Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Frida Kahlo

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

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

"Five campaigns against sexual harassment that you should know"

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

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

[1][2] --GRuban (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Created page need help

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Er, um. I'm all for civility, but I think that particular thread might not be the best example of it. The person complaining started by posting on the talk page of another, saying "to use language you used to me, stay the hell off my talk page".[3] So he or she wants the other person not to post on their talk, but won't respect their request to do likewise; and objects to their cursing though curses in response. The admin closing the thread had it right; it's hard to say that the complainer was that much more wronged than the complained-against. --GRuban (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Perhaps User:Drmies has forgotten that relevant evidence vs. Sitush in regards to Djembayz was presented in GGTF Arbitration evidence? That Sitush wrote on Djembayz talk page: I'm sure that the families of Twatt, Orkney will be impressed. Especially those whose spelling is poor ;) because she had protested the use of "c*nt"? [4] And that you [Drmies] commented at Arbitration on some of my other evidence against Sitush? Like I said, others should have dealt with it. Considering you closed the ANI right after Djembayz commented on the larger issue of this kind of language on Wikipedia, a concern of many on this project, one has to wonder.Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Clarification from Sitush and follow-on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I actually am fighting a "sex gap" but that leads to too many misapprehensions by puerile males, so am stuck with gender gap :-) In any case, I admit it's possible you don't remember that Sitush wrote on Djembayz talk page: I'm sure that the families of Twatt, Orkney will be impressed. Especially those whose spelling is poor ;) because she had protested the use of "c*nt"?[5] - memorable as that sound bite might be. And therefore it is possible you did not close it because she was a GGTF person. But evidently you did close it because you saw a civility debate developing and it leads me to suspect you don't think a whole bunch of childish cursing is a problem or something likely to drive off mature editors. Obviously at 66 I'm not very mature or I would have been driven off many years sooner. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How the tropes work, for anyone who has not seen what they are trying to censor: [6] —Neotarf (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We already know your negative attitudes towards this project which you've blathered out:[7][8][9][10][11] I'm sure these are the same sort of comments in India-related articles that made you so popular with 1.2 billion Indians. To quote sitush vs me: I deal with enough fucking idiots here without having to add you to the list.[12] (Maybe we need a rule that editors can be uncivil to opponents of civility?) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Research article: Emotions under Discussion

Iosub, Daniela; Laniado, David; Castillo, Carlos; Morell, Mayo Fuster; Kaltenbrunner, Andreas (August 20, 2014). "Emotions under Discussion: Gender, Status and Communication in Online Collaboration". PLOS ONE. 9 (8): e104880. Bibcode:2014PLoSO...9j4880I. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104880. PMC 4139304. PMID 25140870.

Conclusions/Significance

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

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

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

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

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

Study of gender differences on Wikipedia discussion pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The last link has to do with bullying, and different tactics chosen based on the bully's gender. [14] —Neotarf (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Gloria Steinem article

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

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

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

Proposed Disbanding/development issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please. I am male ( no, I am not going to provide any proof ). I did not encounter any toxicity, or enmity here, I mean, not from women editors at least. Thanks.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Using Discretionary sanctions

HiLo48's comment above is the kind of thing that hopefully will lead to a topic ban after Discretionary sanctions go into effect. Editors here will just have to be assertive about bringing these things to ArbCom/Enforcement. HiLo48 would get a warning here. Next time he'd get a talk page comment. Third time to ArbCom. It will get tiresome taking these editors to ArbCom over and over but it's the only thing that will allow the project to do anything besides list articles that need creation or work. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. Two editors willing to do so are about to be topic and site banned, but don't let that discourage you. Or will it?? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Everyone: please don't waste ArbCom's time with such requests as such things really would be tiresome for them. I thought I had explained this before: enforcing DS has nothing to do with referrals to Arbcom - see WP:AC/DS. - Sitush (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Pardon my head cold. To clarify, per here:

• A Discretionary Sanctions template will be put on the talk page in question. [Added later]
• Template:Ds notices are what you put on a disruptive editor's talk page. You will go to Template:AE_sanction to find the GGTF template once it is created. You can do it as the first warning, without even bothering to say anything on the talk page if you prefer.
• If they ignore the notice and keep disrupting you can just ask an admin to do something. Or an admin watching might do so.
• But if such admins refuse to do anything and the problems continue or you feel that problems already are serious enough, you can go to Arbitration Enforcement.

Editors take these steps all the time on other Arbitrations. There is no reason this one should be any different. This info should be on the main page here since disruptive comments surely will continue here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Not quite. What will happen is that a template will be placed on the relevant pages. Something like {{castewarningtalk}}. Believe me, admins will be prepared to act: they do so as a matter of course but chivvying them will potentially create a boomerang. There is no harm in someone creating the template but I'd wait until the case closes and I would suggest that whoever does so is not involved with the project, so perhaps put a request in at the template aficionado's forum? - Sitush (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I forgot the first step on a template on the talk page and added it. The rest is accurate. Admins may watch the first couple months, but not necessarily immediately. And if it's all biased admins watching, editors may find it necessary to take to arbcom to deal with their biases. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you still seem not to understand how it works. Admins do not have to watch in order to act. If someone thinks there is a problem here, they can just go find an uninvolved admin and ask whether they would look into it. I think many of the allegations of bias are driven by bias, not actually evident in fact, but in any event if such bias does exist somewhere then it will soon be found out and, of course, the bias could be in either direction. I'm tempted to quote A. E. Housman on "three minutes' thought" but what I'm really concerned about here is just setting the record straight before we go off yet again on some huge tangential and ill-informed thread about the injustices of Wikipedia etc. As with the Polish statue, getting the known facts in order first can save a lot of misplaced annoyance and pixels. - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

If you read my points, I include finding an Admin. But the final step if nothing else works or if one feels admins are incredibly biased is going to ArbCom enforcement. And/or ANI to complain about the Admin. But it's unlikely it would get that far, so haven't listed it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I give up and leave it to your peers. I can't cope with these repeated vague allegations/insinuations of bias (and deals within arbcom etc) without evidence. - Sitush (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

In case you haven't heard, any time you have a contested area, individuals on either side may think that some admin decision was biased. Please don't insinuate a neutral fact is more than it is. I'm just pointing out there is recourse, though like I said "it's unlikely it would get that far, so haven't listed it." The more important thing is to make sure that should admins stop paying attention that individuals know how to deal with disruption. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Links collection

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Meetup/Feminists Engage Wikipedia

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

• Suzy Castor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teahouse Women

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

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

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

Best regards,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving forward

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

---

I know that there isn't a decision in place yet, but that isn't reason to not try to make some efforts to address some of the concerns raised. Yes, I am not a member, and I have said before that the reason I am not at this point is that I perceive the group as having what seems to me a rather clear political overtone beyond wikipedia itself. So you are all, of course, free to ignore anything I might say on that basis.

The discussion of the proposed decision has made it clear that there are several women on both sides who say that the other side "does not speak for all women." And, clearly, I, as a male, am in no position to inherently speak for any women. This seems to me to be the essence of the problem. Are there any particular statistics regarding specifically what "kind" of women is more or less likely to be alienated from the project more quickly? If yes, what are they and is there anything in the details which we might be able to use to maybe try to develop content or guidelines or practices which might perhaps delay that alienation?

If there are no such statistics, then we are in a bit of a difficult position. I suppose a few things we might be able to do, maybe, perhaps, is try to find what sort of environment for developing content, here at wikipedia or at other WF entities, is most appealing to women, if there are factors indicating that there exists a preferred environment, and maybe make some efforts to bring more attention and focus to those areas. Alternately, perhaps, there might be some more input in the soon-to-be-started Wikipedia:Co-op, which might involve trying to pair specifically newer women editors with either more senior women editors or senior editors of any gender who have a particular interest in their topic of interest.

I can myself think of only one female editor I am aware of who seems to have left the project. So far as I can tell, her particular almost single-minded interest was to change content of a large number of theology articles to reflect developments in feminist theology. Unfortunately, she also said she was more of a contemplative than a researcher, and didn't seem to be interested in seeking out or reviewing sources to support such changes, even though I e-mailed her several of them to review.

Any ideas? John Carter (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea to wait for the ArbCom case to close before starting up another discussion about how to address the WP gender gap. As for your questions, numerous sources have been given and a task force Resources page was created.

I'm not sure who you're describing, but it's not me, and I am a woman who left the project because of its agonistic editing environment. I only returned recently to comment on the ArbCom case, and I'll be leaving again soon. Lightbreather (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Every set back is just an opportunity for advancement. Current events only have clarified and dramatized that harassment of those considered powerless (including women) is institutionalized within a small but powerful coterie of editors and administrators and now within ArbCom. (Harass those you want to get rid of til they leave or they over-react, then get them in trouble.)

