Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:37, 8 February 2015

• WT:GGTF

• Welcome to the GGTF: the gender gap task force. Please sign up if you'd like to help.
• The talk page is for friendly discussion about anything related to closing Misplaced Pages's gender gap, including asking for help with articles, AfDs, and so on.
• Add new posts to the end or click here to start a new topic.
• Sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~).

Useful links

Misplaced Pages's gender gap on Twitter

• WikiWomen's Collab @WikiWomen
• GenderGapOnWikipedia @SaidOnWP
• Also see the Ada Initiative @adainitiative

Wikimedia Foundation gender gap mailing list

• How to subscribe
• Archives

Need active peer reviewers

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

Opposition canvassing on reddit?

Thanks to Bosstopher for bringing this to my attention, which may be of interest to other members of this task force. People at /r/MensRights and /r/WikiInAction (a GamerGate affiliated subreddit) are complaining about the proposal for WikiProject Women. Lightbreather (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The one point I see here Light that you should really consider is the all women editors thing. Per the policy of the WMF says that there has to be equal access. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. You're setting a nasty precedent here, Light, one that would work for WikiProject WhitesOnly. You don't cure discrimination by introducing more discrimination. --GRuban (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like canvassing on both sides, and this thing has also been canvassed on the WMF gendergap mailing list. Most likely, it will even itself out but for LB to say what she has is basically a pot/kettle situation. - Sitush (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Good work LB. Considering some serious, persistent tomfoolery against the goals of the project, and considering the dire need to achieve the goals of this project ( for improving Misplaced Pages, and making it a safer place ), your proposal is a good step. I myself was thinking that such a step has become necessary due to pragmatic reasons. Thanks for taking the initiative. This is when I am male. Only a few males are narrow-minded or obscurantists (example), but they are a serious enough problem to require a serious tackle. To live in denial of the problem may be cute, but would be foolish and dangerous in the long run. Concrete steps like yours should get all support.OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore it must be done."? Making a part of Misplaced Pages that some people can't participate in due to birth is terrible. Again, what will you say to the people who want to make a Whites-only part (on the very reasonable grounds that racists are treated worse than women)? --GRuban (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I may be highly mistaken in properly understanding what you have said, but if you are saying what it seems to me that you are saying on first reading -- In my book, racists should not get any space on Misplaced Pages, let alone a racist-only space. I appreciate LBs initiative because I have been making some soundbites, while she has gone ahead and taken a concrete step. Again, I now have an alternate understanding of what you have said ( which is much more likely to be correct ) and I would surely support a whites-only space if I found that white-hatred was becoming a major problem and such a problem that attempts to address that problem in open space were being constantly and persistently railroaded and rendered useless.OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hyperbole. There are many women who are far from being "constantly and persistently railroaded and rendered useless." They have said so, although most of them seem to steer well clear of this project. - Sitush (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Oranges: I am saying that discrimination is bad, not just discrimination against groups you don't like. --GRuban (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I've already said that I probably won't join this project as I'm not a fan of women-only spaces, but it is only discriminatory if no-one else is allowed to set up an x–only space of their own.

The comparison I would make is a group of women walking into a pub, choosing a table and sitting down at it, in the middle of their conversation some bloke grabs a chair, plonks himself down and insists on joining in. The women get up and move elsewhere but he insists on following them around, even though they make it clear that it is against their wishes.

There have been repeated comments on this talk page about "this is irrelevant to this project" and "lets rip up this project and start again". So a group of women have put forward a proposal to enable them to move to a different table, where the conversation they have will always be relevant, it ought to make the irrelevant–mongers here celebrate, but apparently not. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, TVF. It's not like I'm proposing a mutiny, or to hijack The Project (the pub) and close the doors to men - just one effing table. Lightbreather (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm calling you on those "many women" and "most of them" comments, Sitush. How many is "many"? This is rhetorical, and I'm not expecting an answer, but the fact is, yes, there are some women who aren't experiencing the problems that others have reported. Also, there are almost certainly some who are experiencing problems, but not reporting them, or simply leaving the project. And then there are some who experience problems, and report it - and try to do something about it. Evidence was called for repeatedly to show that there are problems, and evidence has been repeatedly presented.

