Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 13

Body shape follow-up

I've started tinkering with body shape and female body shape, but I noticed that there are other articles that could probably need some scrutiny by task force members.

body and perceptions
clothing and measurements

If an article seems okay content-wise, don't hesitate to strike it out.

Peter Isotalo 22:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

A few more candidates for review, possible merging.Dialectric (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Btw, if anyone kicks off male body shape as a separate article, don't forget to aim for WP:DYK. It will quite likely generate a decent amount of hits off the mainpage.
Peter Isotalo 23:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Odd that there's one for females, but not males. Wait, no it isn't. Objectification and male gaze. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
It's a good topic to look at from on-high and try to reshape things at least, and I'm glad Peter went back to revisit the area as a whole. Picking ones at random, Thigh gap is one that stands out from an quality perspective: the topic is fine, but that article is a hot mess (and not in a gendered way). The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Just noted something slightly surprising. We have no female body/male body articles. The former is just a redirect to female body shape.
Peter Isotalo 00:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
It seems a bit redundant to Female and Male, or to be more precise Man and Woman. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
If we can have articles about gender-specific body shapes, we can certainly have gender-specific articles on just the bodies.
Peter Isotalo 00:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it's too broad though, if you look in the man and woman articles there are sections that summarize the body. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
There would also be too many articles overlapping each other in scope. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
"Too broad"? I just gave an example of an article on the thigh gap, a detail of a specific part of the female anatomy. And you're musing about a general article on just the female body as "too broad"? You sure have a lot of very specific opinions on what articles we shouldn't have. I find your input here pretty unhelpful.
Peter Isotalo 00:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
You haven't addressed the overlapping issue, there are already articles covering different aspects about the body with the parent articles being woman and man. As for my opinions this is just one of them, if you look above I was encouraging someone to make an article about the male body shape as that is specific enough. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing to address. Every single sub-topic article we have is technically an overlap of a higher-level topic. Articles on body shapes are limited to exactly what they specify: shape. Descriptions of the female and male bodies could contain cultural history, discrimination, anatomy, history of depiction, bodily functions, diseases, self-perception, etc, etc, etc. The top-level article in this case is human body, but the next step down would be articles on the female and male bodies, not specific aspects of female and male bodies.
Peter Isotalo 02:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
wow, the actual picture of a camel's toe for comparison is an interesting encyclopedic touch. I'm almost tempted to create "moose knuckle" now to further the concept (and see if it would survive AfD) but others might not get or appreciate the joke :) --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd appreciate some input regarding cleavage (breasts). I just noticed that it described "cleavage wrinkles" under the heading "Pathology" where it also claimed that a "treatment" for wrinkles as Botox. In other words, natural signs of ageing presented as a disease. Ugh...
Peter Isotalo 04:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I removed some stuff that was COATRACKing and one thing that was not verifiable. That article is kinda ugh in general, but hopefully folks won't be too opposed to some of the edits. I'll look at that "pathology" part. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Might want to ask someone on WP:MED to check it out. Seems sketchy, but don't know enough to edit on it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:MED has been contacted.[1]
Peter Isotalo 13:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Peter and other interested editors, I just found these: Human body and Human physical appearance. The photo might be good for some of these article, though I have to ask again: What the heck is it with shaving these models' genitals? Lightbreather (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, y'all might want to consider this merge proposal: Proposed merge of Midriff and Waist into Abdomen. Lightbreather (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Cropping and removing images

Glancing over the body part articles it appears they could quickly be made more encyclopedic by cropping images and also deleting unnecessary images. I notice some of the gratuitous images from cleavage (breasts) have been recently removed. Many of the current images appear to be soft core porn and/or some sort of "glamour shot", which do not seem to seriously address the topic in an encyclopedic way (see thigh gap and cleavage (breasts) for a couple examples. I understand that WP is not censored, but it seems like the creators of these articles were trying to create Victoria Secret Catalog-type-soft-core-pornography, which does not address the topic in a serious encyclopedic way. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I honestly am not too bothered by the thigh gap image. It's not as gratuitous as the cleavage one and better than this image. Just my opinion though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Me neither. The topic is solely visual, and needs an illustration. One might add that (as the article makes clear) it is essentially a female concept and concern, and not something the dreaded male gaze registers much. Johnbod (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
My only issue with the thigh gap photo is the odd flowing dress. Cropping it a bit would improve it I think. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The thigh gap photo is cropped from a wedding dress model shoot, it actually took a long time for someone to find an appropriate photo to post there. I believe it is fine. But there are real cases of "lad mag" type photos on the project. I questioned BDSM when doing the WP:TOP25 this week, but some subjects naturally go in that direction.--Milowent • hasspoken 06:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I guess I just find the glamourous wedding dress in that odd cut off style distracting from the point and it's pretty much all I notice about the picture. Seems like if it were cropped to where you couldn't see the top part of that mini-wedding dress, it would be more focused on the thighs, and their gap.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

One thought

As a long-time woman editor on Wikipedia, I had no idea any aspect of the CSB project was still alive and kicking, and I was relieved to see that this page was still active. But I was unsurprised to see that one of - probably the most - active contributors to this talk page is, of course, a man. One of the reasons Wikipedia will never, ever counter the gender bias in its editor base (and in turn in its article base) is that if you try to create spaces where women's needs are centred to address these issues, men have a tendency to a) not step back, b) get extremely angry about it. Like, this is not even "you shouldn't contribute here at all" but "you should be mindful of not dominating the space and being the most active contributor to the whole page". And so the cycle continues forever. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You might want to check out User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch.
Peter Isotalo 01:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
@The Drover's Wife: According to the page history statistics, the most active contributors to this talk page are women, not men.[2] Viriditas (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Is there a way to run that starting at a certain date? Like, say, since 1 December 2014? Lightbreather (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
It's interesting to scroll down to the Top editors list and sort it by the far, right-hand column: Added (bytes). Lightbreather (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
In that case, yes, a man (Salvio giuliano) has been the most loquacious. Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Seriously, look at this page. You've got a page that is supposed to be tackling Wikipedia's gender gap, and it is itself illustrating the gender gap when even on a discussion about fixing the gender gap the opinions of men are everywhere. As a woman who is wary of jumping into a pit of vipers, seeing a page like this and the sheer amount of men-contributing (and not in a centering-the-opinions-of-women-kind-of-way) is extremely off-putting; like, if men can't step back here, god help the chances of doing it anywhere more broadly. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm a man who writes about women and related topics and I have done so for a decade. I've also made what, 12 edits to this page? I have a mother and a sister, and strangely enough, we're all human and share similar concerns. I don't think I should have to stand back. Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
All of the nine out of ten men on Wikipedia who form the gender gap had mothers, and many of them have sisters, but that mere fact hasn't remotely avoided the current situation. I'm certainly not saying you're a bad person and I'm certainly not saying your contributions are irrelevant, but that if male editors can't realise that a page addressing the lack of women on Wikipedia needs to focus on and centre women's needs/opinions/contributions we have a problem. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
That's precisely my point. We have more in common, but you focus only on differences. Any argument that begins "If X editors" should be discarded. Problems require solutions from both sides, not just one. I've worked pretty hard creating, expanding, and improving articles about women, so I think you are misguided. If you took a moment to put your anger aside and truly thought about the problem you describe, you would discover that it requires the active participation of men to solve it. I have really little interest in discussing this here. I came here to mention that I found two redirects that had been changed without discussion when I tried to find the parent topic. My initial comment spawned another thread altogether, focusing on issues relevant to this page, so I believe I have made a good contribution to countering systemic bias. You are welcome to your opinion, and I am welcome to disagree with it. Good bye. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
We have more in common, but you focus only on differences. And yet, today, we spent the day talking about why there's an article Female body shape, and whether or not "curvy" or "buxom" should redirect there. And is there a Male body shape article? Why is Wikipedia focused on that difference? That females have a "body shape" but apparently, males don't. Lightbreather (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm no longer participating on this subject. You are welcome to create an article on male body shape, but that has nothing to do with the concerns I raised on this page, as I did not address that topic. I think it's great that someone might create an article on that subject now that I raised the initial issue about female body shape, but you're distracting from the points I came here to make. Since males aren't known for their "curves" and can't be "buxom", your point doesn't make sense. Viriditas (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
It has everything to do with the discussion: it structures Wikipedia's coverage of body shape in a way that completely centres men, which in turn feeds back into the gender gap. When someone points out that you're having trouble recognising that because you have a different, and on Wikipedia drastically overrepresented, experience, your response isn't to listen - it's to get annoyed and try to shut down the conversation. That is not a solution - that is exactly how we got here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I completely and totally disagree, as your entire position lacks evidence and is a wonderful example of what happens when you jump to conclusions. Body shape is not centered around the male body at all, nor is it the default topic for male body shape. In fact, no article links to male body shape. This is because it was created as a redirect to mirror the female article. The facts show that the article on body shape discuses male and female body shapes equally. So, your claim that this circumstance "completely centres men, which in turn feeds back into the gender gap" is baseless. What happened here is this: you discriminated against and attacked men as a group for daring to discuss on this page, and then you put on your patriarchy-colored glasses and attempted to push a round peg into a square hole. When one looks at actual evidence and actual facts, one finds that your accusations lack evidence. The evidence, on the other hand, shows that this particular discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with the gender gap. Now, cease your attacks on men or I will be forced to MfD this page. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I am amazed. The behaviour just demonstrated is exactly why Wikipedia has a problem with women, why it has a gender gap, and exactly why we have this taskforce. Having a discussion about why a project aimed at resolving the gender gap is still dominated by male voices, and how men sometimes unwittingly centre men's experience makes men - who three paragraphs above were insisting how they wanted to be part of the solution - fly into a rage and threaten to use their power as a prominent male user to delete the discussion. This is Wikipedia's "women problem" spectacularly illustrated in one brief discussion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I really don't think this is going any further. Please consider hatting this discussion.
Peter Isotalo 13:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I didn't start this discussion to get into arguments with men, and I'm frustrated (if a little bit unsurprised) that trying to start a discussion about men considering their own position a bit better is being met with such anger: much as, like I said, this is exactly how we got here, getting out of here isn't going to happen unless we can talk this kind of issue out. Because if we can't, as one of the one-in-ten women on Wikipedia, what's the point? The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
It disturbs me greatly that I even need to think about writing "As a woman, I believe/think..." on this page. It disturbs me greatly that me self-identifying as female means others might be more inclined to listen to my comments than to those of someone who self-identifies as a man. It disturbs me greatly that there are some on this page who overlook the contributions made to this topic and to this project by men because they are men....and because they are men then obviously they have a hidden agenda to keep down the women.</sarcasm> I could have written everything Viriditas just posted.
My perspective on this particular discussion is quite different from yours: a) Militant feminist comes to the page to complain that there are too many men/not enough women. b) Moderate voice(s) say We don't want to exclude all men - we need a wide range of opinions and helpers. We're working on fixing the underlying problems. Here are some wins we've had recently. c) Militant feminists complain that "you've done A, but you've done NOTHING about X and Y." d) Moderate voice(s) say "Ummm...I wasn't discussing X and Y, and I don't really understand why that is an issue." e) Rather than consider whether the moderate voices have a point, militant feminists say "SEE, that proves men should not be allowed to post here". f) At which point the moderate voices get fed up, point out - again - that WP doesn't ban people from posting based on gender, and threatens to MFD the page if it violates that core value. g) Militant feminists feel justified in their accusations.
So yes, I see this section as an example of one of the problems on WP, but it is not the same problem that you see. Karanacs (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
This has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I said: it's like someone noticed that I got into an argument with a man and decided to tear down a strawman of a "militant feminist". I am not remotely suggesting they "have an agenda to keep down the women" and explicitly said the opposite. Like, I explicitly said I didn't want to "exclude all men". I'm quite bemused about how you got "you've done A, but you've done NOTHING about X and Y" from anything whatsoever I said above.
I wasn't saying Viriditas or any other man should be banned from posting here. I was suggesting that men dominating the discussion in a venue like this may be unhelpful, that they may want to have a think about how their own experiences impact upon the way they view this issue and and that they may want to have a think about the manner in which they participate, and got met with such utter rage that he threatened to have the project deleted. Viciously attacking an absolute strawman that has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said does absolutely nothing to address any of this. Outsiders, even hardly feminist outsiders, thinking about engaging in a project see men act in these ways and run like hell. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
It was Lightbreather who delved into the "you've done A, but nothing about X And Y" side topics. You may not have explicitly said ban the men, but you suggested quite strongly that they separate themselves to allow the women to be heard. It's a matter of semantics, and, IMO, a dubious notion to start with, as I've seen no evidence lately that women's voices here are being drowned out by those of the men. You and others who share your POV, taken collectively, seem to be operating on more of a battleground mentality. I see genuine disagreements on priorities (what should we focus on - new content, fixing old content, sexism, etc), genuine disagreements on whether particular content is sexist/part of the gender problem/etc. That doesn't mean there's a male-female battle. It doesn't mean that men's voices are drowning out anyone else's. It just means that there need to be further discussion and open minds on both sides. Karanacs (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

No, the origin of this discussion wasn't I, but Viriditas, who came here yesterday wanting validation for changing redirects of "curvy" and "buxom" from Wiktionary to the WP Female body shape article. As for me, I agreed with SV that, once again on WP, male/man was the default - "V" or "I" shape - from which women deviate - "curvy." Then KK87 gave us permission to create a Male body shape article ("I have no objection if someone wants to make an article on it") followed by a directive to create it ("rather than pointing it out make the article"). When we suggested that he could make it, he didn't have enough medical knowledge to do it and directed us to take it to the medical project. Lightbreather (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to detract from Lightbreather's reply (edit conflicts galore), but I wanted to ask this - how can you actually remedy a gap where you have an editorial base that is 90% male with a conversation in which members of the 90% dominate the conversation about how to reduce that gap? I mean this quite seriously and without sarcasm. The fact that a page about reducing the gender gap still has a majority of male contributors, and that those men are pointedly pushing their own perspectives rather than intentionally trying to support women, is pretty clear evidence to most people that there's a problem. If I was ever trying to recruit women editors, and I showed them this page (pre-my addition), I'd strike out every time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