Obviously WMF is going to have to take some incisive interventions. Listing and discussing various alternatives and lobbying for them is the solution. (Plus fun with videos.) Gender gap mailing list will at least have announcements about various steps taken by various individuals, some of which will be post-able here without getting anyone in trouble. (And if trolls have a fit and become disruptive, there's discretionary sanctions.) Meanwhile as a reminder of previously mentioned outside efforts: Genderdesk @ wordpress.com; twitter.com/SaidOnWP; and Wikipediocracy which needs to take a firmer stand; there do seem to be several sexist commentators there. I'm still undecided if want to deal with the drama there or not, and if with my real name or an anonymous handle for fun (and see how long before they figure out it's me). Anyway, as I always say, onward and upward! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the resouces page is your best bet, particularly the research section. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I've just read your profile page and under Articles I wished I created or added to you have listed Fuck for Forest and Pornocracy. Your list is the sort of thing that drives would-be female editors away, no surveys or research needed. I am now dubious about the sincerity of your opening post. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I am surprised that you didn't see that most if not all of the articles listed there, which you seem to have extremely selectively reviewed, are more or less of a satirical type. Also included are some articles relating to modern atheism, which I as a pronounced theist oppose, but which are of some satirical humorous value. The fact that you can rush to such conclusions based on the minimal evidence you selectively quoted might perhaps be one of the bigger issues with this group. As has been indicated on the talk page of the proposed decision, repeatedly, there is some question aas to exactly which women this group seems to be reaching out toward, specifically, whether it is more or less of a more or less radical feminist perspective. Several female editors have indicated on that decision's talk page that they have not been involved in this group for more or less the same concerns. Is there some reason that you all can think that women editors might themselves be perhaps somewhat alienated from this group, and how the group could change so that it isn't as apparently alienating to some of its own as it apparently is? John Carter (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to close this before it degenerates. Once the case is over, the projects' participants will get it kick-started again if they want to. At the moment, I think people are questioning whether they even want to keep editing, never mind anything else. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

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

List of Wikipedia controversies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with The Vintage Feminist that there were many references to gender gap before Filipacchi, not all of them mentioned in the resources. Obviously Filipacchi controversy emphasized one of the gender gap-related issues and got a lot of media attention, but that doesn't mean earlier reports did not mention or indicate controversy.

The point of my starting this thread is to ENcourage editors interested in the topic to research what might belong there. So it would be helpful if editors controlled any nitpicking until there actually is a concrete proposal - at the article itself - would be helpful.

My bottom line position is that what is a controversy relevant to the article's list should be judged on the same criteria as current entries, per my writing: "At that point anyone objecting will have to make explicit why their criterion for exclusion should not apply to any other existing sentences/paragraphs/sections of the Controversies article which don't pass a similar muster."

I haven't quite figured out what the criteria are, though off hand the standards don't seem all that high, and can't speak as to what articles and studies would meet that criteria since haven't researched them sufficiently. And I don't see any point in debating generalities. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought we were discussing whether and how to add something about the broader gender gap issues to that page. I don't know how to have that discussion without speaking in generalities (like the definition of controversy) and nitpicking (like discussing particular aspects of the gender gap). If I'm wrong about the discussion and/or it's approach, please tell me.

Thanks to both of you for clarifying the timeline a bit. I agree wholeheartedly with The Vintage Feminist's assessment of the gender categorization guideline - to me it's the perfect representation of that aspect of the gender gap on wikipedia. I didn't know that the gender gap had been brought up before the categorization controversy and having read the above, I agree that each must stand on its own.

That said, it makes sense to use the same inclusion criteria as is currently used there, although I agree that this criteria is quite vague and I haven't figured out what it is, either. Even so, I'm still hesitant to include the overall gender gap issue there because I'm still not convinced that the fact of the gap is a controversy. I could see including the very first mention of the gender gap in the list because it might have been a controversial topic when it was first discovered and raised. Does anyone know when that happened and/or have some reliable sources for it? Ca2james (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the 2009 WMF/university report here? No idea what the reaction was. - Sitush (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, this, it would seem. - Sitush (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm thinking that if we could find an early reference describing not just the research but how the gender gap impacts the encyclopaedia, it would fit as a controversy on that page. That page seems to list issues that have impacted the quality and reliability of content and I think there has been discussion (or possibly research) that says the gender gap has affected article content this way. Ca2james (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I've not been able to find a suitable one yet but it would seem that "early" cannot be before late 2008 because that is when the research was first done. I think it was Djembayz who recently linked to some commentary in The Guardian and certainly that paper would raise such issues - that paper covering a liberal, feminist, pro-empowerment story is about as predictable as The Daily Mail (UK) saying that Thatcher was a good prime minister. So, maybe another trawl through their archives would be worthwhile? - Sitush (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Correction: it was The Vintage Feminist who provided the links, not Djembayz. Sorry about that. - Sitush (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Uh, oh. I really don't want to make the list of controversies, but it may happen. Looks like ArbCom, which has been dying to ban Eric Corbett for years but didn't have the chutzpah, made a deal to Site Ban me and Topic Ban Neotarf, so that they can shut up Eric's followers when they ban him. (If they get that final vote.) With all those reporters and "researchers" watching to see "Is Wikipedia Sexist?" this may become a controversy.

On my own part, now I have to make a side by side chart of all the (relevant) evidence against me (20 odd items, a few of them snarky) vs. that detailed ad nauseam vs other editors (100+ insulting, obnoxious and harassing and often clearly sexist quotes). (Though any number of watchers/researchers/reporters might beat me to it with shorter and more dramatic listings; in any case it leaves a real bad impression.) I intend to just leave it up at my revamped carolmoore.net in January in my new Wikipedia section and generally re-promoting the site alone will inevitably bring attention to it. (Which, ironically, I'll only have time to do cause I'm banned.) In the search for freedom and equality, I find a temporary loss can be the springboard to a magnificent gain. Karma is on our side. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, if ArbCom made such a deal then that's a very seriously bad situation and would definitely qualify as a controversy, although I'm not sure that the focus would be on you. Do you have proof that they made this deal? I'd be interested in seeing evidence like that (and I'm sure I'm not alone there). If you don't have evidence of such blatant wrongdoing then it might be best if you withdrew those accusations.

I know it looks like you're going to get a site ban but even if you do, you'll be able to appeal it in time. A site ban doesn't necessarily have to be permanent. However, if you do make unfounded accusations it's more likely that your appeals will be denied, turning what would be a temporary ban into something permanent. That would be a loss for the encyclopaedia and I'd be sad if that's how things turned out. Ca2james (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking of the "deal" as being a controversy, but you are right. Frankly, I think it would be more a psychological thing with minor inferences and asides (and private emails) that, like many such deals, only are exposed if participants whistleblow on the process. Not holding my breath. To me the real controversy is explained in the Devil Advocate's posting at ArbCom decision talk page: Rewarding the harassers and punishing the victims. Considering males are more likely to be harassers than females, this is a concern to women. But you can read in depth analysis of this at my personal webpage next year. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Last of the Mohicans

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

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

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

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

Breaking out part of a comment from above discussion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This does not mean that any of the pages in the category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress.
add entry: {{subst:Cfm2|WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/Archive 6|header=Male serial killers and female serial killers|Various nationalities male and female serial killers|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed merger. ~~~~}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grant proposal for HR staffer

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

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

Educational Partnerships

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

Endometrial cancer for Today's Featured Article

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

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

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

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

Thank you,

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

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

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

As a farewell, let me just say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gloria Steinem article nominated as a Good article

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

I reviewed it; it passed. Lk7t3Yu (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Gender inequality in the United States

Hello. I'm requesting some insight/comments at the Gender inequality in the United States GAN page, the nominator is inactive and considering the amount of scrutiny the gender gap has on Wikipedia, there is no clear consensus on whether this article should be passed or failed due to lack of content. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure, as a creator I'll take a look :) In the future, remember to ping the creators; I'd have commented earlier but didn't notice the GA discussion on my watchlist - and unlike the student editors expanding the article, I am still alive and kicking on 'pedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Gendergap-L

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

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

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

You are mistaken, this has been on my very extensive watchlist for a while now. As for stalking, you are truly ridiculous and perhaps just a touch paranoid. Would I accuse you of stalking Eric Corbett? No, certainly mot, even though you do seem to pop up with a tirade of venom everywhere his name is mentioned. You need to calm down Kevin - you were made to look a fool once because of your overreactions, don't make the same mistake again. Giano (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

You need to calm down Kevin - you were made to look a fool once because of your overreactions, don't make the same mistake again. What do you want to achieve by delving upon one incident again and again .... ? Is the objective to make it difficult / joyless for Kevin to contribute ?OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

... says a person who is among those who has been dragging up one incident again and again? This is getting nowhere, folks, so I suggest we drop it. - Sitush (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't be intimitated off GGTF by anyone, folks. No matter what your views are. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

