualy, Neotarf, even though some people here wouldn't like to have you showing up at editathon events and giving the GLAM women ideas about how women are treated here, thankfully, GLAM institutions have their own rules on who they welcome, and are not under Arbcom's jurisdiction. --Djembayz (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

My understanding though Djembayz, is that these events usually involve making actual edits to English Wikipedia, which would in fact be under the jurisdiction of the ArbCom. I think it more important than ever, now that nominations for Committee elections has now opened, for this task force to develop a standard list of gender-related questions to ask the arb candidates, for example, what kinds of gender-specific language is allowed in their own workplace and whether it has any bearing on Wikipedia. —Neotarf (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

As someone who does a lot of stuff with grants and is on the GAC: regardless of arbcom's decisions, you will be more than welcome to apply for grants. Each GAC member (and WMF staff) will evaluate your proposal and your ability to carry it out, but in my book you've demonstrated a committment to gendergap issues (an area I particularly want to fund,) and a capacity to do meaningful work. If you receive a siteban from ENWP, you may need to make any grant proposals not ENWP-specific since we don't tend to give out grants that violate the rules of particular projects, but the WMF grants program is outside of the jurisdiction of ENWP's arbcom, and a siteban here wouldn't preclude you from applying for grants by any means. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I strongly agree about the need to develop questions for ArbCom candidates. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, feel free to draft something. It would be nice to add asking about harassment/wikihounding and gender-related slurs and "battleground alliances" issues as described here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe also consider including a question about saving people from Salem type hollering gangups.OrangesRyellow (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The place to have that conversation might be on some of the current arbs' talk pages--now. —Neotarf (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Gloria Steinem article nominated as a Good article

The nomination is under the category Social sciences and society, and the subcategory Culture, sociology and psychology. Please review if you can, and if you do please let me know on my talk page. Thanks! Maranjosie (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Grant proposal for HR staffer

There is a grant proposal at Meta for a staffer who would deal with community human resources concerns. This is long overdue, especially since the Foundation has no such staff person. I am pinging Tony as well, since he is a member of this group and well experienced in evaluating grants. This might also be a good time to look for someone to act as a liaison with the Gender group, since Arbcom is currently considering whether to ban me from gendered topics. —Neotarf (talk) 12:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Very much needed. For example, the Twitter reporting tool for harassment, profiled in Forbes and Engadget can't be implemented here, because there is nobody to report to. --Djembayz (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Educational Partnerships

The Wiki Education Foundation has article on their blog titled "Help us close Wikipedia’s gender gap". This information via Eryk Salvaggio on the Wikimedia Gendergap mailing list. —Neotarf (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Endometrial cancer for Today's Featured Article

I've set-up Endometrial cancer as a blurb for the Today's Featured Article requests process.

You can see it at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Endometrial cancer.

However, as I myself have nominated a bunch of other articles lately, I won't actually transclude it at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.

If anyone else wishes to do so, they can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, and then a discussion will start as to the article's consideration for the Main Page.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Disbanding/development issues

Based on the Arbcom case that is litterly tearing editors apart I propose that this task force be disbanded. I am hearing from women editors that the attitudes here are toxic and seeing how the rep of this place is already in the dumps do not see how this can go forward encouraging women to edit more. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that it's better for any such proposals to come from the task force members themselves. Those who are not interested in participating should feel free to step away, and let those who wish to remain to figure out what they want to do. isaacl (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Literally. But it isn't. The Arbcom case has prevented me from having the time to work here. I hope to return shortly, when the case is put to bed, though I may need to make some amendment requests. OTOH this page might be under discretionary sanctions, in which case, make with the barge-pole. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC).

The problem isn't the tone at this page, it's that this community is still developing its processes for dealing with sexual harassment. Getting communities to the point of consensus that a governance process for dealing with sexual harassment is needed is not something that happens overnight.

Right now, we are going through the "storming" phase of "storming, norming and performing." Take it from someone who experienced how social change for women developed over the years before computers, even though there is a low point in the process where you feel like "the floggings will continue to morale improves", eventually people realize that they need to create a governance process that helps keep the community livable.

Yes, it's unpleasant, but telling women to "just ignore it, go back to work" isn't working for the ones who experience harassment, here or on the internet in general. You need a place to discuss the unpleasant stuff too. Pretending it's not there doesn't always work.

Although it would be a lot quicker, easier, and more effective to have paid professionals dealing with this stuff, people who are trained in the standard HR processes demonstrated to work when you need to big groups of people functioning, for some reason I don't understand, that's not happening. --Djembayz (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The "sexual harassment" would seem to be in the eye of the beholder, given how many declared women contributors have said that they do not agree with what the cheerleaders have been doing here. Obviously, there is never going to be 100% agreement within any cohort of users but the numbers are pretty significant, I think, and a cultural divide is also evident.