I should very much appreciate it if you would quit denying and discounting problems with dismissive assessments like "Hyperbole." Hyperbole? How about the "many" and "most of" statements that you cannot quantify and present no evidence for but present here and elsewhere? Yes, some women survive on Misplaced Pages; some even thrive in this environment. Because some that you know say they don't have gender-gap related problems on Misplaced Pages does not mean that there are no women here having gender-related problems. So enough of that baloney, please. Lightbreather (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been in hospital. My stuff above isn't all from people that I "know" but I cannot post people's emails etc here. Some have said it on-wiki, more have not; it is up to them whether they want to take that step but the same can be said for those whom you are speaking for in this debate but who are absent. You know, of course, that there is no way to engineer a society so that every member/potential member is happy to be here. It is almost always going mostly to reflect the greatest happiness of the greatest number, so we need to persuade a majority of people already here that things could be happier for them. While some people may be shamed into it, most quite obviously don't seem to care sufficiently one way or the other and are carrying on as usual. This is a lot of inertia to be overcome but it is not impossible. The two other options are to mount a huge off-wiki campaign that causes a load of like-minded people to turn up and force change, or a diktat from the "government". The first of these alternate strategies could get very nasty and lead to a massive civil war, and I doubt that the WMF could draw up a meaningful diktat because they would just be tinkering round the edges of the issue, eg: some sort of civility enforcement that would backfire big time due to subjectivity and might not even be addressing a particularly significant cause of the gap.

The core ethos of WP is collaboration, which is perhaps a remarkable thing in itself if you accept the figures that the typical en-Wikipedian is a 20-something socially-inept male. Your proposal should fail, ironically, because it is overtly sexist, exclusionary and contrary to that ethos. We are unlikely to change the demographics of Misplaced Pages by creating ghettoes or by adopting, however unintentionally, a "them versus us" stance. In fact, those involved will likely just be painting a target on their backs for the men's rights trolls etc. And someone will surely try to create a "whites-only" space, "Bosnians-only", "Hindus-only" or some other daft thing based on the precedent - you know that the idiots are out there, and you just know that those spaces would not be A Good Thing. Don't you?

We need proper numbers etc so that we can discern the causes of the gap on this project, which is fairly unique even in the WP scope, let alone the wider web. Then we should attempt to address those areas, where practical. (For example, one alleged cause is that proportionately more women than men simply are not interested in this sort of thing - we would probably struggle to change that one, although we might make a dint in it.) It seems to me that this is where WMF money should be going because it has the best chance of leading to a quantifiable return; it certainly seems likely to be a more useful approach than throwing money into a wishing-well and talking among ourselves, although I'm not even sure why this particular well needs funding. I realise that the data collection will not be an easy exercise but also know that some people with expertise in this type of stats-gathering have offered to provide pointers both here and on the GG mailing list. Bearing in mind the number of times they do it, the instances where real change emerges from men gabbing, "setting the world to rights" and mutually backslapping round a pub table, to use your analogy, are very few. - Sitush (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

"The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House"

Interesting article by Jessica Valenti in The Guardian, "Women can't end sexism in the workplace just by showing up". She writes:

The push for eventual parity ... often means that the first women in traditionally male spaces ... are saddled with the responsibility of taking abuse until a critical mass is reached and (hopefully) the culture shifts, and of making that space more woman-friendly. ... Asking individual women to enter hostile spaces to make them better is really asking women to make men better – and to make men better at women’s own risk. But it shouldn’t be women’s responsibility to fix men or deal with their misogyny. Instead, men should be taking it upon themselves to treat women with respect, and demand their other male colleagues do the same.

It's an issue Joseph Reagle (Reagle) touched on recently when he discussed a 1984 essay by Audre Lorde, "The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House". Lorde wrote: "What does it mean when the tools of a racist patriarchy are used to examine the fruits of that same patriarchy? It means that only the most narrow perimeters of change are possible and allowable." Jayen466 has argued this several times about women on Misplaced Pages.

Having experienced the last seven months of GGTF, I wonder whether we should be encouraging women to edit Misplaced Pages. Is it fair to ask women for their unpaid labour in exchange for the kind of treatment we've seen some women experience, in order that a critical mass is eventually reached? I also wonder what we can do, as Valenti argues should be happening, to encourage male editors and admins to be more pro-active in dealing with the problems. SlimVirgin 16:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I am reminded of similar discussions about Reddit culture. Does anyone think that if they had tried to critique Michael Brutsch (Violentacrez) on Reddit itself, they would have had any effect, let alone got an apology out of him for the way he treated women? Surely not. Redditors would have downvoted, derided, flamed, trolled, etc. anyone who tried.

