Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:54, 30 June 2014

Green Box Links to Barnstars, Archives, Other Stuff Please post comments about the content of a specific article on the Talk Page of that Article if it is relevant to all editors. See here for my Arbitration-related topic ban info.
Barnstars/Kittens/et al My Cheatsheet - My Sandbox - /My Sandbox 1 - /My Sandbox 2 - /My Sandbox 3 - /My Sandbox 4 Archive I: 2006-2007 - Archive II: Jan-March 2008 - Archive III: March-Dec 2008 - Archive IV: 2009 - Archive V: 2010 - Archive VI: 2011 -Archive VII: 2012 - Archive VIII: 2013 - Archive IX: 2014 Link to Newsletters I Need to Read

This user wants to see everything in its place.

Washington, DC meetups in June

Greetings!

Wikimedia DC has yet another busy month in June. Whether you're a newcomer to Misplaced Pages or have years of experience, we're happy to see you come. Here's what's coming up:

• On Wednesday, June 11 from 7 to 9 PM come to the WikiSalon at the Cove co-working space. Hang out with Misplaced Pages enthusiasts!
• Saturday, June 14 is the Frederick County History Edit-a-Thon from 11 AM to 4 PM. Help improve local history on Misplaced Pages.
• The following Saturday, June 21, is the June Meetup. Dinner and drinks with Wikipedians!
• Come on Tuesday, June 24 for the Misplaced Pages in Your Library edit-a-thon at GWU on local and LGBT history.
• Last but not least, on Sunday, June 29 we have the Phillips Collection Edit-a-Thon in honor of the Made in America exhibit.

Misplaced Pages is better with friends, so why not come out to an event?

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 01:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Feedback, after 7 years :)

Re: Talk:Voluntarism_(metaphysics)#Propose_rename_this_Voluntarism_.28Philosophy.29. I agree. Can you start a formal WP:RM? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

In 7 years a lot of work was done to actually make it about a metaphysical philosophy, so you should review the past discussion on that talk page and bring it up on that talk page first. Also, currently the disambiguation page Voluntarism with a couple options. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Roadmap links

You appear to be removing a bunch of links to the TS Roadmap because the notable Misplaced Pages that runs that site ( but was not the one that added the links ) has been banned for other issues. Just because someone has been banned does not make other resources that they have been involved with outside of wikipedia as verboten. Consider a sports presenter / researcher that has a large curated site with collection of sports history, perspectives from those involved etc. Suppose that presenter also had an issue with a ball player who both had wikipedia accounts and ended up fighting such that they both got banned, that does not mean that there site is any less notable or important. Though would probably be best for example to avoid POV issues with sections on the ball player. To me a site that collects and curates useful first hand information on experiences with various surgeons and procedures is a useful link. PaleAqua (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be a new user. I think you need to read Misplaced Pages:RS#Biased_or_opinionated_sources. TS Roadmap is a personal and advocacy website, though the editor being banned is the icing on the cake. I see A LOT of Advocacy sites on this topic at wikipedia and have been thinking of doing a general WP:RSN on a whole list of such sites, rather than wasting time dealing with them one article at a time. It also may be relevant to extending Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology. So please read up on sourcing, especially as related to WP:Biographies of living people. Also see the overview essay Misplaced Pages:Advocacy. Advocates are not supposed to violate core policies to advance their cause. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I am familiar with BLP, RS, EL, the arbitration case you mention, a bunch of the history involved, etc. ( For what it's worth my account and your account are only about a month different in longevity, and while I assume you didn't mean it that way your phrasing comes across as insulting. ) If the site was used ( especially certain parts of the site ) as either a source or external link to an article on Blanchard, Cantor, Feminine essence concept of transsexuality, etc. then could differently see it being removed under BLP and NPOV ( and would be strongly tempted to remove it myself ). But we are not talking about those articles, and the guidelines for external links and reliable sources are slightly different. I do think they their probably should be a broader discussion on what to do with the lot of the links, which is why I only reverted one of the removals and then started the discussion with you. I'm not sure the arbitration case page is the right spot for that discussion though, Arbcon is not for dealing with content issues. Misplaced Pages:External links/Noticeboard is probably a better place, and as such have opened a discussion there. PaleAqua (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have gotten you confused with a new editor's contributions I looked at within a short space of time. ArbCom might only be relevant for the whole range of different sources if a discussion at WP:RSN showed an inability of the community to apply policy to that particular issue for whatever reason. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 08:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries, easy mistake. Hopefully a few more will chime in there. Though I really only notified, you, Joketress ( who obviously can't comment ) and the original inserter of the link. I avoided notifications of the pages themselves as to avoid stirring up the possibility of old wars, especially as I'm hoping some neutral EL-N watchers can chime-in. I can see your concern with site even if I don't completely agree that it is an issue. So if others agree with you, I won't stand in the way. And if no one else comments I'm likely to drop it and self-revert anyways. PaleAqua (talk) 09:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The main issue is quality in general, not to mention in BLP. Probably didn't even need to mention the "topic ban" icing on the cake. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