Doubtless, there is some feminist theory that can explain all this away (maybe a patronising line that says that those naysaying women contributors are simply poor, misguided fools brainwashed by the male bullies?). The reality, though, is that unless you are prepared to address those women who have issues with the project then there isn't a lot of hope for the "sexual harassment" argument. It is anecdotal, personalised, and incapable of resolution unless we start banning even words such as "drama" and "hysteria". Some people will always be offended; but most people will just get on with it.

That said, this project has a purpose. It may be in the wrong place and it is certainly seems to be lost at the moment, but there have been some good suggestions put forward recently. The sooner that the battleground mentality is resolved, the sooner those proposals might bear fruit. It will be hard to "win" using emotive demagoguery, mudslinging, and tendentious forum-shopping. - Sitush (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Because most people don't want the WMF to hire even more non-essential employees. Also, everything is determined on consensus here. There is no delegation of authority in the wider community except for WP:ARBCOM and it is debatable whether you include WP:MEDCOM or Jimbo. Administrators can only implement community consensus, as well. Where would this new HR person fit in? Would he have a higher level of power than everyone else? Could he overrule community consensus? What is his purview? These questions would need to be answered before I decide to support this. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "most people" don't want the WMF hiring. My suspicion is that most people haven't stated a view on it. WMF can certainly afford to hire, although whether it would be justifiable or even in conformity with its remit is another matter. WMF involvement in things that actually take place on any given project is highly constrained, as I have found to my own cost. The proposal has been raised before here, as was the quickly-shut down proposal that WMF have some sort of community advocate for the gender gap issues. - Sitush (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

What is his purview? His or her purview, surely.

I wouldn't ordinarily be so pedantic but this is GGTF and as one of its members (with no intention of disbanding) we should aim to get it right at least here if nowhere else on Wikipedia. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe. As a sub-project of CSB, perhaps we should also "get it right" when we refer to "Wikipedia". Which "Wikipedia"? There are loads of them. That is one reason why there is a valid argument for this being a soft redirect to the project at Meta: the issues transcend the language. - Sitush (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not using the singular they, and "his or her" gets clunky when you have to use it when you don't know the subject in question's name. Gender-specific and gender-neutral pronouns#Generic he Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 01:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@User:Djembayz. It's really better to speak in terms of harassment, period. Many women assume from our own experiences -and that of dozens of women who have written about it in various forums - that editors known to be women are insulted/harassed/wikihounded more often than editors assumed to be males. (After arbitration the only thing I have planned to do is look at all the research and provide more details.) However, it's the atmosphere where these can occur to anyone that is the issue.

Now if you are talking about obvious sexual harassment, which tends to be more males on females, obviously that does merit the term "sexual". But is there so much of that it merits a staffer? Seems like one of those situations where WMF has to say - start enforcing this admins or we start enforcing Terms of Use policy.
If WMF is going to hire anyone, it should be mediators and mediation trainers who will help people deal with content issues, which often are the beginning of behavior issues, issues which become chronic over time in an ever downward spirale of hostility. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Chess, this isn't the best place to use the "generic he": just because it's an accepted form doesn't mean that it's a good thing to do going forward. If you find that "his or her" gets clunky, rewrite the sentence to avoid its use - or replace it with a "generic she".

Carolmooredc, I have heard that elsewhere on the internet, people known to be women are insulted and harassed more often than people who are known to be men. However, I'm not convinced that this is true here on Wikipedia. All you've given us are anecdotal statements that it happens and unfortunately, no matter how compelling those statements may be, by themselves they aren't enough to conclude that it's a widespread phenomenon .

I do think that the discussion atmosphere on wikipedia tends to be confrontational and brusque and that this can be insulting to many. I also think that there are editors that harass other editors, and that wikistalking and harassment is unacceptable. But are all these behaviours targeted specifically at women? That I just don't know. I'd love to see some research and studies.

With respect to mediation, I think that hiring people trained in mediation and dispute resolution would be very useful. I could see them being a resource for volunteers in those areas and possibly providing training to them. Ca2james (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The link above, about Gender-specific and gender-neutral pronouns#Generic he, is for the article based on the subject. The one for editors is here: Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language#Pronouns and states: There are a number of ways of avoiding the use of generic masculine and feminine pronouns; the following are examples. ... Using he or she ("Each politician is responsible for his or her constituency"), although this can be ungainly if repeated within a short space. Since it wasn't being repeated within a short space his or her is the correct form, or, as Ca2james rewrite the entire sentence.