But put Violentacrez into a CNN studio with a normal person, and it's a different matter. The big man suddenly became very small.

In the same way, I think that trying to work within Misplaced Pages to change the grain of the culture is the wrong approach. Instead document what is happening, blog, use social media, share your results with journalists and the general public.

If you need an example from Misplaced Pages's own history, Categorygate (see Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-04-29/In_the_media) showed the way to change things. It was public condemnation that galvanised Misplaced Pages into action (and even so it was a battle to just put this little bit of injustice right). What would have happened if the writer had clicked "Edit" and made her complaint here in Misplaced Pages instead? She would have been ignored, and quite possibly been insulted to boot. Andreas JN466 17:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jayen466: I wonder whether it's worth starting an off-wiki discussion board. SlimVirgin 21:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Everybody should certainly realize that Misplaced Pages is a very conservative organization in the sense that it can seem impossible to get anything changed. Nevertheless, you should also realize that equality for women on Misplaced Pages is a cause that is certain to win in the long run. This is the 21st century, the WMF is based in the USA, the board has committed to narrowing the gender gap, and I believe that its majority are women.

So I do not think it is time to give up on intra-Wiki processes. Rather movement forward on all fronts is called for. If you see harassment on-Wiki, confront it as politely (and as directly) as possible. Let everybody see it close-up. You can also report it to the press, at the same time, for larger issues. You can also take it up with the WMF staff and with the WMF Board. Some folks might thinks that if you're "negotiating" on-Wiki with other editors, it would be bad-faith to go to the Board or to the press with your complaint. No way - just let everybody know upfront that you are going to tell the truth to whomever will listen- you're not negotiating with anybody. And you're going to win. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• "...Instead, men should be taking it upon themselves to treat women with respect, and demand their other male colleagues do the same." Many of us men do try to treat women with respect. In practice, we are not allowed "demand their other male colleagues do the same" as that would be considered a personal attack. But it's more complicated than that because most of us have all sorts of reasons, some more legitimate than others, for not getting involved even if it weren't an illegal 'personal attack'. To give just one such reason, we have far too many people trying to revert our work at the best of times without creating more enemies to revert our work. And so on. In other words, reform has to come primarily from women both inside and outside Misplaced Pages forcing it on Misplaced Pages (as well as male politicians outside Misplaced Pages who need women's votes, and perhaps also male corporate leaders who need women as customers, and so on).

• Meanwhile you can help make life easier for those women fighting from inside Misplaced Pages by supporting the current proposal for funding to create a 'safe space' for women within Misplaced Pages (here and here), which I would see as at least partly a kind of 'shelter for verbally battered women' not too dissimilar from shelters for physically battered women (that's by way of reply to the widespread accusation there that it discriminates against men, as if it would somehow be illegal discrimination to refuse to allow men into shelters for physically battered women).Tlhslobus (talk) 08:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Tlhslobus I hate ideas like this. It encourages the idea that women are fragile and powerless and need their own space because the "normal" world is just too difficult for them to deal with. When women get harassed the response shouldn't be to retreat into a "safe space" where men aren't allowed but to call out the people doing the harassing and do something about it. Also, I think feminism isn't just about women its about men too. I LIKE working with women, they are often more collaborative then men and I want more of them participating in the every day world of Misplaced Pages not to be walled off into their own space. Of course I realize in some situations (battered women) safe spaces are a necessity but I think they are counter productive to collaborative environments like this. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Any support for a male editor not charmed by gender-specific profanity?

Even going to ANI didn't help this male editor get any satisfaction. Let's acknowledge that the fellow got too grouchy during his content dispute, but even so-- how on earth can the website expect to have anybody keep editing, if this is how we treat our volunteers? -- Djembayz (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:DICK is the historical title of the second part of the WP:TRIFECTA. It was not intended as a reference to the male anatomy, but, as per our dick article, "as a pejorative term for individuals who are considered to be rude, abrasive, inconsiderate, or otherwise contemptible." It has since been renamed to Meta:Don't be a jerk which retains most of the latter meaning without also directly referring to male anatomy... but this only happened in October 2014. So I hesitate to be too severe on anyone from before that time who uses the old version. As for the editor being upset at being called "son" after himself calling the other "kid" ... yeah. So minor support at best. Really, he lives in a glass house and throws stones. Actually, no. Let me say I support sternly lecturing the both of them. Kid, son, seem both appropriate titles, since they're each acting immaturely. They've completely stopped discussing anything of substance, and have now focused completely on namecalling. --GRuban (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Question at the Village Pump