If this taskforce is on shaky ground, it's because it's near impossible to confirm any Wikipedian's RL gender. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is true at all. I don't need to know that someone who says he's a guy is really a guy to have conversations about these issues. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't be able to recruit women OR men by showing them this page. I also would be unable to recruit any of my female friends by showing them a female-only space here; they'd laugh at the idea that women need to be protected. I have recruited people by showing them articles that need work. By pointing out areas where articles simply don't exist, and by showing a match between their interests and WP's gaps. I'm doing my part this month by creating articles on romance novels - until last week WP had articles on only 3 novels that had won RITA Awards, which is sad. I suspect many don't know those articles are eligible for inclusion...and now they will. We need to work together to identify gaps in coverage, to help fill those gaps, and, where we notice it, improve existing articles to be more neutral in coverage. This takes men as well as women...as well as those who choose not to self-identify as a particular gender (which is the vast majority of editors). We need a wide range of perspectives, and I personally (and I think a majority here on WP) don't care whether those perspectives come from men, women, or literate aliens, as long as they are given respectfully and with the goal of making this encyclopedia better. Karanacs (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
All Wikipedians should be viewed as gender-neutral, indeed. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I'm all for seeing new articles on underrepresented areas, and that much is not a hard sell. But the moment stuff gets contentious, you see discussions that turn out, well, like plenty of those above, and that's where women start going "...and why would I sign up for this?" (I say this in the context of having had basically this exact conversation with interested women in the last couple days.)
The thing is, it isn't like Wikipedia stuffs this stuff up universally, and it isn't like guys can't make good contributions to fraught gender issues as well. I'm not sure of exactly who wrote it all, but the Emma Sulkowicz article referenced above is much better than I'd expected, and a good example of Wikipedia tackling potentially-disastrous gender issues in a decent way. But I see too many discussions where men could make a much better contribution if they just thought about their perspective a bit better, except that if I raise that too many guys absolutely flip their shit. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it works best if all participants in more sensitive discussions (be they on the gender gap or on contentious article pages) think carefully about their perspectives, their biases, etc, before they "speak". Which is, unfortunately, rare. Some of the most contentious discussions I have had on WP have involved other women. For them, it was "us against them" where "us" were editors of one religion/perspective and "them" were editors not of their religion/perspective. They frequently began conversations lamenting that there were so many people posting on the article talk page, peer reviews, etc, who weren't from their religion (which always, ALWAYS escalated the situation). I see that as directly analogous to this situation. Ideally, we all want to strike a proper balance (NPOV) across wikipedia. We disagree on what that balance looks like and we disagree on how to get to the state of balance. Some on both sides are more tenditious about it. There isn't enough de-escalation, and plenty of escalation (with comments about their being an over-representation of one gender or under-representation of another).
I would love to see those reframed as a look at diversity in perspectives, rather than gender. Do we have a broad enough range? Because if you add another 10 women like me to this project, I suspect you won't like the result any better than you like having so many males post...because for the most part, I agree with a lot of what they have to say. So we need people who think like me and Viriditas, we need people who think like you and Lightbreather and Peter, we need people who think like GoodDay, and there are probably other perspectives that I don't even know exist that really ought to be represented. Many of those perspectives WILL NOT come to this page and participate if they see so much of an us vs them on the basis of gender. If we can make the conversations more inclusive to everyone, rather than exclusive, I believe we'll be much more successful.
This page could be a great example of how to navigate the tough instances when people disagree, how to resolve conflicts that appear gender-based, how to educate about sexism and begin slowly reshaping perspectives. It could be, but right now it isn't. I do not believe that failure is 100% the fault of the males. Karanacs (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Karanacs I couldn't agree more. I wish I'd written that. J3Mrs (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Except that, if we did that, the "perspectives [that] will not come to this page" if we changed it will be men, and the people that will be looking at it now and going "noooope" will be women. You keep writing like it's a complete accident that this site would up having a membership in which nine in ten members are men, and that vehemently defending the status quo around gender will magically change this. I see this every single time I discuss Wikipedia with women off-site: it essentially boils down to "cool idea, I have things to contribute, but don't want to deal with men acting in these kinds of ways, so why would I put myself through that?"
It is absolutely about diversity in perspectives, and it does go beyond more than gender (women are not the only underrepresented group on this project). But the fact that you could probably find ten women who are extremely used to functioning in online environments hostile to women and that would happily defend the status quo doesn't change the fact that never asking the 90% to question whether they're centring their own experience, and whether they're really being inclusive of diverse experiences (and not in an "I'm a nice person so of course I am!" kind of way) means that you wind up with an extremely narrow demographic of people writing your stuff. Analogising to religion doesn't work because I'm not sure I've ever seen a religion (except maybe Islam) actually be underrepresented here, or to anywhere near the same effect. Wikipedia itself was better at all of this this once, but as women left because of the environment, again, we wound up here.
If you're going to deal in anything outside your own experience, you need to be mindful of how your own experiences are impacting on how you see that discussion. As a white woman from Australia, there are so many issues on which I need to pull my own head in and let people affected by those issues speak, and if I were to insist that my less-informed opinions were necessary (and more importantly of equal value) that would be damaging, to our editorship and our coverage. (In this case, being a white Australian, Aboriginal issues are one very big example of an issue I do this on.) It is sad and counterproductive when people insist on trying to force their way into those conversations with equal weight. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily defending the status quo. I do believe there is much work to be done. I just don't agree with some of the approaches being advocated by members of this project, and I don't necessarily buy into some of the proposed goals. There are already females already on this project who aren't coming to this page and/or don't want to hear anything about the gender gap because they are offended by the militant feminism.
What I read from your response is that it is okay to escalate a situation and strongly encourage people to leave the discussion if one's perception of under-representation is valid, and that the exact same behaviors aren't okay if one's perception of under-representation is invalid. I disagree. We will not change attitudes and behaviors by playing the victimization card or pleading for/insisting on different rules for women because we're underrepresented (and I'm not accusing anyone in particular of doing this, but it's something I've noticed occurring). That escalates situations. We will not change attitudes and behaviors simply by setting down new rules (zero tolerance for an ambiguous definition of sexism).
Relatively simple things, like the previous section's discussion of replacing the male gaze images with more neutral ones (like in chair and laptop), make a difference. Systematic efforts to remove that type of bias make quite a visible difference in showing what is acceptable and what is not....and one of the people who is vocal about addressing this issue is Peter Isotalo, a male. Karanacs (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The Drover's Wife you say " It is sad and counterproductive when people insist on trying to force their way into those conversations with equal weight." Is what you are saying, if you aren't here to agree you aren't welcome? That's what's coming across to me. Women have different perspectives and if the project only wants recruits that agree, many women will feel excluded, not by men but by women. I'm becoming very averse to comments that contain "I'm a woman" in any conversation on any page. What is important is content and if there is something wrong it should be changed with an appropriate rationale. Many editors don't disclose their gender so it's not possible to say that 90% of contributors are men and impossible to say what percentage of male editors are "hostile" to women because most editors I've come across, by your figures 90% men, are extremely supportive. The encyclopedia should be attempting to recruit competent editors not those with an agenda to push. J3Mrs (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree, why do some here feel the need to state "I am a woman therefore..." as if you are speaking for every female that is on Wikipedia or that will ever join? Not all women are even feminists, some just want to be treated with respect here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
There are already females already on this project who aren't coming to this page and/or don't want to hear anything about the gender gap because they are offended by the militant feminism. How many? Have you taken a survey? Personally I've avoided participating here because I'm disgusted by how much of the conversation seems to be dominated by militant anti-feminists. Please don't use the silence of other women as presumed support for your own opinions. -- TaraInDC (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I know of several, anecdotally, just as I'm sure you know of several, anecdotally, who are turned off by the other "side". My proposal is that we put the "sides" to rest. We need to learn how to better steer the discussions out of the danger zone that causes either side to rise up in protest. Back to the core civility tenet of comment on the issue, not the editor (or their gender). Karanacs (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
You're essentially attempting to 'put the sides to rest' by asking one 'side' to cede completely to your 'side.' For pity's sake, you just repeatedly called another editor a militant feminist for making the not-so-extraordinary observation that when a conversation about women's issues is dominated by men, that causes systemic bias. Do you not see the irony here? -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC) -- TaraInDC (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
As is probably pretty obvious by now, I wholeheartedly disagree that exclusion is the way to go. The mantra of many on this page who want to bar men from participating is that we want Wikipedia to be more welcoming to all perspectives, to be more inclusive. I don't see how we'll get there by insulting and excluding a large portion of editors - we don't like it that women are sometimes insulted and excluded on the project, so let's turn around and do that to the men on this page? Really? There have been several excellent discussions started by men here, many excellent contributions by men towards the goals of this project. I don't see that as a bad thing. There has been disruption by men, yes. There has been disruption by women too. Any suggestion I've seen that men be barred (or remove themselves) wholesale from certain discussions has been controversial, has escalated or distracted, and has caused more suspicion of this project. I think those suggestions need to stop because they are causing more harm than good at this point...UNLESS someone is willing to move Lightbreather's user page to project space, or create a women-only wikiproject as Lightbreather suggested at Meta, and see whether or not it survives the MFD (which I am perfectly willing to initiate). That would put the issue to rest once and for all. No one has been willing to do that thus far. Karanacs (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
What "mantra of barring men"? What are you talking about? There are plenty of men who participate on this page and it's battleground mentality, not men, that editors tend to object to here. I believe one editor requested above that men please try not dominate the forum, that seems quite different than the task force as a whole "barring men". --BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. I don't see anything here about banning men, only an observation that the conversation is dominated by men: in other words, an observation that the systemic bias problem on Wikipedia extends to the very task force that is supposed to be attempting to correct it. If that's 'militant feminism.' then sign me up. TaraInDC (talk) 06:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

An Ally Skills Workshop, such as the one organized by the Ada Initiative, could really help here. There are many well-intentioned men on this page with a lot to contribute who are getting needlessly frustrated. If we had a few experienced trainers who know how to start the conversation with people who are new to the process of being male allies, many participants here could get some new tools and be up and running in a rather short period of time. I'm hopeful we'll see some of this training soon, either through the Grants:IdeaLab/Gender_Gap_Allies_training proposal, or through some other initiative. For those interested in reading about "being an ally", I actually prefer the allies against racism writing to the feminist material (a bit less annoying jargon). We will all benefit from a happier and healthier atmosphere! --Djembayz (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2015 (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!

A dismal omission

Here's a real hole in WP coverage: National Association of Women Lawyers, an organization with a 115 year history. I just bumped into this group in the course of writing a bio. If anybody is making a list of potential topics for edit-a-thons, that would be a great one. Carrite (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK time!
Peter Isotalo 12:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

There are also no lists of women lawyers in Category:Lists of women by occupation or in Category:Lists of legal professionals, even though there are plenty of women lawyers in Category:Women lawyers. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice of ANI discussion

There is a discussion at ANI that may be of interest to members of this group: Porn in users' pages Alleged porn on old user pages Sexually provocative images on user pages. Lightbreather (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Edited to address concern raised in ANI that title did not exactly match the title of ANI thread and to clarify the porn is alleged (some may see it as porn, others may not) --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Edited link - discussion header was changed. Lightbreather (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

As a follow-up, two MfDs were created from the discussion, so better to go there if the subject interests you.

--Lightbreather (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Writing about women

I wonder whether we should start a guideline, Wikipedia:Writing about women, on how to avoid inadvertent sexism. Some points to get started:

  • Avoid using male-gaze images.
  • Be cautious about referring to a woman by her first name rather than surname, unless it's needed to make the writing clear.
  • Don't define a notable woman in terms of her relationships with notable men (wife of, mother of, daughter of). Make sure her own notability is discussed first.
  • Try as far as possible to avoid openly sexist sources.

Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent idea. The last point, avoiding openly sexist sources, is important but it will be crucial to word that in an appropriate way. Karanacs (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I wasn't sure how to express that last point, and I couldn't offhand think of examples. Another point:
  • Are there any examples of biased sources from Gamergate that could be used? Or perhaps from any of the coverage of Dominique Strauss-Kahn? Are there ever any instances where a woman might be defined by her spouse (or even father)? Although I suppose even in the case of, say the wife of a president, we could disambiguate with (First Lady) instead of (wife of ....). Karanacs (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) is an excellent example of the trouble. She really isn't known for anything nearly as much as for being the PM's wife; she was a founding partner of Hobsbawm Macaulay Communications, and a campaigner for this, that and the other thing, but didn't get nearly as much press for any of that as for being the PM's wife. "First Lady" is not used for the PM's spouse in the UK, so that was out. She never called herself Sarah Macaulay Brown - that also is a US, rather than UK, style - so that was out. She isn't really known as Sarah Jane Brown, but that is what we ended up with. --GRuban (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it's a perfectly appropriate way to word it. Neutral sources are preferred, therefore sexist sources are not good for writing about women (or men), except in the usual narrowly defined way. Of course defining "sexist sources" is anther kettle of fish. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC).
Devil's advocate here - there are a non-negligible number of encyclopedic women who are quite proud of their male-gaze images. For example, Michele Merkin, mentioned a few sections above. That's her profession. I imagine there are similarly male models who are perfectly happy to be portrayed as sex objects. --GRuban (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

What's an "openly sexist source" considering all articles should be sourced to reliable sources? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Trying to encapsulate the feminist theory term male-gaze, which isn't even agreed upon among feminists, into a guideline is a bad idea. There seems to be an inherent issue with this Task Force, which I warned about months back, that everything is couched in feminist theory and it is taken for granted that feminist theory is always right (as in factually correct) and is going to lead the way to closing the gender gap. Yet aside from it's most basic form of proposing equality between the sexes feminist theory today has blossomed into a mish-mash of competing ideas some wholly contrary to others. You're not going to get the inclusiveness and progress you want following this path. A 2013 Pew poll showed less than 25% of women even consider themselves feminists. Heck, 32% of woman considered feminist a negative term. More tellingly only 27% of all participants thought most women are feminists but 43% of self described feminists assumed most women are feminists.
You're simply pushing away the vast majority of men and women who are all for equality yet are all set with being labeled or discussing everything in terms of feminism. And in doing so you're missing the forest for the trees. Removing some images from some articles is going to do exactly nothing to increase women's participation here. 99% of them wouldn't even have seen these images. Note, I'm not saying some of these images shouldn't be changed/removed for the sake of a better encyclopedia, just that it's impact to the goals of the GGTF are negligible. The GGTF should be looking for root causes of the gap and looking to procure hard data that could lead larger initiatives that may have a hope of working. What are the leading causes for the lack of participation/retention of women editors? What, if anything, can be done to mitigate those causes? Those are the questions that need solid, data-backed answers, to do anything fruitful. And the latter question has no chance of being answered prior to the former. Capeo (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Point well taken. A modification to address the concern above: "For articles about non-sexual topics, avoid cheesecake photography, fan service images, and other sexualized imagery." More adjustments needed? (Coming up with language that works for a wide range of people takes patience-- it's an iterative process.) --Djembayz (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't everyone be treated equally?