Like I said, I wouldn't ordinarily be this pedantic but in a GGTF thread, in a discussion about whether to disband GGTF itself, it did tick the box marked "ironic" for me. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I find some of the attitudes at this task force toxic. It's those attitudes from some women editors that involve treating all male editors as the enemy. Such irrational paranoia only hides what might be a real problem and, if it does exist, guarantees that it will continue. HiLo48 (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

List of Wikipedia controversies

Just discovered this article and see no mention of gender gap issues, despite about 60 RS articles in the Gender Gap list of mainstream and tech media articles on the general topic and at least one, probably more, specific incidents. Left a note on the talk page and here in case someone wants to have a go. (Also see relevant info in the list of research studies on the Gender Gap on Wikipedia. So definitely a section or paragraphs (since it's organized by year) devoted to that needed. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, what's the controversy though? There needs to be conflict, and there isn't. At least one that hasn't been reported by many, many rs. You may have rs that say 'Wikipedia doesn't have female editors' or the statistic and what not. But that's not really a controversy, it's a fact, which is even acknowledged by WMF all in all, isn't a controversy. So I'm not sure exactly how we'd add it. Tutelary (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• That article is not divided by subject, but under 2013, it does cover Amanda_Filipacchi#Wikipedia_op-ed which is one of the most salient controversies.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

the only real controversy I saw when I skimmed the list of links was the Amanda Filipacchi incident but as Milowent says, it's already included in the article. I guess the recognition that there's a gender gap on Wikipedia could be added but that isn't exactly a controversy. Carolmooredc, was there something in particular that you were thinking should be included on the controversy page? Ca2james (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I searched her name and didn't spell it right. First what is your standard for something being included as controversial? Only something where at least one WP:RS mentions the word "controversy" or "controversial" in the article? A topic that has 10 articles on it about some Wikipedia issue, written from different perspectives? Is there a similar standard that the article sets? Or is there a minimal standard below that? We can't measure without a ruler. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

That's an excellent point. We need to define our terms so we're all talking about the same thing. Wikipedia defines controversy as a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view. Oxford says it's a prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion. I'm not quite sure that there's been a heated discussion or disagreement regarding the gender gap on wikipedia since pretty much all of the articles agree that the gap exists. While the gender gap is something that affects the site, does it rise to the level of a controversy? I don't know; maybe. I don't think it's a given that it belongs there but maybe it could be added. Ca2james (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

If someone puts it in, I'll likely take it out. Unless there is a fundamental disagreement between studies etc (eg: yes there is a gap/no there is not), it has no place there. It is just politicking. Find something more useful to do regarding the project would be my advice because adding it to that page is just opening a whole new can of worms for naff all gain. - Sitush (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Since the articles agree that the gap exists I would say that controversy surrounds the questions: "What are the root causes of the gender gap?" "Why is there a disproportionately large number of male editors compared to female editors?"

Answers have included – sexist remarks being made in discussions about article content (counter-claims: the broader issue is one of incivility / if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen); there have been various accounts of what puts women off editing WP and what can be done to increase the number of female editors (counter-claim: the only reason women don't edit WP is because they are not interested and that doesn't point to any particular problem / issue that needs to be resolved).

I'm not sure how acknowledging that these disputes exist and placing them in a list of controversies constitutes "opening up a whole new can of worms". In fact it ought to do the opposite, e.g. in a discussion which is getting heated, it would make it possible to say, "yes, the issue of what cause the gender gap has been a source of controversy for a while now see link". --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Are these studies etc actually criticising each other? If not, there is no controversy. Keep it focussed, keep it tight would be my motto: there is enough to play with in the three proposals that were recently made here without adding sideshows. Especially since those three proposals do indeed seem to be at the heart of the issue. - Sitush (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@User:Ca2james: I don't think Wikipedia article definitions are necessarily the final word, especially if some policy clearly trumps them. The article's lead definitely leaves some wiggle room because even a quick look at all the examples refs may not prove either prolonged or public debates, especially outside Wikipedia. And have you read every Gender Gap-realted article and research study and thus can say that "not a single one describes differing opinions inside or outside Wikipedia?" (I bet we also could find a few RS naysayer articles that I missed.)