There is a question at the Village Pump that should be of interest to this group:

Risk in identifying as a woman editor on Misplaced Pages

--Lightbreather (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Guardian article about Gamergate case

Interesting article by Alex Hern in today's Guardian: "Misplaced Pages bans five editors from gender-related articles amid gamergate controversy". The article quotes MarkBernstein.

I haven't followed the Gamergate ArbCom case, so I don't know how accurate the article is, but it's making claims that remind me of the gender gap task force decision. Sarah (SV) 16:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on the proposed-decision talk page here. Sarah (SV) 17:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

For anyone looking for the discussion, here is a permanent link. It was first hatted by Euryalus, an Arb, and has now been removed by Callanecc, a clerk. Sarah (SV) 03:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I too have not followed the Gamergate arb case, and to tell you the truth the whole thing confuses me. I just cannot follow all the evidence and arguments and can't tell who the players are without a scorecard. In short, I suspect this case will just cause more confusion.

I don't think we need to question the good faith of the arbs (and I haven't seen much of that type of questioning anyway), but we do need to question whether the ArbCom and the admin system in general have come to embody a type of institutionalized sexism on Misplaced Pages.

I strongly suggest that something be done along the line of a petition to the WMF Board, narrowly focused on asking them to do a very few things, e.g.

• reaffirming their commitment to reducing the gender gap on Misplaced Pages
• take steps to identify and remove institutionalized sexism on Misplaced Pages, and
• specifically, move to prevent incivility and prevent personal attacks against women editors

In the form of a petition it would prevent the endless wrangling of an RfC, coming from individual editors rather than "the community as a whole." Of course, folks who disagree should be given a place to express themselves, e.g. on the talk-page.

I'd consider this to be a major success if only 100 editors signed the petition - that should be easy enough to do.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused about the institutionalised sexism bit. What steps do you think WMF should be considering? Since you seem to be suggesting that ArbCom and the admin corps may embody it, I've got the horrible feeling that this might be a move to achieve some sort of positive discrimination in those bodies in an attempt to achieve gender balance regardless of ability/suitability. And why are the issues of incivility and personal attacks against women editors any different to those against other editors, especially since it seems to me that many, and perhaps most, people seem not to explicitly identify their gender anyway.

Are you talking of an en-WP petition or a meta one? That is, asking the WMF to act globally or just in a small scope? In either case, getting 100 signatures is likely to be so easy that the petition carries no real weight. How many active contributors are there nowadays? WAsn't there recently a petition relating to MediaViewer or some other software change? How many signed up to that? - Sitush (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry - nobody would force you to sign it. You'd even be able to express your opposition to it. Some folks understand the problem, some people don't. This would be focused on the folks who understand the problem and want to do something about it, rather than trying to express the full range of views of the entire community. Please remember that "None is blinder than he who won't see." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not worried. I'm just confused about the point. A petition without a meaningful point is not worth having, and what you describe as the thing to support seems to be so vague as to be worthless. If it makes you feel good then fine but it doesn't seem to be aimed at doing anything in particular on the face of it. That's why I'm querying what the message really is, what you are actually wanting WMF to do in practical terms rather than as some sort of confirmation of a general attitude that is already embedded in ToU, policy etc. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems the point of the petition would be to bring wider attn to the gender gap on wikipedia and also to bring wider attn to the current lack of proactive steps to address it. That being said, all task force members are welcome to take steps with the intention to increase recruitment and retention of female editors, and also to take steps to address the problem that topics related to women are under-represented on WP due to systemic bias. Sitush, despite your prolific participation on task force talk page, I cannot immediately recall ever seeing you take such steps, but you are more than welcome to so so. However, I would like to politely ask that you please do not continue to participate on this talk page only in a capacity that seems interested in hindering the efforts of others. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Not hindering but rather finessing. Too many proposals here seem to be an excess of gung-ho over substance, too much "we should do something" and not enough "is this one actually going to achieve anything". Think, then act (or perhaps "engage brain, then mouth", as my mother would say). We want to recruit and retain, so we should find out why we seem to be failing to do that, not wafting vaguely at things. Some big PR/re-affirmation exercise is not going to attract new people of the sort that we need: it might attract a few dyed-in-the-wool people with POV tendencies but sending out a message that WP might have a problem and no solution is counter-productive, certainly at the recruitment phase. That some here seem unable to appreciate the constructive nature of my comments speaks volumes, I'm afraid. I am not opposed to any efforts that might meaningfully cause a reduction in the gap, although I do harbour doubts that it will ever get to 50:50 for reasons that have nothing to do with the environment itself. And, yes, I have suggested what should be done, so presumably either your memory is faulty or you simply missed it. - Sitush (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Just what does the ArbCom vote have to do with any kind of "gender gap" or "systematic bias" on Misplaced Pages? As it happens, the GamerGate controversy article has some pretty serious NPOV concerns, and several active editors who have been POV-pushing and edit warring to push the article toward a more strident anti-GG tone. So just because an article that follows Misplaced Pages's rules on neutrality and accurate sourcing might not reflect the tone of an article in Jezebel or The Mary Sue, this is suddenly evidence of "gender bias"? And Wikimedia Foundation needs to be called in to push the article toward a more "feminist" editorial line? The mindset at work here is wrong on so many levels, I hardly know where to begin.