Also, when writing articles about men, should we:
  • Avoid using female-gaze images.
  • Be cautious about referring to a man by his first name rather than surname, unless it's needed to make the writing clear.
  • Don't define a notable man in terms of his relationships with notable women (husband of, father of, son of). Make sure his own notability is discussed first.
I'm all for avoiding inadvertent sexist writing, but singling out a particular sex seems to perpetuate and redirect the problem, not solve it. Shouldn't everyone be treated equally? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
This is "reverse sexism" nonsense. There are plenty of things we should avoid with articles about men, but there is no "female gaze". There is no trend of defining men by their relationships. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
You are correct. There is no such thing as "reverse sexism". There is only sexism. I believe that all genders should be treated equally. Do you agree (or disagree) that everyone should be treated equally? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, both genders should be treated with respect...so if there was an issue with "female gaze" images or defining men via their relationship with women, we would definitely need to fix that, but I don't see that happening on wikipedia. I do see the issue with women happening, which is why we are addressing it as an issue on wikipedia that needs improving. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Disagree. Men should not be treated like women (or queer folks for that matter), because women are treated like second class citizens. People should be treated with respect and dignity. This is why the "equality" rhetoric is often crap... equality often means "treated like men" (really White, able-bodied, heterosexual cis men since we already know we treat Black men, disabled men, trans men, and gay men like crap as well), which is not the same as being treated with respect and dignity. However, it's fallacious to try to apply issues affecting women and gender minorities to men because the reality is that they are not equal in Western society. We should give due weight just as we have WP:WEIGHT to the issues affecting specific marginalized and oppressed classes of people, and in this case it means paying more attention to anti-woman and otherwise sexist bias present on Wikipedia. Sadly Wikipedia is a tertiary source and reflects other sources, and those sources reflect sexism in society. As such, we cannot remove all sexism, all anti-woman bias, but we can at least minimize it. So no, I don't believe in "treating everyone equally" since we already treat each other like crap. And I don't think that just because someone raises an issue that disproportionately affects women we need to say "what about the men". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I nominate A Quest For Knowledge to start the anti-female-gaze-photo project. Get busy, bro, I feel violated daily. You know, I actually did the first-name thing on a female subject recently and after someone fixed it, I recognized I did it because the subject was female. So while everyone should be treated equally, they aren't unless we are diligent about minding to it.--Milowent • hasspoken 06:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree here, isn't "Avoid female gaze images" a bit too far? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • No, thanks. I don't believe that there's anything wrong with one gender appreciating the beauty of another gender, or the same gender for the matter. But my point still stands: we should treat everyone equally. Saying that genders should be treated differently is just more sexism. I would hope that this project is against sexism, not in favor of it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Re don't define a notable man in terms of his relationships with notable women: Are you talking about articles like Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Denis Thatcher, Feroze Gandhi, and Rick Salomon? Could we have some examples of actual articles (on men and women) where this is violated, with suggestions for improvement? Does it depend on what a person is most notable for, regardless of gender? --Boson (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Happens often enough in off-wiki obits to be noticed.[3]. I'm up for a doing a semi-scientific study of this on-wiki if you and three others each volunteer to review 100 biographies (we'll develop criteria for article selection and review factors in advance).--Milowent • hasspoken 12:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
From the indentation, that appears to be a reply to my question, but I fail to see the connection between my question and your answer, especially the linked obituary. It does, though, seem like a good idea to formulate a falsifiable prediction about different treatment of men and women in "randomly" chosen articles about men and women, if that is what you are suggesting. --Boson (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
This is what I'm suggesting, though I'm not a researcher and don't drop words like "falsifiable" or "fail to disprove the null hypothesis(?)" (where did that come from in my mind?) easily. But it seems like a project that would be really interesting. Probably would need to be a manual review. E.g., Taylor Swift has no references to "Taylor" except in quoted excerpts. This link [4] serves a random BLP, that would be a good way to random select biographies. The hypothesis would be that a female BLP is more likely to contain first name references to the subject than a male BLP. It is also likely that less-edited and less-trafficked articles are more likely to have first name references; I would think this is an error that is often caught but it would not be easy to check all prior versions of an article.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
We would also need to deal with situations like Eamonn Dolan (random server find) where "Eamonn" is used once to differentiate him from a sibling with the same surname. Should such cases be excluded or not?--Milowent • hasspoken 18:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
First name vs surname is actually addressed already at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Subsequent_use. Karanacs (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that link. If the use complies with that, it should be considered acceptable, I think.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
From about 25 random hits: Anjali Kulkarni has two uses of "Anjali". Low traffic article. (Hate Man is never called Hate!).--Milowent • hasspoken 18:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
There are, of course, exceptions. When two people with the same surname (e.g. spouses) are mentioned, the given name is conventionally used to distinguish them. The Anjali Kulkarni example raises other issues, which are partly gender-specific. In cultures where a woman adopts the husband's family name on marriage, some might consider it inappropriate to use that family name when referring to the woman before her marriage. There are similar considerations with (male and female) nobility. In the Anjali Kulkarni example, one use of the first name follows a reference to her mother, so the simple pronoun "she" could have been ambiguous. We should also be careful not to introduce different cultural biases. The guideline appears to treat the conventions in certain countries as the norm and add other conventions as an afterthought. Saddam Hussein is referred to as "Saddam", and I presume the same convention should apply to Arab women. I don't know what the convention for Indian names is, but I wonder whether some names are associated with castes. We would probably need a preliminary survey to identify and take account of such considerations. It might be sensible, at first, to avoid cultures where naming conventions may be different (including Iceland, where, I believe, people are formally addressed by their first name). --Boson (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
You are certainly right about Iceland. Not sure about India - perhaps an editor will chime in on that one. On the marriage issue, I can see that reasoning too, I'll check the policies for the "proper" method.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I have considerable experience writing about military history, especially naval history. This includes eight promoted articles on the topic (and my never-ending project galley). It's a topic that covers plenty of men in their military roles. Not once have I seen a reasonably experienced editor or a member of WP:MILHIST refer to any man by their first name. People actually tend to be overly reverent towards their subject, referring to them with their titles over and over. In some cases, like Vasa (ship), I've actually had to explicitly stress[5] the need to refer to some people by first names simply because they didn't have a proper surname in the modern sense.
Peter Isotalo 12:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Recent example of inappropriate use of a first name in a woman's article. [6] It is an excellent idea to create a cheatsheet of the common errors that are found in biographies of women. I think it would be useful to offer the information at edit-a-thons that are likely to include content creation including biographies. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

What about women hidden on pages with a male title

What about women hidden on pages with a male title? Here is an example: Michael Mastro, was an American real estate developer who became infamous after he declared bankruptcy. His wife, Linda, received/s as much press coverage as he did/does. The page was already moved once, but Linda Mastro's name remains buried in the article. It is interesting to note that in order to google the correct Michael Mastro one needed to provide additional qualifiers, because the other Michael would show up instead, however the term Linda Mastro required no such qualifiers. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Writing about women draft essay

I've started an essay stub at User:GGTF/Writing about women. This is a GGTF page I've set up in user space so that we can work on joint pages that aren't ready for everyone to edit, but anyone is welcome to make constructive edits.

Pinging some people who might want to help write it: @Karanacs, EvergreenFir, Djembayz, Lightbreather, BoboMeowCat, and FloNight: @Milowent, Gobonobo, The Drover's Wife, TaraInDC, and Peter Isotalo:

Sarah (SV) (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Ellen Pao trial - needs more editors

See: Talk:Ellen_Pao#Trial_-_where_are_the_editors.3F. The page has had a huge increase in the number of page views since the trial started, so readers are obviously looking up to Wikipedia for coverage. . Ottawahitech (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Male heterosexual pornography & bias in sexuality articles

It appears articles related to sexuality may have issues with systemic bias. These articles seem to be depicting what is seen in pornography (male heterosexual pornography) as normal, mainstream or representative of the topic. For example, a while ago someone posted a link here to the article anal bleaching. Recently, I’ve looked over the sources for it supposedly being “mainstream” and those sources are not actually supporting that it is mainstream, but rather are questioning the notion that it is mainstream outside of pornography (and perhaps not even there that they may use lighting techniques instead of bleach). Also, someone recently linked to the article fisting in discussion regarding censorship, and looking over that article I was really surprised to see it was mostly illustrated with images of women (vaginal fisting), for an article on a topic that seems primarily related to a male homosexual practice. Oddly, the only image of a male was a medical image (like a rectal exam or something). I think sexuality articles are being edited from the POV that what is shown in male-heterosexual pornography is normal and mainstream and also from a POV that is squeamish about gay male sexuality. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It has concerned me for a long time that young girls coming to Wikipedia to learn about their bodies are finding (often sexist) articles written by (often young) men. We talked above about the "male gaze". Women internalize this, and exposing girls to it in a supposedly neutral encyclopaedia is damaging. One idea would be a guideline saying that no pornography images should be used in articles that aren't about porn (that would have prevented the anal bleaching situation). It's something that could be added to Wikipedia: Writing about women. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the problem with the anal bleaching situation. Can you please explain what the problem is/was? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Previously the anal bleaching article contained an image of a pornographic actress to illustrate "the effects of anal bleaching" without any evidence she was actually bleached (as opposed to being naturally fair, or having her image altered via lighting or photoshop). This was compared and contrasted to a non-professional nude model who had significantly darker skin tone [7] Also, the article previously contained unsourced text which said anal bleaching was a safe and effective procedure. [8] (I've started reading over the actual sources and they mostly appear to be saying it's not very safe nor particularly effective). Currently, the article uses sources which question the assertion that anal bleaching is "mainstream" but it appears those sources are being misused to assert in wikipedia's voice that anal bleaching is now mainstream, when the sources do not appear to support that. [9],[10] --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Slim's suggested guideline. So if we have an article about a body part, and the best photo we have of that body part happens to be of a porn star, we shouldn't use it? Seems counterproductive. Also, of course, if we accept what Bobo just wrote, it wouldn't have solved the anal bleaching situation, since he says it is an article mainly about pornography. --GRuban (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The anal bleaching article is not mainly about pornography, although pornography is mentioned as the suspected inspiration for this now supposed "mainstream" trend. Also, it would seem reasonable not to use pornography for encyclopedic information about body parts, given porn is a medium that exists to present body parts in a sexual, rather than informative manner. Porn is also a medium known for enhancements of body parts (surgical, lighting, photoshop etc) that would reduce the representativeness of pornographic images with respect to encyclopedic information about not pornography subjects. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't seem reasonable. It's silly to make a general prescriptive rule based on "is a medium known for". After all, photography in general is a medium even better known for lighting and photoshop, no? And there are plenty of cases of surgical enhancements that are not connected to pornography. If the real issue is that the picture is not suitable to the specific use in the article, great; but then we should make that be the reason, not some general guilt-by-association "some porn images are not suitable to some articles so therefore no porn images are suitable to any articles". We need to go case by case, making a general rule is harmful rather than helpful. We are not a bureaucracy. --GRuban (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I can imagine isolated cases where it could be harmful. Such as cases where the pornographic image was representative and appropriate, because it resulted in a slight delay in finding a comparable non-pornographic image, but overall, I think it would be helpful. Pornographic images seem much less likely to be representative and appropriate and appear to be currently being misused somewhat frequently. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • No, it isn't a no-brainer. It depends on context and availability of alternate images of suitable quality, relevance etc. It also depends on one's definition of porn. I getting really fed up of this obvious politicised narrative. - Sitush (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Not using pornographic images for non-pornography articles/topics. Sure there could be cases where the pornography image could be appropriate, but that seems greatly outweighed by the cases where it would not be appropriate, or at least not the best choice. Seems like this would be a sound guideline serving to improve wikipedia.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is too broad, you need to define what pornography is. If the "image that causes sexual arousal" criteria is used here then that would include a wide range of things that include articles from Woman (Picture of a pregnant woman) to Nudity. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand this objection. We have a policy for no personal attacks, without having personal attacks precisely defined. Sure there will be debates over whether a given image is pornography or not, but I don't think such debates warrant scratching the entire guideline. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Those are two different things though, an admin judging what is or isn't a personal attack is less disruptive than a mass removal of images across Wikipedia based on a person's point of view. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Note the images in the #Image bias section just above, to illustrate Waist-hip ratio. The objection to the first one, the one of the lady in the underwear - from Sarah (SV), suggester of this guideline, mind; and an admin, for that matter - was that it was "from a pornography website". The fact that same image would be perfectly innocuous in an underwear catalog doesn't matter. The fact that the suggested replacement doesn't actually have any hips - also doesn't matter. It's not from an underwear catalog, it's porn: therefore burn it with fire. Yes, such debates do warrant scratching the entire guideline. It's a really bad guideline. --GRuban (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
You don't have to take a "burn it with fire"-approach, really. Just look at it encyclopedically. A lot of crappy images are routinely tossed out of articles. In some cases, people fight to keep them, but there usually needs to be a pretty good reason to keep a really bad illustration. Usually, an article with literally no images at all will be exempt, but there's no guarantee for that. If an image is the only illustration of an aspect of an article topic, it usually has to be a pretty damned important aspect.
As an encyclopedic source, porn ranks at the very bottom of the illustration barrel, not just because it's raunchy and controversial, but because most of it is ridiculously commercial and shamelessly self-promotional. The images are seldom "innocuous" and if they are, they are tainted by the overall crappiness that is inherent in a pornographic source.
The problem with a refusal to keep porn at bay has other potential side-effects. We have tons of risqué material. It technically illustrations of both underwear and women's bodies, but hopelessly biased ones. And we have virtually no material of decent quality that is also appropriately plain and neutral. Something like 90% seems to be all skinny 20-somethings, glamour shots and bewbs. Using risqué pics is at best a short-term solution. In the long run, however, we run the risk of simply encouraging even more risqué pics instead of the plain, neutral stuff we actually should have.
Peter Isotalo 19:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Please. I give you https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:GRuban I propose I know a thing or two about finding images for articles. These are the images that illustrate our articles. I don't think any of them come from pornographic sources. And yet, many are "crappy", in the sense that they are taken by amateurs. (A few were actually taken by me personally, and, I do not hesitate to say, those are on the crappy end of the crappy scale - as a photographer I am a fine computer programmer.) And every one of those pictures is there because of an article that needed it - every one was for an article that had no picture at all. Sure, some, maybe even most, pornographic images are crappy or inappropriate. But some will be fine. We could similarly rule that we should not accept amateur photos, because most of those will be "crappy". Except that some will be fine. We should not make a blanket rule, we should look at each case in its own merits. Until you walk a mile in the moccasins of those who look for freely licensed images, do not put ill advised shackles on us. --GRuban (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Except amateurs are not a disreputable sources of images. There is nothing inherently problematic or controversial about amateurs, unlike porn (for the reasons I gave above). I don't understand the analogy.
Peter Isotalo 03:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • FWIW my take on illustrations in pornography articles is here: WP:HARDCORE (more or less). My only other thought is that on some articles, such as Bukkake and Gokkun, the thrust is more "here's a thing that people do on some notable level" rather than "here's a thing that you see in porno movies", which is probably more accurate. But whatever, it's something I've fought over in past years but it's hard to win these fights and these people are relentless. Sometimes you can win at the margins though. Herostratus (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support When a conscientious Wikipedia user attempts to comply with copyright law as they assemble information for a work or school related project, they are likely to run into Creative Commons licensed images which require giving attribution to the contributor. What happens when you leave the images from "adult-oriented" sources in the non-"adult-oriented" articles is that you are wasting the time of teachers and students seeking images suitable for use in a public educational setting. In most work or school settings, attribution to an "adult" website isn't an option for public presentations that don't deal with sexuality or "adult" themes. If we are serious about promoting open content in education and business, we want to make it easy and agreeable to attribute content. We want to avoid situations where users have unpleasant or embarrassing surprises when someone asks where the open content came from. --Djembayz (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice of an Article at Jimbo's Web Page