There was quite a bit of discussion on the list in June 2014 about moderating it more closely since some men were overwhelming the list with their opinions and repeatedly negative comments. I remember a lot of support and no significant objection. Here it looks like we will have discretionary sanctions which should be used to end such off topic or discouraging rants and personal attacks. GGTF Discretionary Sanctions reads regarding GGTF: sanctions should be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts the discussion. Let us pray. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions should do the job :) GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is a single project on en-WP that is moderated. As for discretionary sanctions, please don't think of them as some sort of magic bullet equivalent of moderation. Unless there is some rider attached by ArbCom, they're just a quick way to enforce admin remedies in situations that usually are in breach of our normal editing practices, basically saving some work at ANI. Thus, for example, they will not cause the stifling of appropriate criticism nor limit who can contribute here provided that those contributions fall within our norms. - Sitush (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Clarifying: Discretionary sanctions will cover wrong behaviour from both camps, of course. GoodDay (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Carol: we've removed, I want to say five people since then? Unfortunately I've had some physical health issues since then that caused me to miss a lot of mod stuff, but that should have ended and there's definitely no way some of the comments on this page would stand on gendergap. Hopefully DS will work here, but unfortunately sanctions working requires an uninvolved admin to patrol the page, and I have the unfortunate feeling that that might be hard to find. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Editors also can ask for Arbitration enforcement and several admins familiar with the process are there. I don't know how many admins there are, but hopefully there are a number who, though they may have views, are not "involved" pro or con vs. any specific editor. We'll think positive thoughts. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Well DS makes me very wary of returning to this project. I hope it will be all to the good, but it remains to be seen. It is certain that the Arb case blew a 6-week hole in progress with the GGTF for me. Others may have found the time to be productive. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: Rich, I agree that this has not been good for GGTF, and I think we need to get it back on track. I've been waiting until the case ended, but there's no sign of that, so we should try to move on regardless. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone object to me signing up to Gendergap-l? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Anthony, please do, you'd be very welcome. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It's been about a week since I applied and I haven't heard anything. No pressure, if it's just because no one's gotten round to it yet - we're all volunteers. If there's a problem, let me know. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Carol

For what it's worth, Carol posted a strongly phrased rant on the proposed decision talk page and Jimbo Wales's talk page. She was blocked for a week, banned from the GGTF, and possibly most important, two arbitrators, including the influential and usually reasonable Newyorkbrad, changed their decision towards her proposed site ban, so it now has a supermajority. Poor Carol. --GRuban (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Her block has been reduced to 3-days. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I can see where Newyorkbrad has withdrawn his motion to close the Arbcom case while the wording is worked out but I don't see any change of his decision. Can you provide a diff? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You can see my change of vote on the remedy itself. The diff in question had a number of implications that are concerning, not all of which may be obvious at first reading. (Any further discussion should preferably take place on the arbitration talkpage.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) [15] Two others followed. Did I mention influential? [16][17] --GRuban (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I see it now & will comment on the arb talkpage. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe Carol has ban banned from the Arbitration by a clerk, not the GGTF.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

FREE
THE GGTF THREE

. This has gone way too far. Bad things are gonna happen if the outcome of an arbitration endorsed by Jimbo to root out disruption of a project trying to combat the Gender Gap on wikipedia ends up banning only a key supporter of the GGTF that was trying to stop the disruption.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Carol sealed her own fate with the exceptionally unwise rant linked to above. I wish Carol well, and wish her peace in her real world life. But her relentless politicizing and conspiracy theorizing here on Wikipedia has resulted in our elected representatives concluding, correctly, that she is a net negative for this encyclopedia building project. I agree. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Combatants come here and question the reason for the project's very existence. It leads to Arbcom. Carol and NeoTarf banned. Eric adds to his lengthy list of slaps on the wrist. This Arbcom case, given the way it appears it will end, should go down as one of the most notorious examples of just how broken Wikipedia really is. It will be deserve to be raised at every speaking engagement and interview Jimmy Wales does in the same breath as 'Does Wikipedia have a gender problem?'. AnonNep (talk) 04:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a sad outcome indeed. Kaldari (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

She certainly can be outspoken, but an eye roll and a 12 month ban are certainly two different things. Reading these comments and considering the mention of "Salvio" in particular, I'm reminded of old times ([18], around the "suitcase" part). If there is one thing that seems to be settled law on Wikipedia, it's that if the use of epithets or suggestion of bias is punishable, then complaining about them is much more so. I haven't been a member of GGTF, but if I had, I'd be questioning whether it was appropriate to continue it, or whether it should be disbanded and reorganized strictly offsite, following the model of accepted precedents. Wnt (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

And if we're restrained in discussing gender bias we're restrained in tackling any role it may play in the gender gap issue. It reduces the task force to 'play nice girls and don't create a fuss'. AnonNep (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I think there's a difference in "playing nice" and saying things that are inappropriate, heated, and/or controversial in nature. There's hundreds of ways to say a phrase - it just has to be said correctly in order to be effective. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree on how its said. But I was responding more to Wnt's if a 'suggestion of bias is punishable, then complaining about them is much more so'. AnonNep (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I was unpleasantly surprised to read their decision; it seems to me that they don't uphold any general right to use epithets or be provocative, yet they find a way to let Corbett off the hook, yet they don't do this for Carol. It's like freedom and evenhandedness are not considerations. I understand Wikipedia has a WP:NPA rule, but resorting to the strongest punishment they can give in a knee-jerk reaction to one angry comment would seem excessive already, and it doesn't take into account the underlying situation, namely that there is a gender gap and women do feel mistreated. They ruled on her as if she had been ranting that some Jewish editors were in an Elders of Zion conspiracy, rather than reacting angrily to sexism that many here believe is real. As I was saying back in 2010, I think that ArbCom should be more lenient in cases where people have been provoked. Really, I would say their most important power is not the ability to swing the banhammer around, but the ability to draw a line in the midst of unclear policies and tell those who have been arguing to stick by it going forward. Wnt (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

About the only thing I can think to add is that it should be noted that the restriction applies only to the English wikipedia. There are a lot of other WMF entities where the restriction doesn't apply, and I have personally thought for some time that maybe one of the way to draw more female editors of all political orientations might be to create a slightly more active presence in some of the other entities where there might be a chance of more focused collaboration. I could certainly see a Wikibooks work or two dealing with, for instance, feminist theory, or others on cooking or housekeeping or women's sports or any number of other topics which might appeal primarily or more significantly to some women and might, in a slightly more actively collaborative environment, do a better job of drawing and keeping editors there, and maybe provide some springboard for activity here. Just an idea, anyway. John Carter (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Wnt, ArbCom has a long history of failing to recognize harassment and the effect it has on the target. It would have taken many hours of work to reproduce the diffs showing the way people were swarming around Carol, and how she was becoming increasingly stressed by it. Even if someone had pieced it together, the committee might not have read it, or might not have fully appreciated what it feels like to be at the centre of it. The lesson is to keep diffs when this starts happening, and don't respond. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a really valid point. There have been and actively are still right now several cases presented to ArbCom which deal with dubious behavior of a really long long-term nature, and which are as result sometimes extremely hard to document or get what are considered "adequate" rulings on unless they all happen to be on the archived talk pages of a few selected articles. Unfortunately, gathering such behavior for presentation to ArbCom or whomever is a really involved and time-consuming process, and rather difficult according to policy to maintain material on here. There are several threads over at, um, another web site which deal specifically with such matters, and I suppose it might also be possible to create in hopefully private cloud-space some collaborative collections of links regarding particularly problematic editors. There might be problems with the latter according to policy somehow, maybe, but it certainly would be possible for some people to use other web sites or other public means to perhaps not create "hit lists" on people, but to build collaborative record of systemic behavioral problems. John Carter (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