The Guardian article is nothing less than pure bullshit, and a pretty blatant attempt at off-WP canvassing. As it stands, there is no attempt to push the article in a "pro-Gamergate" direction. There's only a very heated battle over what NPOV and citing from reliable sources actually mandate with regard to this article. As I see it, the division is between those who want the article as neutral as possible given the nature of current reliable sources (and considering overwhelmingly negative media slant on GG, the article will probably lean at least a bit anti-GG, just given the nature of reliable sources), versus those who want to see the article to take on the tone of full-throated condemnation of GamerGate. The ArbCom consensus seems to be moving toward moderation of the latter tendency, but that's pretty far from creating a "pro-GamerGate" article or "purging feminist editors". Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Smallbones, I agree that the petition seems like a reasonable step. More exposure to the issue of the gender gap, and also more attention to the current lack of proactive steps to address the gender gap, certainly sounds like a step in the right direction.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I would sign such a petition. Lightbreather (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

But can you, or Sarah, or ... write it up?! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Smallbones, thanks for suggesting this. I have no idea how the Board of Trustees would regard something like that, but it's definitely worth a try, because Wikipedians aren't going to solve this alone. Perhaps we could give some thought to how to word it. Sarah (SV) 19:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I should not be the one to present such a petition because there are a number of editors on Misplaced Pages who misunderstand my efforts to improve civility and to support women editors. That is clear from the response to the few proposals I've made on these subjects. I think it would be great if the petition were co-sponsored by two highly respected and productive editors, or better yet (IMO) admins: one man and one woman. However, I would love to sign such a petition. Lightbreather (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

New anti-harassment website

Crash Override, an Online Anti-Harassment Task Force, founded by Zoe Quinn and Alex Lifschitz http://www.crashoverridenetwork.com/ Guardian article describing it here. Sarah (SV) 22:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Love it! Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a really good idea, because they now have all the expertise (hard won, unfortunately). Sarah (SV) 22:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Do we know what the main problems are?