I placed an Article about the toxic editing atmosphere at Wikipedia on Jimbo's talk page. Please disseminate and feel free to comment but due so in a civil manner as that is my point of the article. 208.54.38.224 (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Wikimania talk: How to Pick Up More Women

Proposed Wikimania talk of possible interest to GGTF readers: How to Pick Up More Women. Topics include "Should we try and avoid English speaking white women so that we increase our benefit?". --Djembayz (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a discussion about it on Roger Bamkins' talk page (Roger proposed the talk). See User talk:Victuallers#How To Pick Up More Women .... Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
"How to 'pick up' more women" kinda makes me wince. Ouch. And "avoid English speaking white women"? I could see focus on non-English speaking and/or non-Anglos, but again - ouch! Lightbreather (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
It's an example of othering, particularly the second part, because it's clear that "we" in that sentence refers to men, or least doesn't refer to "English speaking white women". Otherwise it would mean "Should we try and avoid ... [ourselves] so that we increase our benefit?" Pinging Victuallers given that he's being discussed. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I can see why you/one might think "we" means "us blokes" .... but that isn't my intention, and I think it is not "clear" (as you say). If "we" are the wikipedians editors (gender is not important for this group noun in this sentence) then should "we" concentrate on creating more stuff about women? I would say yes. However I'm a programmer and a mathematician so if I apply this logic in a self referential way then... If we believe in a positive bias towards women (who are under represented) then should we (same "we") continue that we (same "we") should only edit about women who are under-represented in the sample of women "we" (same we) are giving added attention too? Now that is a bigger question. I personally 'try' to edit articles about women who are not from English speaking countries. However its difficult. A lot of the lists of "missing" and "required" articles are lists of women which includes more Americans than Africans. What is the answer? I don't know. That is a question that Rosie and I are interested in. I would claim to be very active on the "Countering Systemic bias" project. I'm not sure I am doing as much as I might. Please consider that in an AGF way that "we" might actually mean we (meaning the we that is intended to not have gender included). I'd like you to assume that when I see "we" I don't mean "us blokes", I mean, we, the people who create Wikipedia. Victuallers (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Roger, thank you for the response. I feel bad being critical of this, because your talk is a great idea. The problem with the title is that it's the kind of joke we'd hear in a male locker room, and that's the atmosphere that has to change if we want more women editors to arrive and stay. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. The talk is a great idea but there are ways of introducing the topic without making it sound like a seduction community seminar. As Wikimania is an international event, there's the risk that non-English speakers may misunderstand the double entendre. gobonobo + c 11:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Sarahgobonobo for realising that this is a an honest attempt to try and address this problem. Do help us. The translation issue may be real but in my experience non English speaking editors use AGF. The locker room is a stereotype. We are talking about overcoming stereotypes not primarily by fixing language but by information and education. Do help, we (meaning you too :-) ) need it. Victuallers (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Roger, fixing language is vital, as is getting rid of the locker-room atmosphere. Perhaps you could look at it this way. If you were preparing a talk for Wikimania about how to encourage more black editors, you wouldn't introduce it with a racist joke. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Good points made Sarah and if anyone is making jokes about women then I could see your point immediately. I suspect we are misunderstanding each other and you are thinking that this is about picking up women editors.... which it isn't. Its about picking up women articles. The meaning is the important thing. I do think you have made your point. Maybe you should give us time to think of it your way? As it is I'm thinking that there is more effort going into phrasing the problem than addressing it. I do hear that you are not understanding and that changing the wording may help you. Rosie and I are talking on Saturday. Victuallers (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I think SlimVirgin is dead-on and this is well-intentioned but woefully-misguided. Having a presentation about this, called this, sends the exact opposite of the message you're trying to send, and it isn't clever. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
That reminded me of the article on race-neutral language by William Satire (nomen est omen). Must read. --Boson (talk) 11:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I do hope that changing the title to clarify the focus -- content gender gap -- has proved useful. I also wanted to draw you attention to February's Wikimedia Research Newsletter, which points to the "First Women, Second Sex: Gender Bias in Wikipedia" article submission at Cornell's arXiv.org site. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Another article, sort of on topic, if "lost and found" women's biographies is on topic regarding content gender gap: "Lost and Found – and What Happened Next: Some Reflections on the Search for Women Writers Begun by The Feminist Press in 1970". I thought it was very interesting and perhaps others will find it to be so, too. It's not certain how long we'll be able to freely access it, but I reached it by following links from this morning's post here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women writers#Resources of interest. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violence against men (4th nomination)

Surely, everyone (or almost everyone) here will be interested in weighing in on this fourth Violence against men deletion discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to try to clean up the article. If we try to look at this dispassionately, what could be done to make it work? It seems to me that the political angle (men's rights movements mostly) alone would be enough to render the topic viable. I'm asking here because I don't really want to wade into the highly polarized AfD.
Peter Isotalo 11:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The entire article is OR/SYNTH currently and there's no establishment of notability of the topic as is. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Peter, I personally think the article likely could be cleaned up into something appropriate. I actually spent a lot of energy a while back trying to clean up the category Violence against men[11] as well as the various sub-categories. I recall an editor who is now semi-retired was very into this topic (in a manner I found disruptive but that doesn't mean the topic is without merit). He posted a "list of sources".[12] I admittedly have not looked over these, but thought it might be useful to look at these in case there is anything useful here --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Evergreen, the article could easily be deemed notable enough by simply being a focused aspect of a larger topic. If we can have Bolivia–Denmark relations this should not be a problem. I think we have more to gain by identifying issues with article content rather than arguing that it be deleted.
Peter Isotalo 09:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be enough scholarly interest [13] to clean the article up into a workable state that more than meets GNG. Specifically on the subjects of domestic, wartime and anti-gay men violence. Capeo (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Panel discussion "Where are all the women? Wikipedia's gender gap" Wednesday 7:30pm EST / Thursday 00:30am UTC

Jake Orlowitz recently posted this on wikimedia-l. I presume this has been discussed on the gendergap-l but I don't see it here after a quick scan, so (Quoting Jake):

March is an amazing month for raising awareness, excitement, and initiative around broadening the presence women in our community and our content. In that spirit, West Virginia University is hosting a stellar panel through its Talking Publicly symposium series at WVU Libraries and the Reed College of Media.

The panel includes:

  • Adeline Koh -- Co-founder of The Rewriting Wikipedia Project which

supports and advocates for efforts to add entries and posts to Wikipedia that focus on postcolonial studies as well as ethnic/minority and marginalized peoples. Koh is currently an associate professor of literature and the director of the Stockton College Center for the Digital Humanities. She also is a core contributor to the Profhacker Column at the Chronicle of Higher Education. Koh uses Wikipedia research writing assignments in her classes and teaches others how to start activist instructional initiatives of their own.

  • Jami Mathewson -- Educational Partnerships Manager at the Wiki Education

Foundation where she develops partnerships with educational institutions and academic associations to systematically bring more student editors and high quality content to Wikipedia. Over the last three years, Mathewson has focused her volunteer editing on improving content about women’s issues. Mathewson identifies ways to support partners who are looking to promote the use of Wikipedia as a teaching tool on a large scale.

  • Sydney Poore -- Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane Collaboration an

international not-for-profit research organization that provides accessible, credible information to support informed decision-making health care. Poore is a member of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) Fund Dissemination Committee and was a member of the Wikipedia English Arbitration Committee and the WMF Ombudsmen Commission.

  • Frank Schulenburg -- Executive Director of the Wiki Education Foundation

and former member of the executive management team of the Wikimedia Foundation. His work primarily has focused on broadening participation and developing the public understanding of Wikipedia, especially among subject matter experts. Schulenburg has been involved with Wikipedia since 2005, both as an author and as a photographer.

The following day WVU will host a 3-hour workshop to address strategies on campuses underway for correcting the gender gap and introduce the protocols of writing for Wikipedia at WVU with ideas for proven course assignments and strategies for adoption in their courses.

This is only the kick-off in a year-long focus at WVU on Women and Wikipedia. WVU Dean of Libraries Jon Cawthorne was touched and inspired after he heard the story of Adrianne Wadewitz and is dedicating this year of discussion, experimentation, and action to her.

For full information about both events:

According to Google, 12:30 pm Tuesday, Eastern Time (ET) is 5:30 pm Tuesday, Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I presume you mean Wednesday, and have changed the header accordingly. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC).
Nah, if you click the link you'll see it's Wednesday 7:30pm New York time, which is 00:30 on Thursday UK time. Heaven only knows what time that is for Anthony in Oz. --RexxS (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Session is now running. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC).

Inspire Campaign

Alex Wang has announced the launch of the Wikimedia Foundation's Inspire Campaign. See Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire.

Alex writes:

"This campaign aims to encourage, foster, and support new ideas for improving gender diversity on Wikimedia projects. ... We invite all Wikimedians to participate in the campaign on Meta-wiki by sharing your ideas, skills and feedback, and by helping to spread the word in your local communities. The campaign runs until March 31.
"All proposals are welcome – research projects, technical solutions, community organizing and outreach initiatives, or something completely new! Grants are available from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects developed during this campaign that need financial support."

Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Address the gender gap

For anyone interested, there's a new page on meta, set up by the Foundation, Address the gender gap. It lists initiatives and research, and has an interesting FAQ page. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for posting that. It is nice to see the foundation's semi-official position on the matter. The assumptions they debunk are very much in line with the way I perceive this. Could we link to this from the main page of this task force? Karanacs (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree. It's interesting and I'm really glad to see it. I've added it to the tab header at the top of this page and the main page. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Gender Gap Webcast from West Virginia University

A new Gender Gap Webcast from West Virginia University is available. There is footage of our greatly missed Adrianne Wadewitz, and a panel including Wikimedia Education Foundation representatives. --Djembayz (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

"First Women, Second Sex: Gender Bias in Wikipedia"

I've just read the article Rosiestep pointed out above, "First Women, Second Sex: Gender Bias in Wikipedia".

It makes some interesting points, including that articles about "first women to do X" fail the Finkbeiner test, placing a woman's gender above her accomplishments. The paper also says that women's articles on WP contain more words about sexuality, whereas men's contain more about cognitive processes (we've discussed this here before, namely how a woman's appearance or clothing is often mentioned). The researchers also found a minimal presence of women on WP before 1900, as a result of WP:NOTABILITY. Sarah (SV) (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

A thought: might the "first woman to X" not reflect how a lot of women are presented in available sources? I'm thinking especially the ones that aren't academic works. Even authors who are very sympathetic to their topics tend to do this, I believe. This was certainly the case with Anna Maria Rückerschöld. And when it comes to Rückerschöld, I haven't been able to identify any substantial coverage except for a single author, Agneta Helmius. :-/
Peter Isotalo 08:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Isn't the point of lists of firsts to promote role models, and to commemorate when someone breaks through a barrier to entry in a profession or activity? These are significant moments in the history of any group. Lists of firsts are pretty standard, e.g.: Potter, Joan (2014). African American firsts: famous, little-known and unsung triumphs of Blacks in America (Fourth edition, fully revised and updated ed.). New York, NY: Kensington Publishing Corp., Dafina Books. ISBN 9780758292414. --Djembayz (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I think some of this is definitely due to the type of coverage that exists outside Wikipedia. Sources don't cover women before 1900 as well, and this is not a problem that we can fix here on WP. I'm sure there are still many articles left to write, however, it's just a matter of identifying them. Karanacs (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. I've said before that, alas, "history is the story of great men". It is the likes of the Subaltern Studies group and individuals such as E. P. Thompson who began a movement to reverse that trend but, inevitably, the further back you go, the less information is available regarding everyone else. - Sitush (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what the paper is saying, and how helpful it is. Non-discrimination does not mean treating gender as if it doesn't exist or is irrelevant. In a journal article about the discovery of dark matter, it might be appropriate not to mention that the discoverer is a woman, but the Finkbeiner test (which requires not even mentioning that a scientist is a woman) seems a little extreme for biographies, even for biographies of scientists. Though the paper mentions that the test applies to scientists, it seems to imply that it could or should be generalized. This may apply somewhat less to scientists but the membership of any group that might be (or have been) subject to discrimination may be quite noteworthy. It would seem to me perfectly appropriate, for instance, to state group membership where it is relevant, and to mention that someone is the first black prime minister of Australia, the first Muslim Queen of England, the first Atheist president of the United States, the first openly gay pope, the first male president of the Royal College of Nursing, or the first woman to become Lucasian Professor of Mathematics. --Boson (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the point is not to place "first woman" ahead of a woman's achievements. The paper isn't saying don't mention it, just don't prioritize it. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
What if their primary notability is indeed as the "first woman" to do X? Not even the "first person" but in fact the first woman? And what about those articles that say "first man"? Bearing in mind the recent discussion concerning "crewed" versus "manned", I'm anticipating that it will not be long before, for example, we have to refer to nylon as a person-made fibre rather than a man-made fibre, even though "man" is intended in the sense of "human"/"non-natural". Where does this sort of thing end? Quite frequently, it seems to introduce more problems than it resolves. Wikipedia's role is to reflect what reliable sources say, not to engage or promote linguistic politics: let that battle take place elsewhere and be reflected here as and when it evolves. - Sitush (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I do agree with this. If the sources are stressing that this is "the first woman to...", then that is what our articles need to say. If the sources just mention that in passing, then so do we. So, for example Lene Gammelgaard's article first mentions that she is an author, then points out that she is the first Scandinavian woman to climb Everest, but Chhurim focuses solely on the fact that she is the first woman to climb Everest twice in one season, because that is all she is known for. Karanacs (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
We're discussing this very point at our writing about women essay. Please join us there. --GRuban (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

"Meet some of the women who contribute to Wikipedia"

Andrew Sherman, Victor Grigas and Fabrice Florin, "Meet some of the women who contribute to Wikipedia", Wikimedia blog, 6 March 2015, in celebration of International Women's Day on 8 March. Sarah (SV) (talk) 06:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

WMF survey indicates 21% female readership, 20% female contributor rate in "Global South"

The December 2014 WMF metrics meeting includes results of a survey conducted of 96,000 Wikipedia users in 11 countries of the so-called Global South — conducted in 16 languages (pg. 62). A total of 47,000 people ended up completing the survey, which ran both on desktop and mobile platforms. The survey showed that 21% of readers and 20% of contributors identified themselves as female (with another 2% declining to identify either as male or female and 1% selecting "other.") (pg. 64)

This indicates that while there is unquestionably a gender gap, the magnitude of the chasm in 2014 seems to be overstated, at least in the Global South — more like 4m:1f than 8m:1f. Carrite (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Normally (eg on Alexa & WMF stats, I suppose for en:WP) the readers of WP are 50-51% female, it's the editors there's a problem with. If we only get 21% in the Global South, differential access to the internet may be a large part of the reason. Johnbod (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I found that number very puzzling also; I'm not sure what to make of it. The implication at face value (which I'm not myself advancing here because I think something might be misinterpreted in the translation), is that there is essentially no statistically significant "gender gap" in the Global South outside of what can be explained by technology distribution and readership preferences. The "gender gap" is essentially another way of expressing the differential between readership and editing participation. Carrite (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
20% is not so far from the 18.2% (I think it was) figure that we have seen before, and which could well have been an understatement. We are also a few years on. There may be reasons connected with the relative technical maturity that disfavour males. The earlier perception of online social spaces as being inhabited by a less threatening coterie has been cited as a reason for a higher female presence in blogging, compared with the current level (I was not able to find the source for this claims though).
As for readers, the situation in the US/Europe 10-15 years ago is probably being mirrored, where males have more access to Internet technology, even in family settings. Moreover even in the ROTW there may well be a disparity on using platforms optimised for editing (i.e. desktops > laptops > tablets > phones > arduinos). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC).