All the baiting and harassment which caused CMDC to lash out was done on the case pages itself. Where is the need for diffs ? When a user is being harassed and baited continuously, it is upon the admins and arbs to take concrete action ( i.e. blocks and bans ) to stop it. If the harassment and baiting continues with impunity, the target of harassment will do a crash n burn by lashing out due to the pressure cooker-with-lid effect,.Ignoring baiting and harassment is no use because the mud would stick if it stands unopposed, and the target would do crash n burn by getting defamed and demonized which would lead to mass hysteria and mob lynching at ANI, Even if the target tries to argue with the baiters, the discussion would quickly snowball to overwhelming proportions, ( the target is being baited by a group ) and the target would do crash n burn by getting declared tendentious for arguing so much. The only chance for survival of the target is if admins and arbs take concrete action on harassers and baiters, but they seem to find it difficult to do it when the baiters and harassers are well established users, and even more difficult when they are a group of well established users. To sum it up, I see NO chance a user could survive when baited and harassed by a group of well established users.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Oranges, it had been happening on this page for months before the RfAr was filed, so by the time the case opened Carol was already very distressed. I agree about the danger of ignoring it. But the fact is that people can judge more easily when someone is being harassed if the target doesn't respond. As soon as you start responding, you (a) feed the problem, and (b) it means there's a mass of diffs for people to sift through after the fact, so that both parties can end up looking as bad as each other. Geogre summed up the situation well years ago. See User:Geogre/Comic. But I agree with you that the solution lies in admins being able (and willing) to spot it early on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You make fair assessment. The part about people being able to judge easily when baiting is ignored is mostly true, but becomes irrelevant when the group of people who do the judging at ANI are mostly the same group of people who did the baiting and harassing.OrangesRyellow (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That's true, but where the diffs are clear (all coming from the baiters, with no response), uninvolved people are much more likely to comment when it goes to a board, simply because it's easy to see who's in the wrong. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Correct. But then, uninvolved people are also likely to look the other way when they see that the group of baiters and harassers are unscrupulous, and that anyone spoiling their game would likely earn their ire. This has greater relevance than it appears at first glance because upright, uninvolved guys are not part of any group which can be relied on to cover their backs, ( being part of a gang etc. is terribly unwikipedian for true, upright wikipedians ) while the group of baiters and harassers are already there as a group, and are obviously unscrupulous. Most people, even upright people have this thing called "survival instinct". Rather than criticizing anyone, I am trying to point out what I think is a serious flow in the system itself, a flaw / weakness which is being exploited, and needs to be recognized and repaired, a flaw which the system cannot repair by itself. I know there are a lot of admirable people who love Wikipedia dearly and who have done a great many things here, but it does not mean the system is without weaknesses or self-sufficient. I think dealing with a group of unscrupulous well established users is something the system is ill equipped to deal with.OrangesRyellow (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

From The No Comment Department, WikiDivision

From the No Comment Department, WikiDivision.

Spotted at the Friends of Carol Meeting. -- 50.246.71.61 (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

break

I hope you'll allow some positive thinking here from a non-member. While the arbcom decision certainly looks like a setback, I actually think that it is a major victory, something like Martin Luther King being sent to Birmingham Jail. It has now been shown that an editor can blatantly throw around gender slurs, disrupt this project, and generally harass women editors and Wikipedia can't do anything about it. In other words, it's been shown that the current system is outrageously broken and that it is time to fix it. So what is your plan to fix it? and how are you going to proceed from here?

While I believe that all under-represented classes of editors should be encouraged and protected by appropriate institutional arrangements, the gender gap has not been my focus on Wikipedia. I suggest that others come up with their own plans and set their own courses of action. But I will suggest the following as a starting point for discussion.

• 1st - there is an arb-com election going on now. Use it. Vote "oppose" to every candidate that you don't personally know to be dedicated to equal editing rights for all. This will then turn into a no confidence vote for the entire arbcom. If no candidate has more "supports" than "opposes" I doubt that Jimbo will appoint any of them. Your point will be made and you might even get a chance to vote in your own candidates.

• 2nd - I would start a petition to the Board of Trustees to renew the commitment that they've already made to diversity on Wikipedia. I wouldn't try to reargue the details of the current case, just state that the current system is obviously broken and ask what they are going to do to fix it. Pick about 3 fairly general demands, e.g.
  • All gender slurs, racial or religious slurs, or slurs against any under-represented class must be stopped via a block, if only a one day block, with progressively stricter sanctions
  • Civility will be enforced using common sense - as if it were one of of the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia- or else the WMF employees will be appointed to enforce it.
  • The board will review the progress of reducing the gender gap every 6 months, and consider a package of further measures if progress is not according to plan. Editors from this project should post several dozen ideas on how to close the gap on a separate page - it shouldn't be hard to do.

Well, those are my ideas; I hope to see some better ones, but they should be as easy to implement as voting and petitioning and you need some action now. Don't let one little setback scare you off. Let them know you're here to stay.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That is just utter nonsense. First, the case has fixed the issue. Second, if someone is going to petition the Trustees it should be to provide a mechanism to stop clueless commentary which disrupts content building. Johnuniq (talk) 06:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Johnny U - You know that I've appreciated your cool head and your general support through the years, but I think we must disagree on what the issue is. To me it is whether editors can defy civility rules - by repeatedly calling a woman editor a "cunt" in this case - and harass women editors by stalking them on-Wiki. If you think that that issue has been fixed by the arbcom decision, I have to disagree. The key to this issue is that the vast majority of people in the world know that Corbett's actions (as described above - perhaps you disagree with my description?) are terribly wrong. I believe that a large majority of Wikipedia editors know that his actions are wrong, and that they make for a biased encyclopedia - helping to exclude the majority of the population from contributing to the encyclopedia. If folks want to fix the problem, I suggest that they let the powers-that-be know about their majority status.

Respectfully yours

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Except nobody in that case called a women a cunt, let alone repeatedly. This kind of non-factual hyperbole is not going to help anyone close the gender gap. And "helping to exclude the majority of the population from contributing to the encyclopedia", again, are you serious? 99% of the editors here will never have any contact with the parties of that case. You're picking single trees out of the forest and that will accomplish nothing. Capeo (talk) 14:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the publicity surrounding the dispute means that many editors had contact. To be clear, I don't recall seeing anything that would have demanded a harsher penalty for Corbett; I can see a case for doing less - but I would have liked to see ArbCom adopt principles that are consistent with that. And ... I never pictured Carol as being up for sanctions in the first place. While throwing around bans can sometimes quell a dispute (though not always, because often they come back...) I think that when (as is so common on Wikipedia) the main focus of the dispute is people throwing policy at each other and demanding enforcement, it can be more effective simply to say no, the admins won't step in to stop the argument unless line X, Y, or Z is crossed, so quit asking and talk about the issues you really care about. My notion of an ideal outcome in the case would have been for everyone to be able to continue their discussion, perhaps warned of a few things that might lead to trouble. Wnt (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, by contact I meant actually editing the same articles but I understand your point. I also concur with your second point. ArbCom didn't need to step in at that moment as most of the conflict had already died down. Though I believe that most of the outcomes would have actually taken place in the next six months or so anyway just by community decree. But honestly that's neither here nor there and rehashing it certainly isn't going to make this place more inviting for woman editors. Honestly, I'm not sure what would. Pretty much every idea I've seen put forward would require editors to declare personal information that goes against the principle of anonymity. Beyond that, you know there would be a tiny fraction of people who would simply lie.Capeo (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, a lot of it is one foot in front of the other. For example, I noticed someone at the arbitration pointed out that the phrase "task force" has a strictly military connotation to the British. I see that no other project in WP:WikiProject Countering systematic bias has "task force" in its name, but simply has the descriptive term for its area of expertise. So why not move the name to WP:WikiProject Countering systematic bias/Gender gap? (the second word lowercase follows the precedent of WP:WikiProject Countering systematic bias/Global perspective) Oh sure, it's a tiny thing, but I think that fixing gender bias on Wikipedia will have to involve paying attention to a lot of tiny things one after another. Wnt (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Another good point. Along those same lines, and I mean this as no offense to the many avowed feminists that contribute here, a lot of the discussion here is couched in terms of feminist studies and using feminist study jargon, which honestly, I think turns a lot of women away from the project. I'm quite sure the vast majority of women don't consider themselves feminists even though they would agree with many of the principles put forth. I'm a man and I agree with most of the principles put forth and, having some experience with feminism, am familiar with a most of the terminology. For those who aren't though I could see them finding it to be insular instead of welcoming. It may be helpful to keep discussion of principles and goals as general and inclusive as possible.Capeo (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

In general I'd agree as there's nothing worse (or more unproductive) than discussions that get so bogged down in jargon that only a few can follow and contribute. But under 'Scope' of the Project (tab at top of page) it states:

"The aim of the task force is to address all the ways in which the gender gap affects the position of women on Wikipedia, and their absence from it, as article subjects, editors, and readers. Issues include editor interaction, the way policies and guidelines are written, our dispute-resolution processes, the way admins are elected, notability guidelines, which articles are created and deleted, and how articles are sourced."