I kind of felt bad that one of my first contributions was a rather negative rant so, here is an attempt to be more constructive. I'm new so if this has been dealt with already I apologize and please just point me to the info. I'm an engineer and one of the first things I learned is that you can't solve a problem if you don't really understand it and often the sort of "common sense" understanding that people assume turns out to be very far from the truth. In my case it was software development and research (which I considered a total waste of time when I heard it was being done) that demonstrated the things I and most people thought were big problems (e.g., how to write code better and faster) weren't the big problems at all (the real problems were communication between business and tech people). So I was wondering do we have any idea WHY there is a gender gap? For example, is it because the same number of women as men start out as editors but more women leave or is it because we just don't get as many women to even try? And when women do leave do we know why? It seems to me that knowing that kind of info might be a big step toward devising appropriate solutions and stopping us from wasting time on things that may seem rational but not really matter. Have surveys been done? Do we have detailed statistics on men vs women retention, etc? BTW, I have noticed some reports in parts of the project space and I'm starting to go through them but thought it wouldn't hurt to ask in case there is a nice executive summary overview someone can point me to. Also, just FYI, I usually reply pretty quickly to messages but starting tomorrow I will be out of commission for a few days. Not doing anything fun alas. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Search the archives, I guess. This issue, and your logical approach to it, has been raised umpteen times by various people, including me. "Proper" scientific (cf: emotional/kneejerk) suggestions have also been mooted and suggestions have been made regarding funding it through the WMF. The problem is that such things seems to get shut down every time, either via over-hasty archiving, often involving an admin who should know better, or by what has the appearance of being a meatpuppetry exercise whereby anyone who challenges or proposes something that might actually move things forward is not "of the faith" and should be ignored. Instead, daft proposals such as vague petitions to the WMF take to the fore. It is farcical, when we are all working to the same end. I really do not understand what the hell is going on but I do know that the current apparently accepted approach will achieve sod all. All that is happening is a lot of cheerleading and no action. It makes the entire project look silly, directionless and WP:NOTHERE. The mailing list is not much better but does occasionally rise above poking the bear etc. The last thing that an anti-faction group should do is behave like the worst sort of faction. - Sitush (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Go to the main project page and click on the Media and Resources tabs. As for everything Sitush said, of course he's entitled to his opinion, but it's just that. He often writes as if he speaks for the project, but he does not. There are hardly any women - the subject of the gender gap - participating here anymore. Lightbreather (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• A perfectly reasonable question from a new participant. For a briefer intro than the media and resources pages mentioned above there is a Gender Gap page. You'll find that some of the data you seek is being assembled in a government study and in a project called Women and Misplaced Pages. This bit of information about Latina editors is also worth looking at, as are the comments on this post. This list of prudent safety measures for women on Misplaced Pages suggests that participation in open online communities without moderation or enforcement of user conduct standards may be a risky business. Despite the non discrimination policy of WMF (the San Francisco-based organization hosting the website), some Misplaced Pages community members actively oppose maintaining US standards on workplace sexual harassment (as indicated in this thread on thoughts on editor retention and women), and are unreceptive to women seeking to spend their volunteer time in a civilized atmosphere. A question that remains unresolved for both male and female editors is how to implement effective processes to prevent harassment of online contributors. Since there's no control group in which neither male nor female editors are harassed, it can't be conclusively proven that harassment has a disparate impact on male, female, or other-gendered editors.

MadScientistX11, as a person coming to this with a fresh set of eyes, if you are able to synthesize the information you find into an executive summary of some sort, that would be a significant contribution! --Djembayz (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Excellent answer, Djembayz. Lightbreather (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Djembayz, I agree with Lightbreather that was a great response thanks. I had some fairly major surgery on my spine on monday so I'm not going to be at full strength for a while but just wanted to acknowledge the response and say I will check out the refs you left above and if I think I can create some exec summary that would be of value I will take a shot. I like writing things like that actually, looking over what other people have said and trying to distill out the most important points, of course a lot of what we do here on articles is like that anyway. There is also a new project on mentoring that I'm involved in and I've mentioned this project to the mentoring leader. Perhaps there could be some synergy there. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Emma Sulkowicz (creator of Mattress Performance: Carry That Weight)

I noticed the task force created article: Women's rights in 2014 contains mention of Emma Sulkowicz. Perhaps someone familiar with Sulkowicz and her project can look over her wiki page for accuracy. For example, the current article stresses Sulkowicz never went to the police, which I think is inaccurate. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I created a stub for Families Advocating for Campus Equality (FACE), which was mentioned in the Emma Sulkowicz article and seemed notable and also a redlink for Campus Safety and Accountability Act which was introduced by Senator Kristen Gillibrand. Sharing this here in case anyone has the time or interest in improving or creating these articles.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I found a few promising sources for Campus Safety and Accountability Act, but I'll probably need some help with creating a stub because I'm not familiar with writing about legislation. How do you think this should this be described in the lead? Should it be called "proposed legislation"?

http://time.com/3058840/campus-sexual-assault-bipartisan-bill-aims-to-reform-the-investigation-process/

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/news/state_national_international/article_5f7447a8-181b-11e4-bb1b-001a4bcf6878.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/30/sexual-assault-campus-mccaskill-colleges-universities/13328939/