Voluntary response surveys are crap. Additionally, if you look at page 64 of the PDF, only 35000 of the 96000 who started the survey answered the gender question. NE Ent 17:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

See Rich's F/M section below with new trend stats. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

facts?

The main page here quotes the NY Times: "an obsessive fact-loving realm that is dominated by men and, some say, uncomfortable for women." It's seems unlikely GGTF is saying a) women are uncomfortable dealing with facts, and b) an encyclopedia should not be concerned with facts. Presumably it's the obsessive aspect that's being emphasized? Anyway it's unclear to me what goal that quote is trying to achieve, and I'd appreciate a clarification. NE Ent 11:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

That's not the full quote, though. You left out "the traditions of the computer world and".
Peter Isotalo 13:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Presumably its neither the obsessive nor fact-loving characteristics at all. Its the "the traditions of the computer world and an obsessive fact-loving realm that is dominated by men", as the page says. These traditions included an environment that at the very least unintentionally excluded women, the equivalent of nudie calendars at the auto repair shop. Chortling about WP:HOTTIE and stuff like that, which I personally did regularly without a thought about its effect.--Milowent • hasspoken 11:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
NE Ent, I suspect "obsessive fact-loving" refers to Gradgrindian tendencies. Sarah (SV) (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice

A discussion is underway at ARCA that may be of interest to members of this task force as it concerns gender/gender issues. Lightbreather (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Women sought In the News (ITN)

I would recommend editors in this task force to pay some attention to the In the News (ITN) section on the front page, as well as other frontpage selections. Recently, there was a suggestion to feature India's ban of the film India's daughter in the news section. This proposal failed. Proposals that have since succeeded in getting into the news section are among others stories on the Dawn spacecraft, finding of fossils in Ethiopia and the finding of an old Japanese battleship. While I think the selection process for ITN mostly functions well, I also believe it to some degree reflect the particular interest of those who choose to involve themselves in ITN; for instance a tendency to focus heavily on space issues. More women (and editors interested in women's issues) involved in the process might in some cases lead to other choices. An important part of the process is simply to comment on the various proposals; but even more valuable is to work on relevant article so they will hold acceptable standard for the front page. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes! ITN could always use more input, and an influx of women expanding the areas of interest would be particularly welcome. It's also one of the easiest ways to get your content featured on the front page. GoldenRing (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikivoyage request...

Firstly the serious stuff - https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Tips_for_women_travellers could so with some reviewing.

Secondly, As you may be aware Wikvoyage writes about a fantastical or fictional travel-topic or destination for April 1st. This year's article got started a little earlier at voy:Wikivoyage:Joke_articles/Time_travel, some feedback on what to integrate into the article from a female perspective would be appreciated, as I felt there must be something more intelligent than historical romances and so on. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

F/M ratio of gender identifying editors on en:WP

Ratio of newly registered female to male editors on English Wikipedia over time

The above graph is derived from the user details on English Wikipedia, and represents monthly ratios of female to male editors. The 100% spike was a month with 2 male and 2 female editors. Early months with no male and no female identifying editors registering are plotted to 0% for clarity.

I think it is clear that the trend is a positive one. There appear to be two distinct steps up, the first I would potentially ascribe to the introduction of edit filters, which meant that recent changes patrol became a little less fraught, and people relaxed a little.

The graph was made quickly and the data may need some refining, so please do not take it as gospel just yet. I hope to include this and other data in Wither the Gender Gap (excuse the pun...).

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC).

It'd be interesting to see the absolute numbers here. The choppiness of the past few months suggest to me that the overall number of gender-identifying editors is still low, perhaps making the data less useful. GoldenRing (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Note that the March figures are, of course, very incomplete. Apart from the 37.1% in I think October, the figures are not incredibly volatile. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC).
Rich, where do the figures come from? Sarah (SV) (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Figures come from the user table for English Wikipedia. I will post them in a table at some point. I will do some analysis on the last years figures. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC).
Do we have a statistic of how many (percentage) editors self-identify their gender (in whatever way is necessary for it to be stored in the table)? Karanacs (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I can provide those figures also, some time later today. The percentage is small, but the absolute number is sufficient that, latterly at least, we can draw statistical inferences. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC).
Percentage is between 1/4 and 3/4 from above 6 to less than 1. Total numbers of accounts are around 24 million, but many of these have never edited. Our total number of gender identified accounts are 600,000. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC).
The full version of this discussion is currently about to archive from the top of the village pump. It may be of use to bring some of the intl gender stats to this page before archive takes place. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
It's doubtful what inferences can be drawn. The size of the sample isn't the key factor, it's the sampling, as the math behind inference is based on statistical assumptions; as those who chose to designate a gender are not a simple random sample. NE Ent 11:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Rich, are you able to extract how many and what percentage of active editors have identified as female, where active is defined as (1) over 30 edits a month, and (2) over 100 edits a month, both for the last three months? Sarah (SV) (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
It is would take a different approach, but I don't have the time to do that right now. I'll bear it in mind. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC).

Interesting chart! Wikipedia didn't have the option to pick your pronoun in preferences until a few years into the project, so accounts registered before that time probably have a different type of statistical "bias" in rate-of-selecting-pronouns than accounts registered after that - biased toward people who stuck around as active editors (and fussing with things like their preferences occasionally), instead of just people who registered new accounts. For the earliest days, you might consider this hand-edited list as a supplement for your data: Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians in order of arrival/2001. As another cross-reference, this mailing list thread from January 2002 mentions six active women editors. (I'm one of them) Dreamyshade (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I was curious, so I looked up when MediaWiki got a gender option in preferences. This paper from 2011 says "the gender preference setting was introduced in January 2009" (page 4), as part of a discussion of confounding factors when analyzing the gender gap. The uptick in the numbers started happening in January and February 2009, which would match with that as a factor. If you look at the MediaWiki release history, MediaWiki 1.15, released in June 2009, seems to be the first with the gender feature, which is a bit confusing, but it's hard to find records of when stuff was deployed to Wikipedia in those years. Wikipedia:Edit filter says the edit filter feature was released in March 2009, and I'm guessing that it didn't have a huge impact on the numbers, since both February and March 2009 are 20.5% according to the data. I'd be curious to read a more detailed history of the gender gap, especially the years before 2010-2011 when it started getting widespread attention (according to Gender bias on Wikipedia). Dreamyshade (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Biting

FYI, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twilight fandom seems to be an amusing case. Wikipedia notoriously contains large amounts of fannish material and we have articles about Trekkies, Browncoats, Star Wars fandom, &c. But, in this case, a mostly female fandom is dismissed as lacking organisation... Andrew D. (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, thanks for letting us know. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Good work, Andrew. This is exactly that kind of stuff I was referring to in this thread.
Peter Isotalo 21:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Twilight is primarily aimed at teenage girls, as opposed to the other series which are more for adults, and as is thoroughly covered here (a blog written by a woman, FWIW) it contains a lot of themes that are not at all progressive or feminist. It is also widely considered to be poor writing. Those are obviously not reasons to dismiss its fandom, but I would not be so quick to assume that it is on AFD merely because its fandom is primarily female, nor to hold it up as a good example of a female fandom. ekips39 (talk) 03:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I heartily disagree. Stargate fandom is about a form of popular culture that most serious critics would consider of fairly low quality. And it's not like Game of Thrones fans have a progressive agenda of any kind. No one would dream about putting that up either for deletion, though. There are other aspects of Twilight which would make it a target for an AfD, but it seems crystal clear to me that what separates it from everything from Whovians to parrotheads is the gender demographic.
Peter Isotalo 12:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Stargate is described by that article as having a significant female following due to its feminist portrayal of female characters, Game of Thrones is of high quality and has been described by some as portraying women as doing what they can to succeed in that culture, and you have not addressed my point about the age demographic. Twilight has three strikes against it, whereas your other examples have only one each. ekips39 (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Not sure why you brought it up in the first place, though. Moral or aesthetic qualities are not relevant for determinig notabiliy. All experienced editors know this. And still, a conspicuously large fan culture that just happens to be female-dominated gets nominated for deletion. Business as usual, I suppose.
Peter Isotalo 23:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
My point is that Twilight is different in many ways other than gender, so any one of these factors is equally likely to have led to the AFD. I'm aware that these differences are irrelevant to notability, but my argument did not concern notability any more than yours. ekips39 (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The essence of AfD is notability, though. If we nominate articles for deletion because they are "different", and one of those differences just happen to be gender, I see a problem. Whether it's intentional or not doesn't matter.
Peter Isotalo 07:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
If the editorship of Wikipedia is mainly technical males, there might be an undervaluation of things that do not agree with the moral position of technical males, which is to always be rational about what you do. In short (I am finding it hard to express myself at present) the technical male will obviously try to make technical choices and technical choices often revolve around rational choices, and if irrational choices are being made, (again, I hate this...) the moral position of those choices becomes a reason to crack down on the writing about that subject matter.
Dryden xx2 (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I am merely saying that if I was able to express myself I could or would verbalise the sentiment that there is indeed a mix-up between "morality" and the judgement of quality of written text. These subconscious judgements make it through in a rationale for saying something is bad. The male culture of Wikipedia is a source of judgement of things that are less ...appropriately "rational" to put it shortly. You can see it all around gaming culture as well.
Dryden xx2 (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

...I think Beatlesmania could be a very interesting topic about an early female-dominated fandom. If anything, it would be interesting to see if could be covered in a manner similar to Deadheads, ie about a fandom rather than a "mania".
Peter Isotalo 12:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Since your user page suggests you don't remember this period, let me reassure you that existing articles pretty well cover "Beatlemania" in the US. There really isn't that much to say.
The male journalists in the newspapers, TV, and magazines were basically just having fun whenever they said "It's Beatlemania!", because this story meant they got to go out to concerts and write stories about cute girls screaming at cute boys with shaggy hair. The girls stood in front and screamed, the boys and men wore Beatle wigs if they were at a party and attempting to be "cool." There were only 3 TV channels, so almost everybody interested saw the first concert of the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan Show. Boys often collected baseball cards instead of Beatle cards, because they already had baseball cards when the Beatles came out, and parents stubbornly insisted that you got only one package of bubblegum at a time, no matter how many more packages you needed to fill in your card collection.
The "Beatlemania" period only lasted a few years. It ended abruptly when the group stopped touring, and ended altogether when the group started doing more songs that required bar chords. At that point, because you actually had to learn to play the guitar to sing Beatles songs, many people who would have been called a "Beatles fan" began to turn into "a musician" instead. Nobody ever did come up with any convincing explanation for why the girls screamed at concerts. They basically screamed so much nobody could hear, and after a few years of that, what's the point? By the standards of the day, cute guys and loud music without your parents around was just a great reason to misbehave. So the guys let their hair grow out a little and the girls screamed. Does this really require an extensive encyclopedia article? :) --Djembayz (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I recommend you read more.[14]
Peter Isotalo 00:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Joining

I'd like to add my name to the Participants list but I'm not able to do so. Can someone add it for me? Thanks! Grrrlriot (♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 01:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Done, and welcome! Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Specific article about women's bodies needs work

The article at Nyotaimori (about sushi served on women) needs a lot of work on being sourced much more carefully, verifying historical claims, and figuring out whether the images are acceptably representative of the practice. Dreamyshade (talk) 07:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Listings of articles about women needing cleanup

Listings of articles about women needing cleanup have been added to the project page.
Improve the quality of existing articles:

There's a request pending for a similar listing for WikiProject Women artists. -- Djembayz (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this! I've already spotted a few I'd like to expand on the Women's History list. Ruby 2010/2013 02:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Row, row, row your boat

FYI, there's a historical event tomorrow as the Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race will have women's teams competing over the same course and on the same day as the men, for the first time. I started several relevant articles for this including Amy Gentry, Women's rowing and the Women's Boat Race but haven't had time to polish them up and there hasn't been a great deal of interest yet. I'll be doing what I can tomorrow but my main priority will be getting some photos. Andrew D. (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African American men in computer science

African American men in computer science is at AfD; as is African American women in computer science.--Djembayz (talk) 12:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