The task force scope is to 'address all the ways' not to be 'all the ways'. This is a task force, a research, organising and action group, not the 'Welcome Ladies Tea Room'. This is for discussions of who/what/where/why/how so, yes, you are going to encounter feminist thinking. A proposal for a political/ideology free womens' space on en.wiki could well be worth considering but that, based on the scope, was not what the GGTF set out to be. AnonNep (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that scope has been questioned here of late. There seemed to be uncertainty regarding what it is and also what perhaps it should be. IIRC, there was some attempt to discuss this but it got lost in the general noise. Getting agreement regarding purpose certainly would be the most obvious starting point. - Sitush (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

A discussion worth having but, ultimately, I expect there will always be a broader 'address all the ways' who/what/where/why/how project, so the question is less of what should this task force be, than what other initiatives can spin off from here (a political/ideology free womens' space on en.wiki, for example). Otherwise, if this task force is co-opted into that initiative then the task force is likely to return, in its own right, once again. AnonNep (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course I'm not saying there shouldn't input from feminist thinkers. I'm just saying you're likely to arrive at proposals more beneficial to all women if more women of different walks of life and different ideologies were able to share their experiences here. Anecdotal but I have seen quite a few of the most prolific women editors lose interest in participating here due to it feeling more like wikiproject feminism or similar sentiments. Given the subject matter it's only natural that feminist voices would be prominent and that completely makes sense but the project, I would think, is seeking a broader reach than that. As for a Welcome Ladies Tea Room, I certainly wasn't saying that either, but I would expect that the project would be more successful if you could get more female participants to express what effects their where and why they do or don't edit. Now how you broaden that inclusivity I honestly don't know. I just think anything that would increase involvement should be given some thought.Capeo (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Ultimately, I think, gender disparity among editors will have to be a WMF project of some sort - something to gauge the opinion of the broader editorship and to propose/organise/fund actions based on their findings. There's a limit to what can be expected of the GGTF, as a user level project, particularly in the current environment. But, should we continue? In light of there being little else, yes, of course. AnonNep (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're right in regards to the limits of a user project. I would think only the WMF would have the information gathering apparatus required to make informed proposals such as large scale polls. But so long as they shared that info there would be something for the project to work with.Capeo (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate to give explanations for the layman, but I would hate to see the discussion "dumbed down" in any systematic way. Especially I would like to avoid any suggestion that men can't learn any relevant aspects of feminist theory; let's remember that (as with all bias) there are two sides to stereotyping, and while one may be less obviously damaging it is no less fundamental to the operation of the whole. Like women, whenever men reject some conclusion drawn from a feminist idea, it should be because they disagree with the theory and have some notion of how feminist progress would better be implemented, rather than seeing feminist theory as a whole as being an alien attack vehicle controlled by women that cannot be understood by rational (i.e. male) thinkers. Wnt (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Feminist: Stories from Women's Liberation

If anyone from this group wishes to see this published and wishes to fix the sourcing issues you can see Draft:Feminist: Stories from Women's Liberation. The main issues is Wikipedia being used as a reference at least nine times, I suggested removing the IMDB as well. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know about it, Haib. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Checked refs, tidy-up & rephrased. It can still do with some love if anyone has source searching time. AnonNep (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I moved it into mainspace the love can come as any other article now that the refs are improved. Thank you. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Move the GGTF to its own separate project

Should the GGTF stop being a task force of the counter systemic bias project, and be moved into its own separate project? Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I think we should move out of CSB, as being a task force is a relic of when we were made as a "Gender Bias Task Force", although now we are trying to combat the gender gap. The gender gap may cause bias issues, but a lot of solving the gender gap isn't just "resolve bias", but there is also a moral goal to get more women into Wikipedia. The purview of the GGTF is a lot larger than countering systemic bias in other ways, as we also try to fix dispute resolution, and change policy, not just fix systemic bias in articles by getting women editors.

The aim of the task force is to address all the ways in which the gender gap affects the position of women on Wikipedia, and their absence from it, as article subjects, editors, and readers. Issues include editor interaction, the way policies and guidelines are written, our dispute-resolution processes, the way admins are elected, notability guidelines, which articles are created and deleted, and how articles are sourced.

— From the scope section of GGTF page

Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Either way, I don't think there will be any practical difference. There are various tools that work with articles tagged as being within the scope of a given WikiProject, but a task force can simply use the corresponding banners as if it were a WikiProject to take advantage of these tools (something done by Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Umpires task force). And although it may reduce cognitive dissonance to separate the task force from the "Countering systemic bias" WikiProject if the task force intends to have a scope that falls outside of its parent WikiProject, I don't think anyone's participation will change based on this. So hopefully once a scope is decided upon, all interested parties can just agree to go along with one way or the other; the net impact is not sufficiently significant to warrant a long debate. isaacl (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Straw poll

Support as nom. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, I'm afraid. We want more women on Wikipedia, and articles about women. But we also want more editors of other underrepresented groups, and articles about them, no less so. Splitting off by specific underrepresented group weakens our effort. --GRuban (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment. The main project page says "Generally, this project concentrates upon remedying omissions (entire topics, or particular sub-topics in extant articles) rather than on either (1) protesting against inappropriate inclusions, or (2) trying to remedy issues of how material is presented." Is the goal here still mostly within that, to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women and other gender issues, or is it to recruit more women to edit or to improve the way they are treated or something else? Or is it a bit of both and worthy of at least a nominal subdivision recognizing the separate goals? I haven't been a member here, so it's not up to me to answer this. Wnt (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, since you're here, let's get your input-- as stated above, this page is for discussions to "collaborate positively and respectfully on closing the gender gap on Wikipedia." Do you think that continuing to maintain a largely male group, with a culture of aggressive, profane, and sexualized interactions, is the optimal way to determine what encyclopedic content about women appears at the top of Google searches? If not, what would you suggest? --Djembayz (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

My preference is for the third option: two projects in close collaboration but nominally distinct, so that each has a clear mission. The mission of the Gender Gap Task Force here should then be strictly to write more articles on underserved gender minorities, which in practice essentially means women because I think we have had a few very productive editors (though some subsequently sanctioned) who have worked pretty tirelessly on gay topics and personalities to make our coverage not so incomplete. Looking at the list of resources at Meta:Gender gap, the most likely candidate here for the other half would be Wikipedia:Workshop for Women, that is if it is open to having online and ongoing "workshops" that are open to all. Perhaps GGTF and WFW should try to cross-recruit but split up the tasks between themselves as appropriate. I also notice that there are more specific initiatives listed there which are higher level bureaucratically than GGTF, like WP:WikiProject Women scientists. I wouldn't mind seeing some way to fold those more formally into GGTF, so long as the statistics can be kept separate so that those who feel well-qualified to write about scientists can pull out just those articles. Wnt (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Clear enough-- and when we split out an additional page on the order of Wikipedia:Gender enforcement and civility concerns, that collects data useful for Gender gap strategy/Friendly spaces, would that cover the full range of topics discussed here so far? --Djembayz (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That third direction seems a little narrow to me; wouldn't it be better to make it something more like "gender-related concerns in site administration"? Wnt (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That works for me-- maybe others have ideas for language? --Djembayz (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

and civlity concerns Wouldn't that just give weight to the old meme that the GGTF are just a "civility police"? KonveyorBelt 21:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

While there is no disagreement that our editors are a "largely male group" the premise that there is "a culture of aggressive, profane, and sexualized interactions" is not something that is widely supported by evidence. Certainly there is conflict, certainly there are aggressive editors, and "passive-aggressive" editors (though it seems to me that label is often used by "aggressive" editors for someone who doesn't fight back, but doesn't give in either). I would think if there was a "culture of profane interactions", it would have been noticed and objected to by God-fearing editors - certainly there may be the odd "Hell" or "damn", but I can't recollect having seen one. As for "sexualised interactions", I can't think of a less sexualised place than a Wikipedia talk page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC).

Not sure about talk pages, where people tend to set their own tone, but here's a quick search at ANI for 2014, where editors must go for redress of grievances. Only spotting one reference to "a small town in Austria" here. A fair number of editors don't seem to like others using this language with them, regardless of gender. Nonetheless, the implications of using this language are gender related, since women are the ones who have to worry about "new litters of pups" being born if the term used here turns into actual activity in the physical world.

Experience with our last round of dialogue suggests that by identifying this possible term in question, we are about to set off another months-long discussion as to whether another four-letter Anglo-Saxon word is actually about sex, whether some people are just uptight no-fun encyclopediaphiles who are overly sensitive about strangers saying off-color things to them, etc.; we'll also be unleashing further demands for data to conclusively prove that women don't particpate as a result of this language.