BTW If we are to be consistent the same removal should be done with other similar links such as the Anne Lawerence ones. Since I still disagree and didn't revert any original removal of them ( discounting replacing multiple deadline tagged ones with a single live link ), I am not going to remove them myself; but won't stand directly in the way. Though if someone else objects in which case I'll might take part in any future discussions that arise. PaleAqua (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reminder. Removed the dead SPS one. The other actually was published by a RS publication so it is RS. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	hello, thanks very much for your comment on how to improve my draft article for psychology's feminist voices! i'll try to get more references and resubmit :) Praptigiri (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to Consensus for a unified approach to bias categories at Category:Antisemitism

Due to your involvement in the 2011 CFD that decided on a unified approach to bias categories, you may be interested in a current proposal to change that approach with regard to the Category:Antisemitism. Dlv999 (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

howdy

Carol, I don't want to trouble there further on these points so am bringing this here for your consideration. I've always appreciated your views and do not want to offend or annoy people further.

Yes, I appreciate that people want that project to focus on the gender gap going forward as a priority. That's fine. But what I'd appreciate is (a) A recognition that this is a change in stated scope - I'm not the only one who felt this - previously it seemed to be much more about content, not contributors. I can see from the discussions on GenderGap that Slim has been explicit there about wanting to revive the project AND change the scope (b) A recognition that systemic gender BIAS in wikipedia is not ONLY driven through a lack of female editors, and that the solutions to such bias do not simply involve adding more female editors. There are lots of other things we need to change, and lots of things we can change and fix even in the absence of solving the gender gap itself. (As you know, one of those issues I've been working on is categorization, and making sure categories are not ghettoizing women).

As I mentioned earlier, probably the key reason we have fewer female bios than male ones has fairly little to do with our % of female editors, but rather more with how RS treat things. A paper which studied this found that there was an ADDITIONAL marginal bias in wikipedia beyond the "societal" bias one might expect, but are we only interested in fixing that gap, or are we interested in also fixing the gap that RS leave us with? If we go beyond the focus JUST on the gender gap, I just don't see how one can imagine there isn't potential systemic bias against certain issues of interest to men, or trangender people, or two spirit people, or any other gender that isn't "female". Frankly I've never really thought this was a major issue until the mess around Category:Violence against men convinced me otherwise - I don't think this is a simple content dispute nor even necessarily an issue of a few biased editors. It's actually embedded in the way our society talks about violence - to some people it is completely impossible to imagine that gender-based violence could possibly exist (in spite of dozens of sources which study exactly that - they ignore the sources and !vote with their gut).

I provided the search for example which shows that "100 people killed, including 10 women and 3 children" is completely common, totally uncontroversial way of describing death. One of the commentators in the discussion said that massacres of men are irrelevant because it's the same thing as just massacring people. Ironically it is feminists who have pointed this out, that the men are the "people" and the women are special and apart - but it's also an area where perhaps feminism and masculism combine - I think both sides might agree that men should not be "people" and women should not be "women" in these cases. Thus, wouldnt fixing such language be in the purvue of this project?