A group of editors is preparing to start a new RM at Hillary Rodham Clinton

As some of you may remember, last year in April, a RM was launched to move Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. This was only one in a long series of such requests. There was a moratorium on new move requests, and it has since expired. As a result, it seems that a group of editors is preparing to launch new move discussion. My personal opinion is simple: there is no justification for stripping a woman of her name. Many of the arguments have boiled down to fact that some editors believe that it is "merely her maiden name" or "unnecessary". This struck me as being the result of systemic bias, and in my view is not compatible with the BLP policy. In fact, the preference of the subject was confirmed by Jimbo. I'm no fan of Jimbo, but I appreciated his action in this case. Regardless, I've brought this here as I think that it may worthwhile to discuss what can be done to protect the names of women. RGloucester — ☎ 14:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
It is not canvassing. There isn't even an RM to canvass people to. I am genuinely concerned about this problem, as I was a year ago. I think that I agree with what Jimbo said above. Do you have an opinion on the problem, or are you here to bicker instead? If editors here believe that my concerns are unfounded, I will happily drop the matter. I simply see what I see. RGloucester — ☎ 15:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
No, I am not here to 'bicker'. I do however think that it would have been possible to draw attention to the discussion without suggesting that 'a group of editors' were engaging in 'systematic bias', and that it was necessary to 'protect the names of women'. Frankly, I think that the amount of on-Wikipedia debate over the title of an article on a woman who has been widely referred to by both alternative names is undue, and that more constructive use of contributors time could be found - and that inflaming the situation by making ridiculous assertions about WP:BLP policy being 'violated' is inflammatory, as well as nonsensical. Sadly, Wikipedia seems to encourage such partisan 'bickering' over matters that our readership (for whom we are supposedly creating this encyclopaedia) is unlikely to consider of any particular significance. Regardless of the title, it is self-evident who the biography is about - and the suggestion that it is somehow a 'violation' to use a name (either name) that the subject herself has self-identified by is ridiculous. Wikipedia certainly suffers from 'systematic bias' - and one of the biases it suffers from is infantile faction-fighting over matters of little consequence, to the detriment of what actually matters - useful encyclopaedic content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Believe you me, I agree with pretty much everything you just said. I'm not the one initiating move requests, of course. However, given the choice between the two, I believe that the subject's preference should be taken into consideration. What's more, I do genuinely believe that these repeated discussions are rooted in a lack of diversity of perspectives. You can criticise that notion, if you like. RGloucester — ☎ 16:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
If the discussion involves systemic bias or what she would prefer to be called, shouldn't this discussion be at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)? --Boson (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Insofar as I'm aware, there is no Wikipedia guidance on what to do with women who have made the decision to keep their family name. This is part of the problem. It is upsetting to see people attempt to remove "Rodham" on the grounds that it is insignificant, irrelevant, &c. This strikes me as being not only callous, but also plain wrong. When a woman decides to retain her family name, she's made a conscious decision as such. It is an integral part of her name, not a mere appendage to be discarded. Many of the arguments made in the last discussion consisted of "it is only her maiden name, and doesn't matter". I think it is apparent as to how that argument can be viewed as being rooted in a lack of diverse perspective. What's more, this is how she is called in reliable sources. I do not understand the obsession with stripping this woman of her name. Regardless, whilst I think guidance on this matter would be useful, I doubt it would gain any kind of consensus. RGloucester — ☎ 22:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
As I understand it, the guideline says to use the name the subject is most commonly known by, the standard being <first name> <last name>.
If those who close discussions give weight to arguments based on other criteria (such as the name preferred by the subject) in apparent or perceived violation of guidelines, that appears to me to be a recipe for disruption (if not itself disruptive). Since it is an issue potentially affecting many women, I don't think it is legitimate to invoke either IAR or a special interpretation of the guideline. Personally, I have much sympathy for the view that the "middle" name should be retained, but I think the only valid way to do that is to make the change to the guideline explicit, probably by making reference to cultures where women (or men, for that matter) change the name by which they are commonly known on marriage. And I think that is a valid topic for this venue. --Boson (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, Boson, this is not a "middle name". Her middle name is "Diane". "Rodham" is her family name. Referring to Rodham as her "middle name" is common tactic amongst those who wish to remove it, rendering it into insignificance. RGloucester — ☎ 03:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Speaking generally, Boson, it would be odd for WP to decide that a woman isn't to be known by a surname that she uses for herself. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that she uses both alternatives. [15] AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
It's ages since I looked at this, but I recall that Clinton had become a political name, and that personally she used Rodham Clinton. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to speculate as to reason why "Clinton" is often used by associated political campaigns, despite her expressed preference, but I believe that the reasons for that would be apparent to anyone with a bit of brain. RGloucester — ☎ 03:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Andy, on the front page of hillaryclinton.com, she displays her signature, and it's Hillary Rodham Clinton. Sarah (SV) (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Her official website appears to be hillaryclinton.com, not hillaryrodhamclinton.com. In any case, is there some special reason why we shouldn't be following WP:COMMONNAME on this topic? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The thing is, Hillary Rodham Clinton is the common name for her. In addition, many sources that use "Hillary Clinton" introduce her as "Hillary Rodham Clinton". It isn't so cut and dry on the sources front. In many cases, the short form is used to save space. It is obvious that a shorter web address is preferable. I don't think that such uses demonstrate the an integral part of a subject's name should be removed. As an example, see this NYT article, where she is introduced in the prose as "Hillary Rodham Clinton", but where the headline reads "Hillary Clinton". Others use Hillary Rodham Clinton in headlines (AP wire piece), but later use plain "Clinton" as a short form in the prose. RGloucester — ☎ 03:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, let me check the first 10 reliable sources randomly selected by Google News and see what name they use. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, this is what I found:
Preliminary Totals:
  1. "Hillary Clinton": 6 sources
  2. "Hillary Rodham Clinton": 4 sources
Given how close these numbers are, I don't think that a sample size of 10 sources is sufficient. Also, now that I think about it, I'm not sure if this is a valid methodology. Just because the first name of a topic is fully qualified in the first mention doesn't necessarily mean that it's the common name. For example, at Wikipedia, we typically use the common name as the article title, but qualify the name in the first sentence. In any case, I promised to check it out and report back what the first 10 sources stated and this is what I found. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Save the debate for the article's talk page. Thank you for letting us know about the topic. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Sarah, re "Speaking generally, Boson, it would be odd for WP to decide that a woman isn't to be known by a surname that she uses for herself."
Precisely! That is why the guideline needs to be changed to say that (and that should be discussed at the guideline talk page, not at the article talk page). Currently, the guideline says that the most commonly used name should be used, without respect to the person's own choice and the reason for one name being more common than the other. If general rules are ignored in standard cases like the use of a married woman's "maiden" name used in this fashion, it means that the discussions are held repeatedly in the wrong places rather than once in the right place. If Google ngrams clearly show "Hillary Clinton" being used much more often than "Hillary Rodham Clinton", we should not be surprised if people feel manipulated when a discussion is closed on the basis of arguments that should be used to change the guideline not ignore it. --Boson (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, Boson, I didn't see this earlier. I've rarely if ever commented on COMMONNAME issues, because they seem so entrenched. I suppose the point is to stop people from changing their WP names willy nilly, but married women often do juggle their own and a spouse's names, so that should be fixed. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/That Bass Tour (2nd nomination)

There's a current deletion discussion regarding performance tour of female recording artist Meghan Trainor--BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)

More eyes are needed on this article as I’ve noticed an influx of vandalism and BLP violations since Nungesser announced he is suing Columbia University.[17],[18] Also, editorial bias seems to be manifesting in this article in multiple ways. The most glaring example is that the current bio section for Paul Nungesser is about 4 times as long as the current bio section for Emma Sulkowicz.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bobo, thanks for posting about it. It's the kind of article where you need a clear run to fix the BLP issues. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Opinion piece on 60 Minutes presentation

  • The Sexists at the Top of Wikipedia, Apr. 3, 2015 --Djembayz (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    Interesting. I suspect the alleged sexism is unintentional, but I too have been annoyed with the seeming focus on "feminine" topics -- which, in this case, really ought not to have been compared to computer programming, especially not by means of "other stuff exists". The writer also doesn't say what changes he thinks are necessary, but here he does discuss his objections to the software; we might want to consider what he had to say there. Oddly enough, in the first article he seems to say that the software is the only problem and that efforts to address the atmosphere are misguided, but in the second one he names several problems with editing behaviour. I get the sense that he, Sue Gardner and Jimbo Wales want the same things but are talking past each other. I don't understand why Gardner's piece on why women don't edit Wikipedia should be discarded out of hand; it was based on what real women had to say, whereas Mark Devlin seems to have drawn his own conclusions. ekips39❦talk 04:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Tableflip.club manifesto quotes

"It’s not us, it’s you.”

"Meaningful change, the anonymous woman behind the site told me over email, requires not just tweaking but reinvention from the top down: “It’s virtually impossible to change a sick system without being the one in charge.” --Djembayz (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting article and website. Sarah (SV) (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton move request

For anyone interested in commenting, this has now opened: Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request. Sarah (SV) (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

My, that's a long page. I'm inclined to go with her preference because I don't see the point of moving it, but I don't feel like reading through all of that so I don't feel qualified to comment. ekips39❦talk 21:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Team editing

There was a grant proposal on meta that has been declined for now that seems like a potential point of interest for the GGTF. The proposal is focused on team editing. I think the initial approach was flawed (the proposer seems unfamiliar with the collaborative editing that already occurs), but at its core is a decent idea. Some of the studies say women prefer a more collaborative editing environment, and I think there is a lot of potential for finding ways to partner people who want to edit collaboratively, and perhaps even match them up with volunteer "project managers" who can help organize the division of labor and outline the article. Some of my most enjoyable moments as a WP editor have been because of an editing collaboration, but often it is difficult for people to find collaborators. (Just yesterday, actually, I saw a post on another editor's talk page from someone who wanted advice on what to do in topic X. I was able to ping 2 editors that I knew worked in that area, and they pinged in 3 or 4 more, and now the initial poster has the contacts to get started.) Is this type of focus something that this group would be interested in looking at? Karanacs (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey J

There's a current deletion discussion regarding female gospel recording artist Casey J.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Opposition to Wiki Women Edit-A-Thon raises Title IX concerns

Opposition to a Wiki Women Edit-A-Thon at the University of Cincinnati has raised Title IX concerns. --Djembayz (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

This statement reads to me as though opponents to the edit-a-thon raised the title ix concerns, which is not what the linked article says. According to the article, it's the parody posters put up by the opposition that were reported as breaches of title ix: The parody posters were reported to the university’s Title IX office. Although they do not automatically constitute a Title IX violation, UC Title IX Coordinator Jyl Shaffer confirmed the Title IX office is assessing the report to see if the posters are part of a pattern of behavior that needs to be addressed in other ways. Ca2james (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
That's Title IX, just in case any non-Americans have landed on this page by mistake. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not even clear that these were "opponents" to the edit-a-thon - these posters promoted the same time and place, and even the same snacks. It was always clear that men were welcome, and while I doubt that anyone has been thrown out of an edit-a-thon for writing about the "wrong" gender, I suspect that anyone who turned up would have found the preamble quite a compelling argument for improving the coverage of females.
(I am disappointed that the 10% figure still gets bandied about.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC).

Blogsphere vs. Wikipedia

Has anyone compared and contrasted the gender gap in blog writing to that in Wikipedia editing? Is the participation percentage similar? If they are not (i.e., if women blog a lot), then everything in common between blogs and Wikipedia would be ruled out as a significant reason for the gender gap in Wikipedia -- both being digital media, requiring big time commitment, etc. It'd also support adapting blogging features in the Wikipedia interface (e.g., moderated comments). Your thoughts? Fgnievinski (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

One of the fundamental differences between blogging and Wikipedia is that everything at WP must be neutrally stated and verifiable by reliable sources. Blogging doesn't have the same sourcing requirements: the author can pretty much just state their opinion using whatever language and sourcing they like. Some blogs are well-sourced but good sourcing isn't a requirement the way it is here. The difference in sourcing requirements means that writing a Wikipedia article can take quite a bit more time and effort than writing a blog post. Also, the neutrality requirement here means that personal opinions have to be checked at the door which is quite different than most blog posts, which may be written to express a particular point of view. Ca2james (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Not sure how that could be related to the gender gap. I see how it means Wikipedia may require a greater time commitment, but I don't see why women would be less likely to be interested in Wikipedia-style writing than men unless it comes back to "women don't have enough time". The original comment suggested changes to the interface; in fact, I've thought of moderated comments myself as a possible solution to the endless civility debates, but it would be an awful lot of work due to the volume of comments people make, there'd be arguments over who was qualified to moderate comments, what should and shouldn't be let through, whether the moderators would become a cabal that no one could oversee... you get the picture. More to the point: I don't know if anyone has done such a comparison; if they have, it would be interesting. ekips39❦talk 23:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Women, Men and News: Divided and Disconnected in the News Media Landscape by Paula Poindexter, Sharon Meraz, Amy Schmitz Weiss: Chapter 9 The Blogosphere's Gender Gap covers the figures - essentially for numbers of blog writers and readers, by 2005 the gender gap was not statistically significant.
However there are subject matter differences, less women blog about politics, war and technology for example. The chapter also covers the phenomenon of "mommyblogging" - describing the creation of "supportive communities".
We might expect that, for example, the desire to write a tech blog would transfer fairly well to the desire to write tech articles - both have as an end product the dissemination of tech knowledge. Blogging in furtherance of a supportive community might fit less well with the Wikipedia paradigm.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC).

Technical details turn women away

I am not really sure if this subject has been brought up before in the context of this debate or discussion or project. I will read more about this later when I get the time. But I wanted to suggest my ..observation regardless.

This observation simply pertains to the technical aspects of using the system.

The idea is this:

Wikipedia is HARD

Simply put, it is too difficult to use it. And with using I mean writing, editing.

There are three categories that make Wikipedia hard to write for:

  1. It requires effort to keep track of stuff and awareness does not come easily.
  2. It requires effort to be aware of the rules and guidelines and they supersede what the intuitive mind would want to do.
  3. Learning how to do something when your intuitive mind wants to go ahead immediately puts off the joy of writing and frustrates.

The short conclusion is that Wikipedia editorship is not intuitive enough and men are more willing to suffer the hardships of technical details and requirements. Adhering to policy is also really a technical aspect. Writing becomes something technical rather than something freeflowing. There are too many constraints.

A more detailed description would be:

Wikipedia attracts less women because of the requirement to use masculine-only qualities in dealing with the technical details of the system as it is constructed to allow editors to interface with the whole of the community and the work.

Dryden xx2 (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


I agree that writing for Wikipedia is hard. Much of the work is inherently hard, but some rules and attitudes seem to make it harder than it needs to be. We should strive to identify those rules and attitudes and rewrite or eliminate them, especially if they have a disproportionate effect on women (or any other group of people).
But I strongly disagree that Wikipedia has a "requirement to use masculine-only qualities". Writing articles is something that either sex can do equally well. I've never seen any evidence that women are inferior at writing university level research papers. If anything my experience grading these papers points in the other direction, probably because men don't always take grades as seriously.
Perhaps men can be more effective on the talk pages, RfCs, etc. in getting their own way, if they are more willing to break the rules, use sockpuppets, or push inane arguments just to wear down the opposition. In my experience women tend to follow the rules more closely - but who knows if this is a general rule. In any case, our goal should be to eliminate rule-breaking where it is just used for "getting your own way."
BTW, I see that this is your first edit, which suggests that you may be breaking some rules.
In short your argument sounds like "girls like to play with dolls, boys like to edit Wikipedia" - total nonsense. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, if I could express myself, I would not be making arguments like that, sorry.
Dryden xx2 (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I will try to put something into words... Sex is special. Moronity supersedes. Willingess is abundant. Laughing stock material often dies a lonely death.
I cannot even express myself in words anymore in poetry, sorry. My bad. But the idea is that I cannot talk about "masculine" qualities like that without first describing that. And I haven't. And I'm also not saying it is only men who have those qualities. I am just saying wikipedia requires more masculinity than femininity. Again, ..though the words may be ..off, what I mean is that... my mind is too much hurt by madness to still be able to speak ;-). WHAT YOU GET if you make systems too much advents of logic and structure is that the intuitive parts become buried in rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dryden xx2 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


(edit conflict) Did I just bite a newby? If so I apologize and I've left a "don't bite" userbox on your user page. I hope you realize that there are a few folks who like to troll this page, so perhaps you'll forgive me if I get a bit testy at times. You do seem to have a good knowledge of Wikipedia - including a great knowledge of formatting, that most 1st time editors don't have. If you are a woman editing for the first time, please disabuse yourself of the notion that editing is too tough for women. It's tough for everybody. The occasional troll makes it even tougher. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, you're mocking me, I get it. — Dryden xx2 (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Utterly flawed reasoning, in my experience some of the most technically qualified and even superior workers in various situations were women. The creative industries prove this over and over again, I've known numerous Editors and Artists that use software tools like Photoshop or Illustrator in extremely impressive ways. These are programs that many spend years to learn or master. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I've never said these things you say I did say. And nothing is the matter, and everything is okay, so please be at ease. And I'm willing to discuss these things, but my mind is getting in the way all the time, so my apologies if this is not something I should be doing in any case. — Dryden xx2 (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dryden, do you have particular examples of policies or guidelines that you feel are counter-intuitive? — Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Sarah. First the whole nature of encyclopedic writing means that you have to subject yourself to a system. The system is something that requires consistency. Consistency is something that is coded into rules regarding how something should be written or formatted. Formatting requires a large knowledge regarding flags. Tags are not very intuitive. There are tags that exist in one language domain, but not in another. Finding tags even is hard. Tags set in motion community disputes or resolution processes. It seems to happen in a void. The new editor wonders where people come from, how do they find it. The new editor seems to hit a brick wall. The wall is invisible. The wall is things you want to do, and you can't do them. Or it is not allowed. Your own intentions are not supported by the system.