If hospitality and friendliness were highly valued, if participation by people in professional workplaces was considered a priority, don't you think the community would take a different approach? Especially in the areas like ANI, which need to be usable by everyone, including women and shy people? --Djembayz (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd drop this line, if only for the reasons that you highlight and those mentioned by Konveyor Belt above. It is flogging a dead horse. Anyone who thinks that the use of "fuck" as commonly seen on Wikipedia or indeed in the real world actually infers an intention to have intercourse with somebody needs a reality check: usage of the word, like many others, has long since moved on. And egregious usage does get dealt with. - Sitush (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Somehow, this place appears to be a strange, alternate universe, where people in all good faith are wondering why some women get upset about these things, instead of happily being invited in for a "reality check." From my perspective, this is gaslighting, but from the perspective of some of the participants on this page, it is something else. Exactly what, I'm not sure, but clearly the dialogue needs to continue if we are ever to understand each other. --Djembayz (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I know why some people get upset about it. It is not merely women, though, and the constant attempt to "genderise" it, often with pretty tortuous connections, will likely just turn more people off. The dialogue has been done to death of late. Like it or loathe it, WP works on the basis of consensus: alienating people and/or boring them to tears is not going to bring about change. Create a Civility project, perhaps, but don't make civility the focus of this project otherwise you are tying it to an albatross. - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I should clarify my last sentence above. I don't mean that this project is an albatross but rather that the debate about civility would be an albatross for this project. - Sitush (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This is probably one of the terms I suggested in my comment about a potential survey of editors might be one which we should try to determine cross-cultural sensitivity to. In my part of the US, it has pretty much used as a expletive as a emotional intensifier, and is used so commonly that several people, including me, who rarely if ever use the word in this context myself, almost overlook it. Like I said before, I think one of the problems we might find we have to address is not only attempting to sensitize some editors to how others take offense to some language, but also desensitize some editors to language which is in some other contexts used so routinely as to become commonplace. John Carter (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Support One reason I think this group should be a project is that to me, a task force is a component of a larger project and is used to address a particular part of the project's goals. While gender gap issues are unquestionably related to systemic bias issues, I don't think that the gender gap project can be completely defined within the systemic bias project, particularly because of the need to attract more women editors. In this way, gender gap issues are also unquestionably related to editor retention issues. Because the gender gap project overlaps with both the WP:CSB and WP:WER projects, to me it makes sense that the gender gap project stands on its own as a WikiProject and works closely with both related WikiProjects to reduce duplication and maximize our resources. Being our own WikiProject also allows us to start fresh, which I think is important given the recent arbcom mess. Ca2james (talk)

• Comment - Personally, I would like to see this group be contained within the larger systemic bias group as a subproject because (1) from what I've seen, a lot of the other ethnic and cultural related topics are underrepresented in general, and that a lot of the topics which are within the purview of the systemic bias group are also within the purview of this group, and (2) because the name honestly isn't that relevant anyway, and there is a bit of effort in effecting a change, which, in all honesty, doesn't make that much of a difference anyway. The discussion about whether something is a task force or work group or individual wikiproject is an old one around here, and in general the agreement is there isn't any real difference between entities of any names. Having said that, I also think that one of the most useful things we could do would be to create lists of articles missing for both groups. If anyone wants to spend the time, and it sometimes can take a lot of time, I find that there already are several reference sources relating to specifically women I have encountered in adding sources to the Bibliography of encyclopedias and related articles. Getting together lists of relative length of articles, and of named subarticles, like I have done at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Encyclopedic articles, for both groups or for either group might be one of the best ways to make it easier and less problematic to develop such content. John Carter (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support. The gender gap task force seems more about trying to recruit more women, which isn't completely connected to the systemic bias issue. -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Press coverage

FYI, Slate has posted an article today that reviews the GGTF arbitration, noting "With the Arbitration Committee opting only to ban the one woman in the dispute despite her behavior being no worse than that of the men, it’s hard not to see this as a setback to Wikipedia’s efforts to rectify its massive gender gap."--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It says a lot more than that, and much of it incorrectly. Given the author, you might as well commission someone from Wikipediocracy to write it. - Sitush (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• You're hardly unbiased in your opinion, as the article would be defamation of you if it was incorrect.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It is but I don't give a stuff. - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I won't be using it to create a BLP on you, don't worry.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not worried and I've no idea why you think I would be. I have no problem with someone creating a BLP about me. I've said that before and I think others, such as Mark Miller, thought it was a go-er (somewhere on User talk:TParis, IIRC). Alas, I haven't written a book that has been reviewed by academic journals, nor written extensively outside of here etc as many other notable Wikipedians have. The only significant mentions of me in the press are truly trivial up to now but if someone thinks I am notable then they are welcome to write it and test the waters. The chances are reasonably high that I will become notable but it will be less because of anything to do with GGTF than because of other Wikipedia-related matters. And, believe me, any sane Wikipedian would be supporting me regarding those matters if only because one potential outcome is that access to Wikipedia is blocked for 20% of the world's population.

A go-er? Not sure what I might have said, but I believe my posts supported not having editors create articles about other editors, but I am not at all clear that it would be a COI or against current policy...but I thought we got past this.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

GGTF itself probably needs to move on and stop raking the ashes but I appreciate that it is early days and there are some thin skins. I see that the proposed move out of the CSB umbrella has resurfaced above: I have no particular opinion about that but I do think that the suggestions that were made by Rich Farmbrough deserve a new hearing, if ever people can try to move forward. I hope that this ping encourages him or someone else to revisit them. - Sitush (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I will try to revisit. I did find the arb case diverted my attention somewhat, even though I was not "involved". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC).

It was a farce and should never have happened. Some things that happened early on turned it into even more of a farce. But we should move on and I think your proposals did have some support even while that cauldron of nonsense was consuming so much of so many people's time. They seemed pretty reasonable to me and there were some useful comments along the way. - Sitush (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I really think everyone should move on here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Review "Scope" and what's relevant to the group

Aside from the fact that individual members of the group ought to have a right to suggest items that might be of interest to other members of the group, I would like to take a minute to remind some of this "Scope" page item:

The aim of the task force is to address all the ways in which the gender gap affects the position of women on Wikipedia, and their absence from it, as article subjects, editors, and readers. Issues include editor interaction, the way policies and guidelines are written, our dispute-resolution processes, the way admins are elected, notability guidelines, which articles are created and deleted, and how articles are sourced.

Not to mention that under the Scope page "To Do" list is Improve women related artciles. I believe the List of feminist comic books and Priya's Shakti are women related articles.

References

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Lightbreather: If you want to discuss my removal of your comment as "not related to the discussion", then you can take it up at User talk:Chess. Don't make this reminder to "some" which is incredibly obviously addressed towards me. You've already informed me of the scope in the edit summary of your revert of my revert, you don't have to post a big message to "remind some" people of the scope. You're being incredibly condescending. I would suggest removing this message you've left. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 23:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

My comment is not directed to you only. The word "scope" appears nine times on this page prior to my use of it today. It just seems to be something we have to remind ourselves of from time to time. Also, FWIW, I think it's rather condescending to delete a discussion that a member starts and call it "Not actually relevant"[19] and then label a related discussion "not relevant."[20] I'm willing to call a truce if you are. Lightbreather (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The other discussion was previously labelled as "not relevant", but you unhabbed it to clarify that an author can remove a PROD. I reclosed it under the original close, to clarify how I originally closed it, at [21], with a reference to the discussion at the talk page of the article in question. Johnuniq has disagreed with my close, so he has unclosed it. I'll disagree with his close, but it isn't productive to argue about closing a discussion when the discussion is clearly moot (the article appears to be in no danger of deletion).

Mainly, I took offense when you said, "Not to mention that under the Scope page "To Do" list is Improve women related artciles. I believe the List of feminist comic books and Priya's Shakti are women related articles." (from [22]). This was clearly addressed towards me, as you quoted a section of the scope, and then you proceeded to mention how Priya's Shakti and List of feminist comic books fell under that scope. Who else misinterpreted the scope of the GGTF in relation to those two articles? I'm fully willing to stop arguing about this. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 00:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Feminism is however only one aspect of the issues related to the gender gap, and, from what I've seen, overemphasis of what might be called feminism might be one of the reasons some of our more active female editors are not interested or involved in this project. I do note that Lisa Tuttle put out an old Encyclopedia of Feminism as can be seen here, but there are any number of other topics which might be just as relevant, if not more, to some female editors than feminism, which as per our article is primarily about women's rights, but those rights include discussing and working on content not explicitly related to the issues of women's rights. If the group continues to emphasize issues of political/social feminism over the issues relating to the development and retention of female editors, whether they are self-described feminists or not, then I believe that such actions may well be actually contrary to the stated purpose of encouraging and keeping female editors. Some women can be and are interested in other topics as well, and I think it might make sense to find out what they are and help them in that content as well. John Carter (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Chess, this is an example of the kind of thing that shouldn't be happening. Lightbreather started a legitimate article, List of feminist comic books. It was prodded just over two hours later. She posted here for assistance. As a result you started removing entries, including some well-known feminist ones, because she hadn't (yet) found good sources, rather than help her or give her time to do it herself. You closed the discussion she opened here, which didn't need to be closed, and now you've removed her post about a related discussion on the RSN.

This page is here to help women editors, nurture articles about women, and address issues that might be causing the gender gap. Pages do have to be policy-compliant, but people often need time and help to make that happen. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I comply with policy on Wikipedia. People need time and help to make pages to a featured standard, which is always possible, and is a goal that doesn't happen for most articles, but can happen. If you want to add information into an article, it has to be verifiable. The problem with a lot of the items on the list is their lack of or bad quality sourcing. For example, some items were only supported by an self published source. I removed those items. I clearly denoted which sources I found unreliable, and removed list items that only used those sources. The proper space to draft content is userspace, draftspace, or article talk space.