I myself wouldn't try to add anything to the Wikipedia controversies article except at the end of my thorough study and analysis of these sources. And that won't be til next year. That's why I posted this, in case any others interested in putting RS info on this topic in that Wikipedia article wants to do it sooner. At that point anyone objecting will have to make explicit why their criterion for exclusion should not apply to any other existing sentences/paragraphs/sections of the Controversies article which don't pass a similar muster. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see: you were musing again, and on the basis of yet another promise of something you'll do some far distant time in the future. And making up rules also - At that point anyone objecting will have to make explicit why their criterion for exclusion should not apply to ... is incorrect. Sorry, Carol, we are going to be IBANNED and I've done my utmost to ignore you outside of ANI/ArbCom for weeks now, even when you have referenced me obliquely as in the above quote, but I'm fed up of this. No-one here seems willing to call you out but they damn well should do. - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Studies? I'm not sure that there needs to be studies? This is the list so far for 2014, all of the references are to news articles and blogs. In fact, flicking through the references for all the controversies since the beginning in 2002, the majority link to newspaper items, including the controversy surrounding Amanda Filipacchi's article in April 2013, "Wikipedia's Sexism Toward Female Novelists". Are you planning to delete it from the list of controversies? Isn't "can of worms" just another way of saying "it's controversial"? That is what the list is meant to be.

Controversies may be a sideshow of Wikipedia, but they can hardly be described as a sideshow from a list of controversies. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I said "studies" because, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no controversy in news sources regarding existence of the gap beyond the specific examples already in there. However, it seems that the linkfarm of studies has been created indiscriminately, so I guess it is unlikely that anyone has actually read the things yet. I worry about coatracking, a lot: the more this sort of point-y stuff is dispersed, the harder it will be for everyone to achieve an improvement in the core matters. It isn't as if this project has been short of publicity on this particular Wikipedia, is it? - Sitush (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

A quick flick through The Guardian suggests some omissions: Women! Wikipedia needs you; Stop female scientists being written out of Wikipedia history; and Is Wikipedia the best place to promote women in art?.

I'm not sure what "coatracking" you think there would be, or what "this sort of point-y stuff" you're referring to. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, The Grauniad is good for stuff like that. I don't see the controversy, though: they're saying what everyone knows, surely? Do people actually dispute what they report? - Sitush (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)Carolmooredc, I'm confused: were you thinking of someone else when you replied to me? I haven't read all of the links on the resource page, but then I haven't claimed to have done so: in fact, I said above that I skimmed the list of links. I also haven't said anywhere that "not a single one describes differing opinions inside or outside Wikipedia." What I have said is that I'm not quite sure that there's been a heated discussion or disagreement regarding the gender gap on wikipedia since pretty much all of the articles agree that the gap exists. This statement leaves room for articles to disagree that a gender gap exists. Even if there are reliable sources that say the gender gap doesn't exist, does that elevate the fact of the gender gap into a controversy?

To be honest, I'm trying to understand your position but I'm having a hard time of it. I think you're thinking that if something negative gets written about in multiple reliable sources, then it's a controversy. Is that right, or have I misunderstood you? Am I also right in saying that you think Wikipedia's definition of controversy shouldn't be used in this discussion? The reason I included it was to make a start at defining our terms and to try to show why I didn't think the existence of the gender gap was necessarily a controversy. Is there a definition you'd prefer to use?

The Vintage Feminist, I agree that there is some controversy around the causes of the gender gap, although so far there aren't a lot of definitive answers as to why the gap exists. Studies are definitely needed to figure that out.

I've been thinking about this subject for most of the day and I'm still torn. Am I right in thinking that the Andrea Filipacchi controversy brought the gender gap issues to the forefront? If so, then one possibility could be to add something in that section about how the gender gap became a more prominent issue as a consequence. If I'm wrong, then ignore that thought. Ca2james (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

For me the Andrea Filipacchi controversy brought the WP policy of categorization by gender to the forefront: A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic. That is the opening line - "could be"? The rest of that section is about as unencyclopedic as it is possible to be. Why does gender need to have "a specific relation to the topic"? What specific relation to the topic of writing do women have that men do not? If a category is becoming too large, then creating two diffusing categories of male and female might be useful. Having a diffusing category of female / women without also having a male / men diffusing category creates a kind of 'dump' that women are shoved off to. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Gendergap-L

I'd like to encourage people who are discouraged from starting meaningful conversations here to sign up for Gendergap-L. I don't have the ability to remove discussants whose behavior is clearly disruptive and whose goals are at odds with the mission of the GGTF from participation here, but I can and will remove any such discussants from Gendergap-l. Although the atmosphere of GG-l hasn't always been great in the past, we kick people off a lot more readily than we used to. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Kevin; I woudl imagine wherever you are there is heavy censorship and people being removed and kicked. You really are a very foolish boy. Giano (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Giano, do you really have nothing better to do than apparently edit stalk me constantly? I'm frankly impressed you found a post of mine on a board I doubt you were following within three minutes of me making it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)