(I kinda condensed that paragraph).
I am not well accustomed to these 'guidelines'. Let's say that requirements for writing anything are very high and there is a large focus on rational agreement. This agreement is based on the merit of adhering to fixed "qualities". Qualities that are often rational.
To give you an example then. Verifiability is mentioned at the top of this page. That whole message scares people away. In regular life most people don't care if everything they say is verifiable or not. You go ahead with life and see where it leaves you.
In the scientific realm there are many laymen that claim to be scientific in their thinking when their mode of assessing really precludes scientific exploration. In trying to only follow 'objective' knowledge they preclude the possibility of introducing new facts or new hypotheses. In this sense, adhering too strictly to a certain standard for knowledge can frustrate the pursuit of knowledge.
Writing for an encyclopedia just like reading it is a matter of exploration. Often teaching another is the best way of learning yourself. So teaching must be natural, as is reading. If most of what you do, is spend time on dealing with the consistencies of the system, obviously little time remains to actually write the data or knowledge that you would want to impart or develop.
I am saying that verifiable knowledge, in this case, is something that must happen as a side-effect of joyful writing. Not as a requirement before you start to write.
I know that e.g. the "no bite" guidelines that Smallbones linked to try to alleviate these issues. They are of the nature that they say not to be so strict with newcomers. But it is a bit like speaking to an empty sea. First you empty the sea, and then you say that people who put water into the sea should not be punished so severely. The sea in this case is new life, new blood. You know that your guidelines are scary, and the sentiment that older editors have is scary. And then you say: don't scare them so much, It'll Bite You Too.
Just the fact that these guidelines exist means that they are necessary for dealing with the trouble that other guidelines create??.
And then you might say: it is not the guidelines themselves, but the mentality around them. But to get back on verifiability, because it is a core issue of any objective knowledge creation.
*Sometimes* data that is presented in a truthful manner is more reliable than data that is presented to be true *because*.
I can approach this really from a thousand angles and they are all the same: the feminine. You must allow flexiblity and come-as-you-go-ism to become something that attracts women. There must be less focus on the result and more on the process. Yadda yadda. Said a thousand times before.
*Sometimes* opinion is more reliable than objective fact. *Sometimes* what people say is worth less than what they think. *Sometimes* money is worth more than a thousand children.
Sometimes what I say is worth something, but most usually these days it has very little value.
You must do with it what you want. And it is up to you, not me.
I'll see ya.

— Dryden xx2 (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

To the extent that Wikipedia requires masculine qualities in order to adhere to policy, it's probably due to cultural norms. While these norms did originate from biological realities, they have been exaggerated beyond what is inherent and what other animals do, and recent developments present a clear case against the idea that technical and intellectual ability is "masculine-only". In fact, the "biological realities" are more to do with reproduction than ability. Also, I find most policies and guidelines intuitive, or at least logical. ekips39 (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Masculine-only doesn't mean "male only". Actually the phrase is meaningless from my point of view: something is either masculine or feminine, but not both, so "masculine only" doesn't mean anything in actual fact. But just consider the development of the brain. In newborn children the halves of the brain are not any specialized. As the child grows the brain quickly starts offloading "structural" elements to the left hemisphere and "nonstructural" elements to the right.

If you get a brain seizure in only your left side, you lose all ability to differentiate objects. Completely. At least research or psychological knowledge (I believe the book of Gray, Psychology mentions it) has shown such instances. What you lose is a perspective on reality that implies structure and differentiation. I think you can easily agree that structure and differentiation are an important aspect of scientific or perhaps rather "objective" knowledge if that knowledge is to adhere to standards of objectivity. Lateralization of brain function mentions some of that but as the tag indicates, it is written in a tad bit of a denialist tone. There have seriously been cases of people with a stroke in the left-side that 'paralyzed' their ability to make structural interpretation of sensual data (visual data) that left them unable to perceive objects. This interpetrative aspect is, to my eyes at least, a masculine aspect. Grammar is a masculine aspect. You can term it whatever you want.
But it is pretty clear that many women, or most women, are not attracted to the culture or the sphere of the Wikipedia 'background'. Otherwise this discussion would not exist, or this need, or this requirement to become more 'woman' friendly.
But you cannot become more 'woman-friendly' while not also becoming more 'man-friendly'. It is an illusion to think that these things are separate. Any improvement that would draw more women in, in this case, would be an improvement for all. And you do not need to think about women, you only have to think about what your female side would like.
Also, I find most policies and guidelines intuitive, or at least logical.
If that is your opinion, or experience, please also indicate then what you like about them, or come up with an example that you would put up for debate, otherwise it is just a statement of opinion without content. Note though that "logic" and "intuition" are not exactly the same, although ideally they would be or amount to the same thing (if they were integrated with each other like they should).
A woman in a certain sense... belies the fact that... rationality supersedes illogic. (There is this song by Carbon Based Lifeforms in which a line features "Only illogics can find, / Hidden flaws in a straight logic line. / Only erratics recognize, / Errors in patterns of a perfect design."). But the answer lies in between the words.
How many strong arms are needed to lift one finger?

— Dryden xx2 (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that left-brain qualities are masculine whereas right-brain qualities are feminine. This doesn't make much sense because it implies among other things that men are right-handed and women are left-handed; I suspect the notion comes from the cultural norm of men being intellectual and women emotional, but in any case you haven't pointed to any evidence for it aside from your personal speculations. I also don't think any of this has much to do with the gender gap. The causes usually pointed to, and the ones for which there is evidence, seem to suggest that it is the other way round. Separately, your statements are no less a matter of opinion than mine. ekips39 (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Still not useful. — Dryden xx2 (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dryden xx2, to address "The short conclusion is that Wikipedia editorship is not intuitive enough and men are more willing to suffer the hardships of technical details and requirements", I recommend reading this gender gap FAQ answer about why so few women edit Wikipedia, with important reasons including: less available time, lack of confidence/assertiveness, less confident with technology, difficult-to-navigate rules, aggressive and unwelcoming behaviour, and harassment. To quote from the section about "less confident with technology": "This under-representation is not due to any inherent inability, but to a complex range of social factors including discouragement from computing at an early age, lack of access to technology, bias in education, bias in recruitment and hiring in the technology industry, and a wide range of factors making the technology industry less attractive to them. However, all these factors combine to make women less likely to take up technical careers and hobbies, or to continue them." In other words, it is a known factor that technical difficulty can disproportionately discourage potential women editors, but it's not as simple as men being more willing to deal with technology. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Another thought here: My observation is that most people, regardless of gender, would be in agreement with Dryden xx2 that expressive writing, and commentary such as blogging and commenting, is a more relaxing pastime than the discipline of carefully coding, fact-checking, copyediting and referencing encyclopedia articles. We see this phenomenon on Wikipedia itself, that many participants are inclined towards expressive writing and interaction-- and in fact more than one editor has called on volunteers commenting here to please stop wasting their time, and return to the core work of article quality improvement. I'm not so sure coding is a gender-specific activity: one recent commentary takes this the other direction, Coding Like a Girl. --Djembayz (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
The Gender Gap FAQ isn't saying that coding is an inherently gender-specific activity, but that societal patterns disproportionately discourage women from coding, which fits with the observations in Coding Like A Girl. We could consider adding another factor to that FAQ though: that a bunch of editors have a pattern of undervaluing the important work of talking to other editors on Wikipedia (to answer questions, resolve problems, organize things, advise others, and so on), a kind of social collaborative work that may be traditionally considered feminine. :) Dreamyshade (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
While it may be true that fewer women take up technical careers, this doesn't mean that their brains don't function and they couldn't understand wikicode if they chose to learn it. There are plenty of men who don't easily learn technical things; the only difference is that no one attributes this to their gender. There are only a few basic tags that are needed to create a basic Wikipedia article; advanced tech skills aren't required. Those who don't want to learn more, because it's "hard", can leave tables, templates, infoboxes, navboxes, etc., to others. The main skills needed to create and encyclopedia are reading and writing, not coding, and I hadn't heard that men are supposed to be better at that. So, ladies, let's get out there and create some content! I could use some help with these: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christiane Lemieux Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mary Millben and Draft:Marlena Kaesler.—Anne Delong (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, women are fully capable of all kinds of technical work! It's useful to recognize though that there are societal patterns related to gender that can influence how much a person feels like choosing to learn technical skills that are important for being a successful editor (such as using reference templates and comparing diffs). Dreamyshade (talk) 03:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • My impression is that the key difference is that women are more risk-averse and so less bold than men. They may also be more conformist. Such traits mean that they do well in a safe, well-ordered environment such as formal education, where they tend to outnumber and out-perform men now. But Wikipedia is quite anarchic and is not a normal thing for people to do and so women would have to be especially adventurous to get involved. Such women exist, of course – I was quite impressed when I discovered Barbara Toy today. But they are exceptional. Andrew D. (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This thread started out asserting that women couldn't understand how to edit Wikipedia because it's just too hard (!!!) and now Andrew D. has stated that women are just too timid to edit Wikipedia. He must be right because after two weeks no one has spoken up to refute this, so I will. I'm sure that statistics will show that women are less likely to get into physical altercations such as bar fights, sure, but to claim that they can't deal with chaotic situations because of their gender is rather patronizing. What's more "anarchic" than a shopping mall on boxing day? How about the "mosh pit" at a (insert appropriate boy band name here) concert? According to government statistics, in Canada where I live 44% of journalists are women, which, when stay-at-home mothers are taken into account, means really no gender gap in percentage of participants, and yet writing publicly in newspapers and magazines would seem to require a lot more willingness to tolerate criticism and disagreement than editing Wikipedia.
Besides, Wikipedia has plenty of rules and policies, and is not a random environment. Women can edit it anonymously if they want to feel safe. 99% of all Wikipedia editing requires no "bravery" at all - adding factual content and sources, fixing spelling, organizing material into sections, filling in infobox data, etc. No one has to work on controversial articles or take part in lively discussions. Of the nearly 60,000 edits I have made, fewer than 1% required any nerve at all, and most of those only because I decided to speak up on a talk page (like this one).—Anne Delong (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey @Anne Delong:, good points. The question of technical barriers is an important one: we discovered a Mediawiki wiki with 94% female editors, so we can certainly discount it as a barrier when the will is otherwise present.
As to the question of "confidence" (or diffidence, if you prefer) we do have surveys where this is cited by substantially more females than males as a reason for not editing or ceasing editing. Most of the other putative gendered reasons are cited in very similar percentages by both genders.
There are many studies that support this in spoken language situations, while the results vary females in general take less turns and speak for shorter periods than males in groups with both genders present.
It's also interesting that research found females worked in more contentious areas on Wikipedia than males. I might speculate that females (again in general) are interested in social issues, and so much in wiki-gnoming.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather

The Arbitration Committee has opened a case against GGTF member Lightbreather, in case anyone here wants to take part. Evidence can be supplied on the evidence page and opinions/proposals at the workshop, where comments have already begun. Sarah (SV) (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I am restoring the above notice, which was deleted by User:Karanacs, who filed the above case. I have not stated any opinion about the case itself, but deletion of the notice does not seem appropriate. (1) Karanacs is not listed as a GGTF member. Sarah (SV) is the GGTF founder. That Karanacs knows better than Sarah what topics are and are not suitable for the GGTF to discuss seems questionable. (2) Deleting talk page comments by another user is in general frowned upon. (3) Deleting notices about an Arbitration case that one oneself opened also seems less than unbiased. (4) The GGTF is mentioned no less than 13 times on the opening page of that case, including one arb clerk who was involved with the GGTF case withdrawing because of it. In short, I do think there are ample grounds for Sarah's notice to stay. --GRuban (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The canvassing - and restoration of the canvassing - has been noted on the case evidence page (not by me) and its talk page. This case was accepted to look at the behavior of one user, across multiple areas of Wikipedia, NOT to retry the GGTF case. I'm disappointed that these tactics have been used. Karanacs (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Seeing that LB is a part of this project though it wouldn't be canvassing to get the opinions of editors she has worked with. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that is canvassing. Just as it would be inappropriate for someone to post a notice of a (hypothetical) case about me at WP:FAC or Wikipedia:WikiProject Texas A&M, since I've been highly active there. Karanacs (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
If Wikipedia:WikiProject Texas A&M were mentioned 13 times in an Arbcom case, it would be a disservice not to notify them. And, frankly, Karen, though I respect you highly, and you have said some wonderful things on these pages, the fact that the person bringing the case was also the one removing the notice about it did not look good. Thanks for stopping. --GRuban (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The notice seems a bit odd, but I don't see what part of the policy it violates; it's not spammy and is neutrally worded. It's arguable either way, I think. ekips39❦talk 02:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Gendergap related discussion on Karanacs talk page

A discussion on Karanacs talk page - Tip of the iceberg? - refers to this task force, the gendergap mailing list, and Karanacs' ArbCom against me. Further, Karanacs added that she believes that the private (Systers-hosted) mailing list that I started for women Wikipedia editors may also be involved in discussing the ArbCom.[19] (For the record: It is not.)