One of the issues of systemic bias that I've seen people working on is how do we use language, but language can be used in a way that discriminates against women, against men, against trans* people, etc. That people are reacting so strongly to the suggestion that "gender bias" might be bigger than just "bias against women" - even if such bias against women is the priority project - suggests a closed-mindedness I wouldn't expect from the participants there, and that saddens me.

Again, I respect your views, but I wanted to bounce these ideas off you, for your consideration.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, I started the latest round of "let's do something about this issue" on gender gap email list and it lead to us all being reminded the project even existed. However, even in April the scope including closing the gender gap was quite clear, even if not quite as explicit as I'd like to see it written. Busy finishing off an off-wiki project so haven't even started messing with the lead and scope yet...
• Yes RS is an issue with women and others ignored by the white male dominated MSM that wiki relies on. So instead of 8 books and 50 misc refs lauding a male, you only have 1 or two for a female and 5 or 6 misc refs. Being an inclusionist, I think that's enough for a stub.
• I don't have a problem for fixing that kind of language in Misplaced Pages. If someone stops you, then you can bring it as an issue. That's the sort of thing you can waste more time discussing than it would take to just do it.
• Frankly, I've always dismissed the word "gender" as incomprehensible and in last year as have started reading up on the subject and various current controversies, I don't much like the word. I do like pangender cause I'm above nitpicking which stereotype people want to classify themselves under. Where there is truly crappy stuff happening to males/male topics I'll speak out. If it's just guys who are pissed off cause women are demanding to, and succeeding in some small ways, at being co-creators of the world and it's culture, get hip. Human consciousness is evolving... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

thanks Carol - however correcting such language is nontrivial - since it may involve original research - eg subtraction. Is that acceptable? It seems that board would be a great place to get views on how to fix, since it's actually a feminist POV - eg man as person, woman as different. Another example for systemic bias is calling ships 'she', a debate is currently raging on same. It's just too bad because now if I see some systemic bias that is mitigating against how male or trans* issues are covered, some at that board have been unwelcoming and would consider it out of scope - for example if categories of men are ghettoized can we not place them on the todo list? It's all very exclusionary.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I barely understood what you wrote above about subtraction or a couple general statements without an example re: woman and man, etc; as for ships, what do RS say? That's all that matters. But I really think you need to discuss category issues at Categories for Discussion where people won't feel like they are being blindsided but their own inexperience. Then announced the discussion at the noticeboard. At this point trying to force discussions is just pissing most of us off. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I mean, if the source says '100 people killed including 2 women and 3 children" - can we change this to " 100 people killed including 95 men, 2 women and 3 children"? Same with ships - some sources say 'she' some say 'it' it's a dynamic area.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with first example. Ship-wise, it does seem to be more in touch with current usage to say "it", especially if "it" is used more often in RS for an article. Of course, old time ship-references with exclusively "she" uses probably should use "She" at least in closely reflecting a source. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

yes, I don't really mean to start a discussion about ship naming here and you should weigh in at the manual of style page - but the more general question is are such language issues aligned with the goal of that project in your mind? And if so, wouldn't language issues that bias men also be included? I just feel like some there are being very binary - eg gender is only women - whereas I think it would be wasteful to start separate projects to deal with gender bias in language that impacted non-women as a whole separate task force. As for categories, I have shared that algorithm with a number of category experts and posted it to various boards and have never gotten any pushback except compliments. Of course it impacts ghettoization of ethnicities or sexuality, etc, I just started it at the task force that seemed to be actively working in the are and as you can see a number of people engaged with it at the time. How would you feel if we had a list of cats to fix and stored the algorithm elsewhere with a link out - and then created a special talk page for such deghettoization work - (sorry I know you don't like that word I just don't have a simpler better one yet)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid Obi is spot on correct here. If the mainstream RS say "it's a man's world" then so must WP. Otherwise it's a slippery slope. SPECIFICO talk 13:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

SPECIFICO is still banned from my talk page. Stop the harassment. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)