In response to the closing of the discussion and removing the post about a related discussion on the RSN, I closed the discussion as, at the time, I thought it was not in the scope of the gender gap task force, as I thought the words "how articles are sourced" meant closing the gender gap in terms of the writers of the sources. Lightbreather re-opened, and closed with a presumably generic message. I thought that was a mistake on Lightbreather's part, so I closed with my message. As my close wasn't challenged, at the time of me originally writing it, and Lightbreather's close was stating "moved to talk page of article", I thought that disputes over source reliability were not within the purview of the GGTF, based on prior practice (the example of the close not being challenged), and the gender gap in sources was what the GGTF was focused on. As per that, I removed the RSN notice, as it was primarily based on whether the sources showed that Priya's Shakti should be added onto the article, not what my view of the scope was. Johnuniq reverted my close, and Lightbreather reverted my removal. 6 minutes later, Lightbreather left this post addressed to "some" people. Of course, now I know working on feminism related articles is part of the purview of the GGTF, and that more things related to sourcing other than the gender gap in sources are related to the GGTF.

You provided a good summary, stating that "This page is here to help women editors, nurture articles about women, and address issues that might be causing the gender gap." However, removing items that were on the article in question, and have absolutely nothing to do with this GGTF page. Was removing and closing the discussions about the article wrong? According to the scope of the GGTF, yes, that was not the right thing to do. But removing items from the article has absolutely nothing to do with my actions on this page. What I saw, were items supported by sources like [23], an unreliable source. What I did, was I removed items supported by those unreliable sources and nothing else. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It was supported by the core content policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability, which states "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." I challenged the items on the list. Then, like a house of cards, when the foundation of these claims crumbled, the claims themselves fell.

Many people have already begun to rebuild the proverbial house. They've been adding reliable sources to support notable list items. Lightbreather has plenty of time, and now has plenty of help. We are WP:Here to build an encyclopedia, SlimVirgin, and I just help make sure that foundation is steady. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. This page is here to make things easier for people. Several things would have been helpful: adding good sources, posting a fact tag after poor sources, adding an invisible note (<!--this needs a better source-->), adding a note like that to the talk page, or waiting a few weeks to see whether Lightbreather and others improved the sourcing without prompting. Ditto with replying here: it's good to avoid anything that makes things more cumbersome for editors. We want to help lift the weight. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

+1 to SlimVirgin, above. The purpose here needs to be making things easier for people who are building the encyclopedia to negotiate gender-related issues, whether it's related to content or participation.

For those interested in finding quality improvement opportunities in the lower-conflict sections of the encyclopedia, one thing I just recently came across is the Orphaned articles by WikiProject listings. The listings suggest articles to improve, organized according to what type of cleanup they need, and have weekly stats so you can systematically track your progress. There are several women-related WikiProjects available. --Djembayz (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The issues raised regarding the list seemed to be more related to how an article should be constructed than specifically to gender. It might be better not to get too bogged down with specific articles here because it could add to a feeling of ghettoisation rather than a reduction of it. Articles are articles, whether good, bad or indifferent in quality, and they should generally be treated on their own merits and in terms of our general policies and guidelines. Raising particular articles here when they are perceived to be in some sort of "danger" might be construed as canvassing, although I have a vague memory that the WP:ARS successfully rebutted similar accusations in the past. Using the deletion sorting facility might minimise some of the issues, although I've not really thought that through yet and it won't work for PRODs. - Sitush (talk) 05:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin and Djembayz: Please explain what I've done wrong here on this page, other than removing the comments that at the time I did not view as in the scope of the gender gap (admittedly wrongly)? Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 06:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

While details of the scope of this page may be debated, a discussion of the nature invited in your comment would not be helpful. This page is for things mentioned in SV's comment: "help women editors, nurture articles about women, and address issues that might be causing the gender gap". Johnuniq (talk) 09:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

While I agree that part of the scope for this group is to make wikipedia easier to navigate for women writers, I share John Carter's concerns about the focus on feminist topics. There already exists a feminism wikiproject and it seems to me that it would have been more appropriate to post there for help on List of feminist comic books and Priya's Shakti since their scope includes articles about feminism, women's rights, women's health, the history of women's rights, notable women's rights activists, concepts related to feminism, the history of feminism, notable feminists and philosophers, and works of feminist writers, thinkers and scholars.

Perhaps this is a good time to review the scope of this group so as to not overlap with other projects - or instead to outline where and how this group might work with other WikiProjects. For example, maybe it would be better to let the feminist project take on articles/help/etc related to feminism instead of duplicating that effort here. Ca2james (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree regarding emphasis and review of scope. There will always be some overlap with other projects, including WP:WER. - Sitush (talk) 05:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

(Possibly my first time weighing in on this page). I agree as well that a review of this project's scope would be beneficial. For something specifically content- and policy-related, the relevant wikiproject probably would have been a better resource for Lightbreather (if any; one of my concerns is that deletion/RS discussions should really just revolve around reliable sources and notability, and not turn into something with a "cause" that needs the troops rallied for support. i.e. where there is a perceived "wrong" that needs to be addressed, like a gender gap). Sorry if I'm not articulating myself well or interpreting the situation incorrectly -- it's been a long day due to the holiday!).

But anyway, I'm hopeful that this project can attract all sorts of topics, as women obviously have just as diverse a range of interests as men (I personally do not have an interest in editing feminist-related articles, though I do edit many articles that could be considered feminine). I think the more we emphasize feminist-related articles, the more men and women we will alienate from this project. Ruby 2010/2013 06:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

From June to September 2014 there was a series of threads / discussions on the Gender Gap mailing list which led to the a general refresh, I've bullet-pointed a selection of quotes in an essay: GGTF's re-boot (in a way it is a case of looking down the other end of the telescope – "what do we want to do?" / "we want to challenge bias" / "where is the best place to do it? should we create something new?" / "how about the GGTF?"). Rather than the starting point being "What shall we do with GGTF?" "How can we turn GGTF into a vehicle where we can spread our evil agenda?" GGTF simply ended up being the place where the discussions we were having found a suitable spot in which to park.

With regards to the emphasis on feminist / feminism. My own experience of staring to edit Wikipedia was that well-meaning experienced editors would 'helpfully' point me towards the Feminism project, where I had the unpleasant and off-putting experience (at least to me) of encountering sex-positive feminist, pro-porn attitudes, conjuring up this kind of image.

There is a pornography project and yet no anti-pornography project, or even an anti-pornography series / task-force within the pornography project. Nobody regards this as pro-porn POV-pushing, which it absolutely is. It demonstrates either a deliberate obtuseness and/or a stunning lack of self awareness on part of the sex-pozzies of just how frightening and intimidating their, "Yes I do edit porn articles and would like to tack myself onto your task force and explain to you where it is going wrong." -type posts are. (A typical example can be found in this exchange.) Any attempt to move the discussion forward in a female-friendly way is generally met with un-friendly, hissing accusations about radical feminism, for 'radical' read 'crazy'. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 07:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Ruby, welcome to the project. I've no issue with you or any other editor wanting to concentrate on articles that may be considered feminine. For me this is about articles and edits that end up having to navigate a sniper's alley whilst other articles and edits get safe passage. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 08:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation regarding the reboot. It sounds like this project has become home to several disparate "causes", which may in itself indicate a need to revisit the scope.

The porn stuff that you mention seems somewhat irrelevant but, for clarity, does there need to be an anti-porn project? A project about porn should concern itself with all aspects, for and against. Subject-specific projects are meant to be about things, not pro- or anti- them. To be otherwise is to risk undue weight and lack of neutrality in our coverage. - Sitush (talk) 08:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we have Opposition to pornography and a host of related articles. What would an anti-porn project even do, unless its aim was to censor our content? Wikipedia is, of course, not censored, so your anti-porn project point seems to be not only irrelevant to GGTF but probably to the encyclopaedia as a whole. Or am I missing the point? - Sitush (talk) 08:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I posted: "My own experience of staring to edit Wikipedia was that well-meaning experienced editors would 'helpfully' point me towards the Feminism project, where I had the unpleasant and off-putting experience (at least to me) of encountering sex-positive feminist, pro-porn attitudes, conjuring up this kind of image."

If anything was going to put me off when I started out – thus losing a female editor and widening the gender gap – encountering such editors was the way to do it.

I posted: There is a pornography project and yet no anti-pornography project, or even an anti-pornography series / task-force within the pornography project.

There doesn't need to be a separate project. It's only censorship if existing articles about porn stars etc. are removed. I don't advocate that but this is the current list of pornography stubs, I don't see much evidence of anti-pornography articles, that goes for the projects 'scope' too.