I believe these concerns should be discussed here, or on one of the ArbCom case pages. Feedback, anyone? Lightbreather (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

As I discussed on another page, editors can choose with whom they wish to have conversations, and they can choose the venue. Anyone can of course start a similar conversation at a more public location, and request that others redirect their comments to that thread, but if I am seeking advice on a matter, I have the freedom to choose with whom I wish to consult. For example, editors can choose to use the discussion page you set up in your userspace; they can't be forced not to request advice or help on that page. isaacl (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Why is it that when I don't see the same editors obsess with everything Jimbo it is about you and the GGTF? I know editors here aren't going to get along with everyone but the going out of the way just to target the person just has to stop. Im not saying this to you LB im saying this in general. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

What happens on the Systers list is obviously only the business of the people who are members of the list, with the caveat that, as with all off-wiki discussion, collusion is bad. There has been no allegation of wrongdoing on the Systers list, so I don't see why this needs to be addressed here at all. Karanacs (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Then would you please explain what you meant by this?
I would be quite surprised if this is not being discussed on the private list. One of the justifications for the KaffeeKlatsch was that women needed a place to go when they felt attacked, and pretty much everyone would see an Arbcom proceeding against oneself as an attack. ... Instead, I'll trust that those who appear after being canvassed will make that incredibly obvious (as is the case of the person who is posting on the workshop page).
I'd also appreciate it if you'd close down those (now) ArbCom related discussions on your talk page. They encourage those who ought to know better to, as others sometimes put it, stir up sh*t. Lightbreather (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Karanacs, would you please respond to above? Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
This is an inappropriate venue for these types of discussions. 00:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karanacs (talk • contribs)
More appropriate than your talk page, but I won't insist here. Still, will you please shut-down those discussions on your talk page? Lightbreather (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
How is this page more appropriate than her talk page for discussing something that's happening on her talk page? ekips39❦talk 02:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
If Karen wants to discuss something on her talk page, she can discuss it there. It's her talk page. Let her talk. Sheesh. --GRuban (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Audio .mp3 on impact of public shaming

According to Jon Ronson, the author of So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed,

“In all shamings, women have it way worse than men. It’s no coincidence that my book is filled with women."

There is much material for reflection in Mr. Ronson's interview, which describes how sad, vicious episodes of public shaming are facilitated by the use of the Internet.

Far too many people, men and women, old and young, people about whom we know nothing but an IP address, have experienced trauma, shame, and in some cases, negative real life consequences as a result of their voluntary or involuntary participation on the Internet, or as a direct result of their attempts to contribute to the Wikipedia encyclopedia projects.

I would urge those who are having a hard time on this website, anyone who is or who wants to become an administrator here, and all of us who get frustrated with the other editors on this site, to consider listening to this .mp3, and to reflect on what it would take to help us remember that there is a real, living person reading the words we type on our computer, someone who may actually be a good-faith volunteer attempting to make a positive contribution, and some real person, who no matter how difficult or obnoxious they may be, deserves a kinder fate than an avalanche of public social rejection and verbal abuse. --Djembayz (talk) 02:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I've read some of his earlier articles about this, and they're very good, as he always is. Thanks for posting it. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I've used a quote from this as my latest talk-page "Quote of the day" All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC).

Discussion notice

There is a discussion at meta, Grants:IdeaLab/Community discussion on harassment reporting, that may be of interest to members of the group. Lightbreather (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

"Girl bands"

I was touching up Eurovision Song Contest 2015 and found completely unmotivated references to The Peppermints as a "girl group",[20] as well as in article about the band.[21] I made a similar fix to the lead of 5, 6, 7, 8s a while ago.[22] The gender of the band members clearly had no contextual relevance in these cases.

Might be worth keeping tabs on Category:All-female bands in this regard. In some instances, like AC/DShe, specifying gender in the lead seems more relevant.

Peter Isotalo 11:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

And you've been swiftly reverted, with a link to girl group added. I hope you are keeping an eye on boy bands also. Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Rather trying to make this about the fairly well-defined "boy band" genre, I suggest taking a long, hard look at girl group and tell us what the definition is. It's not all that clear beyond the 1960s once you start looking up the sources cited.
In Category:American rock girl groups you've got The Bangles, The Go-Go's and Vixen (band) which seem equivalent to regular mixed or all-male rock and pop bands. It strikes me as a bit arbitrary, except that they happen to be all-female. Other examples that appear to be fairly haphazardly categorized as girl groups are Australian rock band Lash (band), Canadian Lillix, German Milk & Honey (group), Bananarama and temporary Swedish trio Afro-dite.
Peter Isotalo 13:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I have some sympathy with this, though I will certainly not be taking any sort of look at it. But anyone who thinks that being a girl group/band is not defining for Bananarama has gone bananas. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
No, taking a look at stuff would be droll. Clever puns, though, that's the way to make a difference.
Peter Isotalo 21:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The Peppermints? You mean the ones whose official page, http://www.thepeppermints.eu/, has a site description of "Sito ufficiale della girl band The Peppermints"? --GRuban (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

And the Spice Girls made their point (and money) out of being a girl group. It didn't stop in the 1960s, that's for sure. - Sitush (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
It's a strange feeling not being allowed to call absolute bollocks what it is, absolute bollocks. Eric Corbett 00:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Women are not bollocks.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Just ignore it, no need to feed into it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right of course. There is a difference between girl group and All-female band, and not every discussion started on this board should be cause for derision.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Participants in this discussion might be interested in the LTA case Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Boy band vandal, where a person in Alberta (mostly edits from Grande Prairie) has been adding inappropriate boy band and girl band categories. This vandal was active as recently as last week. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Thorg

The new Statesman has an article on "The Wikipedia wars: does it matter if our biggest source of knowledge is written by men?" which might be worth a read. My feeling though is that it's time to do rather than to read. One thing that might be worthwhile is to organize a "thematic organization" aka a thorg - which is an organized group similar to a Wikimedia chapter, which can get funding from the WMF through the Funds Dissemination Committee in fairly large amount via an annual grant (i.e. not one little project at a time). Please do consider this. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I'm interested in such a thorg. I'm not sure where to look for more information about next steps. Ideas? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Here are a few places to start, all on Meta:

Basically it's a chapter, except it is not organized by geography or nationality. The only existing thorg is Amical Wikimedia, which organizes and represents Catalan speakers. This is perhaps a bit different from what the original thorg idea was, but I think it shows that the thorg idea is very flexible. Go for it! Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Smallbones, thanks for posting this and the links. It's a great idea. Concerns are: volunteer time, how to make sure members are committed to the goals (rather than the situation we've seen on this talk page), and how to ensure that everything we did stood a good chance of making a difference. But the first step is to gather the people. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

BBC Radio Woman's Hour interview on Wiki's Gender Gap

An .mp3 BBC Radio Woman's Hour interview on Wiki's Gender Gap, with Jenny Kleeman, author of the New Statesman article mentioned above, and Daria Cybulska of Wikimedia UK. Begins at 16:45. --Djembayz (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this, Djembayz. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Hm, again with the 10%...

For anyone interested in addressing the Sex and the City issue:

Note: Box (with alterations) courtesy of Sex and the City Wikia.

Some of the above are redirects, for example They Shoot Single People Don't They (was this stub, which was deemed not notable. Some point to dab pages or articles on different topics. And one (To Market, to Market (SATC episode) has existed for eight years, presumable being the only one sufficiently well referenced to survive redirection.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC).

WikiProject Women's health

A new project is being set up in case anyone would like to join. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Linking to SaidOnWP twitter

The top of this page contains a link to a twitter account that has retweeted highly dubious claims of a wikipedia editor "threatening violence against women," while naming and shaming him. This seems like an inappropriate page to link to. Would people be fine with the link being removed/would whoever runs that twitter account be willing to delete that retweet? Bosstopher (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher: It appears that the twitter account has previously made attacks on specific editors before. I strongly support a removal of this account. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 00:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I've removed it. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
[23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. I am not comfortable with a twitter account that insults Wikipedia editors to be prominently featured on a page dedicated to addressing the gender gap. I am going to be bold and remove this link. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 00:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Edit conflict with SlimVirgin, I wrote this before that post. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 00:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:Porn

I've asked in the past how WikiProject Pornography can be considered neutral if there is no anti-porn project but all I get told is "WP:NOTCENSORED". Wanting the flip-side to be included in Wikipedia is not censorious, in fact it is censorious to fail to actively pursue equal prominence for anti-pornography sentiments. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
You don't need an "anti" project. There is nothing to stop you creating and/or tagging articles with the existing project's banner if they fall under the scope, which includes "Other pornography-related topics, such as pornography genres" and "The larger topic of pornography itself, and social and cultural issues surrounding it."
We've had this discussion before here, I'm pretty sure. Not everything needs to be aligned like armies on a battlefield and NOTCENSORED applies as much to anti-porn articles as anything else. The problem is, too many people here do in fact see things as a battleground. Has someone actually told you not to tag some anti-porn organisation's article (or whatever, you get my drift)? If so, I'd like to see a diff and take it up with them. - Sitush (talk) 07:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I've just randomly looked at Anti-pornography, Antipornography Civil Rights Ordinance and Anti-pornography movement in the United Kingdom (three that appeared in the search box list when I began typing antiporn - I'm not very imaginative). They are all tagged as being within the scope of the pornography project. - Sitush (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I would think criticism of pornography would fall under WP:Porn also. It's not the "pro-porn wikiproject" it's a wikiproject on the topic of porn, which should include criticism in accordance with WP:NPOV, but in practice, I suspect that could be difficult if the project is heavily populated with pornography fans. If there's too much fighting among pornography fans on that project and those trying to expand articles and topics critical of porn, a seperate wikiproject might seem reasonable. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
How does this relate to the gender gap? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 23:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • There is an antiporn project anyway. It may be an informal one, but its there, and fairly robust. They are at AfD all the time trying to delete articles on minor porn actors, tweaking the notability policy, policing BLPs, etc. As for article coverage of anti-pornography topics, its up to those interested in those topics to recruit and work on those topics. Perhaps you'll recruit by posting about it here. But it is not "censorious" if editors choose to work on other areas, and frankly its sounds ridiculous that you even stated it that way, so I assume it was intended to get a rise out of people. Its a shame there is so much drama on this board, it clearly has dampened real discussion. Perhaps someone would like to help improve one of my recent creations, Emma Padilla, mexico's first popular actress, there is dearth of online sourcing about her.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Tahera Ahmad

I started a stub on Tahera Ahmad. I'm not the strongest writer but she appears to be quite a notable feature if her teaching profile is to be believed she has been on several national level news figure. Thought maybe a few of the stronger writers may want to look this up and improve the article. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Romance

Plange has launched WikiProject Romance to improve Wikipedia coverage of romance novels. We are soliciting members now. Wikipedia's coverage of these topics is absolutely atrocious - only a tiny percentage of the articles that should exist actually do. I believe this is one of the more visible examples of the gender gap at work. We welcome all members who are interested in helping us fill this gap. Karanacs (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Main page metrics

In the study " It's a Man's Wikipedia? Assessing Gender Inequality in an Online Encyclopedia", the researchers made an effort to assess gender bias in Wikipedia. Their model for determining "visibility bias" compared the proportions of men and women on the main page. I think it would benefit this task force to have access to up-to-date data for gender representation on the main page.

As Today's featured article, Did you know, In the news, On this day, and featured pictures all are products of different workflows, I think it would make sense to consider each separately. Trends like the bump in DYKs during Women's History Month could be visualized through a graphical representation of the data. What would be the easiest way to retrieve and present this data? Are there other metrics from the main page that would be useful to this task force? gobonobo + c 02:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  • @Gobonobo: thanks for bringing up this subject as I am also interested in it. I've mentioned it in passing previously, but only regarding the DYK section. I agree that the data needs to be stovepiped by section as well as time (month/year). I'm very curious as to how the data will look across the years, but I don't know how to gather it, analyze it, or graphically present it. (It's been a long time since I was in graduate school.) Maybe the Wikidata folks would have some ideas? --Rosiestep (talk) 06:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I would suggest simply culling the wiki-links in each section and determining the gender of each that is about a specific human being. "On this day" should be controlled for year. Other sections should be controlled for the biography gender balance. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC).
The recent inspire grantee Wikipedia Gender Index is devoted to providing similar metrics so I've asked Maximilianklein if there's any overlap. gobonobo + c 23:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Gobonobo@, that is a great idea! I can't promise anything, but certainly it's precisely the kind of measurement we want to include. I'm going to put it on our try-to-get-to list. Thanks Maximilianklein (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman

The article 10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman appears to need attention from editors familiar with the subject. The reception section is currently entirely criticism. I don't recall the coverage of this video being exclusively critical. I've been going through the sources and have only gotten through the lead, and it seems some sources have been misrepresented. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a more appropriate place to ask your question would be the talk page? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 22:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for letting us know, Bobo (about the deletion above too). Sarah (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is noteworthy that there is nothing on the Talk page for the above article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Chess, I posted here because this video was mentioned in the task force created article Women's rights in 2014. I also just created a talk page for article because it previously didn't have one: [29].--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The section describing this video on the Hollaback! wikipage also appears to need attention from editors familiar with the video and familiar with the reliably sourced coverage of it. The section is exclusively critical. [30] --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Sarah Brady biography

I'm waiting out my ArbCom case by improving the Luby's shooting article. One of its sources side-tracked me to the Sarah Brady article. I made a couple of improvements, but I'll be retiring soon, so if anyone is interested, that bio could use some work. Lightbreather (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Dressing-table

The gender gap isn't all about physicists! Doing toilet service, I found that Dressing-table redirects to an almost entirely different topic. We need a proper article, and there is an ideal source for early/expensive versions fully free online: Adlin, Jane, with contributions from Lori Zabar, Vanities: art of the dressing table, reprint from the Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Fall 2013, Volume LXXI, number 2, 2013, Metropolitan Museum of Art, downloadable PDF Johnbod (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Johnbod, thanks for posting here about it. Sarah (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

2012 v. 2015: the top 5 best connected biographies across 15 language Wikipedias

This is a link to the 2012 article, "The Worrying Consequences of the Wikipedia Gender Gap", published by MIT Technology Review. Is anyone aware if there's a more recent study on this topic (best connected biographies across various language Wikipedias)? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

AfD notification - Women's rights in 2014

The task force created Women's rights in 2014 has been nominated for deletion. [31] --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The editor who nominated that may be about to cause a problem at Lena Dunham, judging by his talk-page comment. Sarah (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The article could do with balance on the "watershed" claim it leads off with. To me watershed years would be the ending of coverture, advances in suffrage, equality/discrimination acts, an end to FGM, rights to own property, etc. etc.. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC).
That article is also weak on other perspective. Campus Sexual Assault is extremely US centric and it's not per-se a major women's rights issue (unless we believe that only women are victimized). While the topic is galvanizing among some women's groups, it's really about increased awareness of a problem, not any advancement for women. If anything, it's distracting attention away from the much larger population of women who are sexually assaulted outside of the privileged confines of higher education.Mattnad (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC - Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)

There's currently an open RfC concerning this article, which was mentioned in the task force created article -Women's rights in 2014--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm lost. What does that RfC have to do with reducing the gender gap? I know that the article has been around various noticeboards, and I appreciate that your notification is worded neutrally, but this seems like someone posting at the India project about an RfC for a Pakistani village (the putative connection being British India). It's been a weird few hours all round. - Sitush (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
This RfC was posted here because it may be of interest to task force members. Please see above. It was part of the task force created article Women's rights in 2014. The notice was additionally posted at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Men's Issues, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women artists, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate Bobomeowcat's efforts to broadly alert different groups (kudos), and I had the same reaction as you did Sitush. However I don't think it's that big a deal.Mattnad (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force/Archive_9&oldid=1137387868"