I don't really see the problem with an anti-pornography project anyway. There is both a Socialism project and a Capitalism project. A porn project and an anti-porn project both have enough articles to sustain them. Are people who join Wikipedia to create anti-pornography articles really likely to want to add a user box to their profile that says "This user is a member of the Pornography project"? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I think this project would be helpful for adding the vast amount of historical and current oppositions to pornography. I would participate in such a project, as these things ought to be documented neutrally. Ongepotchket (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The GGTF reboot essay is interesting but I'm not sure I understand what it's getting at. I'd be interested in seeing the whole conversations that occurred on the mailing list; do you have references for the quotes or links to the archives? I understand that the Feminist wikiproject can be offputting because not everyone shares every feminist belief, but honestly, there are times that I find this group to be offputting as well. As far as what encourages a new editor to stay or go, personally, I think the quick reverts and article deletions are more likely to prevent women from starting or continuing to edit on Wikipedia. I see a need for rules and guidelines at Wikipedia but their enforcement is, IMHO, helping to drive women away. I also think that some editors would prefer to have a more social place to interact - and yes, I know that this is an encyclopaedia and all, but different editors are here for different things and if adding more online socializing opportunities helps people feel more comfortable and edit more, then that's a net benefit to the encyclopaedia. Ca2james (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The fundamental problem that has haunted this project for at least the last few months is that we have a lot of mentions of potential causes/solutions to the gap but no-one has got any real research in the context of WP and thus it is all anecdote, hearsay, speculation and opinion. Often it seems quite disparate. This doesn't make the project useless but it does massively constrain it: verifiability is so central to how WP works that the culture of WP:V applies almost as much outside of article space as within it. There have been occasional suggestions that WMF should be approached/research funding should be sought etc but if people want to cause change then it really needs those words to be turned into action. Get the numbers and the rest will follow. - Sitush (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Disagree, the fundamental problems with the project are that women are not participating, and when discussions come about as to the reasons, those discussions are dismissed as "all anecdote, hearsay, speculation, and opinion." As if this invalidates the problems expressed. Ongepotchket (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above. I also have reservations about basing changes on the limited input in a mailing list, rather than based on the input of the community as a whole. To my eyes, the best way to determine what, if any, content this group should deal with is by maybe starting an RfC about it, and asking particularly women what kind of content they think is underrepresented, or tilted to one side, or whatever, and making some sort of effort to correct that imbanalance. Fashion, cookery, domestic affairs, childrearing, and any number of other topics beyond feminism may be just as, or maybe even more, important to more women editors than feminism.

Also, I really think that maybe showing that the project or task force can be effective in improving content would help a lot. I notice User:Charles Matthews has started a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography/Missing women for women who have articles in the Dictionary of National Biography but not here yet. That list would certainly be a place where people honestly interested in developing the content could start. I am myself, after finishing putting a book on Wikisource, going to go through the numerous encyclopedias and reference works included in the various editions of the Guide to Reference and am more than willing to start up a list here or elsewhere of encyclopedias or reference works listed in those editions which relate directly to the fields women editors might be interested in developing, and/or lists of articles in those sources which might be found to relate to expressed interests of women editors. John Carter (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Fashion, cookery, domestic affairs, childrearing, and any number of other topics beyond feminism may be just as, or maybe even more, important to more women editors than feminism. It is interesting that on the talk page of a task force whose scope is already clearly defined as: ...to address all the ways in which the gender gap affects the position of women on Wikipedia, and their absence from it, as article subjects, editors, and readers. ... that the examples you gave did not include science, business, filmmaking, politics etc. but instead focused on an extremely narrow and old-fashioned, traditional view of women's roles. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

And it is equally interesting that you seem to believe it somewhat impossible that some women may be interested in "traditional" topics. And it is also interesting to me that you seem to directly overlook the link to the DNB page. If certain individuals might be able to actually make more of an effort to deal reasonably with the comments of others instead of trying to cast aspersions on the motivations and opinions of others, maybe that in and of itself might be one thing which might make this project more interesting to women who are not so devoted to political/social femininism and its principles. John Carter (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Odd, I didn't gather that the user believes it is "impossible" for female editors to be interested in those subjects, just that defining them as traditional is the problem at hand, not the solution. Perhaps projecting ought to be kept at a minimum in order to retain this helpful editor. Ongepotchket (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

And it is I believe equally problematic for that editor to seem to draw conclusions about others based on rather dubious baases. If that editor could also refrain from seeming to cast or at least strongly imply judgments based on little real evidence, that would help as well. John Carter (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that you may find their suggestions problematic, but others like myself do not, so perhaps your personal accusations of dubiousness are not as helpful as you think. I am simply suggesting you consider other editors than just yourself when it comes to this discussion. Ongepotchket (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

So you are clearly indicating, I believe, that "suggestions" which are rather transparently aspersions on others are acceptable to you, and that other people afre obligated to "think of others" when aspersions regarding them are made. In other words, that other people have to put up with accusations based on no evidence, apparently simply because those who make them are feminists. Thank you for making it rather clearer to me why so many women and others find this group as it exists problematic. John Carter (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Ca2james I've added links to each of the monthly sections on the GGTF's re-boot essay, for the original discussions. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Participation at any page on Wikipedia is voluntary. If someone would prefer to focus on another project, they are welcome to do so. If someone believes this project is unsuitable for Wikipedia, they could nominate it for deletion. Why is there a need for all this meta-commentary? Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. There are going to be peaks and troughs of subject matter that GGTF deals with, and it is not unusual that a certain proportion of that will be feminist related articles, feminism and gender studies are related projects. If Ruby want to start a thread here about Sense and Sensibility, Lightbreather wants to start a thread about a feminist article, and another GGTF wants to start a thread about a third topic then fine. All threads started by GGTF participants are relevant to GGTF by the virtue of having been started by one of the project's participants. Jumping on threads that other GGTF participants have started and having nothing else to say except "this is irrelevant to the project" and "maybe the project as a whole should shut down" is stroppy unconstructive and getting very, very old. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that any thread started by a group participant is automatically relevant to the group. How is a thread that is outside the group's scope relevant? What if a participant posted about their marriage or children? Would that be relevant to the GGTF just because a GGTF participant posted it? I say no, it wouldn't be.

I do understand that it is frustrating to continually hear that something is irrelevant to the project but if it is outside the group's scope, what do you want to have happen? Personally, I don't think it's acceptable to let things slide (ie to post things that are outside the scope) because then the scope becomes muddled and difficult to figure out. Of course it's better for people to speak constructively, but that's not the same as not speaking at all. Ca2james (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with The Vintage Feminist that this is getting very old. If women want to ask for help with articles about feminism or anything else, that's fine; please let it be. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The opposite could be argued equally well, ie: that TVF's take on matters is getting very old. Unless we define scope, who knows? Certainly, this project can legitimately be some sort of catch-all for women. We have to get the politics out of this. - Sitush (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

We ahould let it evolve without these attempts to control it, particularly after the ArbCom case. It needs breathing space. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Personal posts about marriage or children (a) haven't happened and, (b) are an extreme. What we're talking about here is "irrelevant" being slapped on to multiple WP-related threads within GGTF. Like SlimVirgin says, the project needs a chance to breathe without these constant calls to redefine it. Anyone who doesn't find a thread irrelevant to GGTF can start a thread of their own that they think is relevant, preferably about an article rather than yet another rehash about the project as a whole. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

How are discussions about specific articles going to fix the gender gap? Discussion about specific articles belongs on the talk pages for those articles, so all we would have here is a list of links to those pages as and when someone is unhappy or whatever. Thus discussion here might (very slowly) cause some slight change in subject emphasis across the 4.5 million-and-rising articles but are as likely to come across as canvassing. An exception would be promotion of "pushes" such as those that have happened for the "women in science" or "women in literature" articles, both of which I think already have projects.

Subject emphasis is one alleged part of the gap but the other two that I've seen mentioned - recruitment and retention - seem likely to be far more significant. Based on the (albeit sometimes dubious) assumptions made by others here in the past, the very act of improving recruitment and retention should lead to a correction in the alleged bias in subject emphasis. R&R should surely be the primary concern, not individual articles, and that means getting some numbers. I know that there are big flaws with online surveys but they seem to be the only way forward. Why do/don't certain people edit here? What would make/keep them editing? What subjects do they prefer to edit and prefer to avoid? What significant differences are there between those who do and those who do not edit? Why do people leave? Those types of question might address the gap but a note about some specific article is just a random post about a random thing among 4.5 million such things.

With the usual proviso that "on the internet no-one knows you're a dog", we do have people who have self-identified as female and it seems likely that they are the most obvious population to sample as a starting point. The vast majority of them probably have had no involvement with this project, so it is also potentially a big "market" for ideas. - Sitush (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that one of the reasonable first steps toward seeing what women in wikipedia thinks needs to be done most would be to actively ask women who have self-identified as women what content of particular interest to women might be underrepresented or undercovered here. Those women would presumably be in a better position to clearly state their concerns than would be individuals who can only speculate on them or draw potentially flawed assumptions based on limited previous personal experience. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree completely -- a survey would be a good step forward and a better use of our time. I've given it some thought lately and am happy to see someone suggest it, particularly if it targets the questions that Sitush suggests above. Are there any proposals in place currently? Or would this be something we should start thinking about now? Ruby 2010/2013 16:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)