--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@BoboMeowCat: I think "proposed legislation" would be correct. I've looked at a few sources but haven't found anything that explains what stage it is at. Sarah (SV) 04:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I created a stub for Campus Safety and Accountability Act. The article could use additional sources and the existing sources could be expanded, if anyone has the time or interest. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

"How Misplaced Pages Articles Are Biased Against Women"

Interesting new article mentioned by Gamaliel on the GG mailing list – "Computational Linguistics Reveals How Misplaced Pages Articles Are Biased Against Women", MIT Technology Review, 2 February 2015:

... rticles about women tend to emphasize the fact that they are about a woman by overusing words like “woman,” “female,” or “lady” while articles about men tend not to contain words like “man,” “masculine,” or “gentleman.” Words like “married,” “divorced,” “children,” or “family” are also much more frequently used in articles about women, they say.

The team thinks this kind of bias is evidence for the practice among Misplaced Pages editors of considering maleness as the “null gender.”

A more positive finding was that "women on Misplaced Pages are covered well" in the six Misplaced Pages language editions the researchers looked at, compared with the coverage in three other databases. Sarah (SV) 01:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I have not read the article, although I saw the note on the mailing list. My suspicion is that it is true, and that part of the reason it is true is because women like to emphasise things that women do. We have a host of specific projects that actually encourage that - scientists, authors etc - and thus to some degree encourage the ghettoisation. What we would really need is some sort of analysis of who contributed what to those articles, in terms of their gender. And, yet again, that would require spending money and somehow discounting the people who do not self-identify or who might be deliberately choosing to obfuscate. - Sitush (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this article helps Misplaced Pages at all, it may have been done by a respected group of people but women exhibit different levels of sensitivity as do all humans. By pointing out defects in the articles I can picture people going "Oh yeah there is that too" to tack things on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi KK, not sure what you mean about different levels of sensitivity. The study pointed to structural and lexical gender biases, namely that women subjects tend to be discussed in terms of other people, particularly men (daughter/wife/mother/girlfriend of X). I wish I could remember which biography this was, but I recall one where the first sentence said that the subject was the wife of a notable person and the daughter of another. Then it told us why she was notable. The former title Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) is a notorious example of this kind of bias.

The difference in the way men and women are represented suggests that women might be discriminated against in search rankings, the researchers say, because search algorithms use structural and lexical information from Misplaced Pages. They offer this advice: "To reduce such effects, the editor community could pay particular attention to the gender balance of links included in articles about men and women, and could adopt a more gender-balanced vocabulary when writing articles about notable people."

Sarah (SV) 18:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Sarah, your reference to that Sarah Brown title reminded me of the lead sentence of the Calamity Jane article, which says she was "known for her claim of being an acquaintance of Wild Bill Hickok" among other interesting but questionably lead-worthy things. Lightbreather (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, that's a good example. Sarah (SV) 20:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The whole lead is three sentences, and these are the second and third:

She is said to have also exhibited kindness and compassion, especially to the sick and needy. This contrast helped to make her a famous frontier figure.

This is mentioned nowhere else in the article. So what's the lead? She claimed to know Wild Bill Hickok, and she was kind and compassionate. Ugh! Lightbreather (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The Calamity Jane article is nothing more than another example of a poorly written article about a very difficult subject - a figure from the Wild West in which fact and fancy have become so intertwined that it is now hard to tell which is which. In fact, it was hard to tell even while she was alive since she and others just made most of it up. So that she knew Wild Bill is certainly something that should be in the lead - she's buried right next to him in Dead Wood, SD. It's part of her claim to fame. I think that the both of you should read the lead of the Billy the Kid article. You guys would hit the roof if "The Kid" were a woman rather than a man. Gandydancer (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

This looks like a good book if anyone is ever interested in expanding it (currently used only once in the article): James D. McLaird, Calamity Jane: The Woman and the Legend, University of Oklahoma Press, 2012. Sarah (SV) 00:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Bonnie Tiburzi

Jodi.a.schneider has asked for help on the GG mailing list with Draft:Bonnie Tiburzi, article about the first female pilot for a major commercial airline in the United States. Bonnie Tiburzi is currently a redirect. Sarah (SV) 18:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

NSF study

Moved post referring to National Science Foundation study from project main page:

Are there any connections between our group and these researchers? Should there be? Would anyone object if I reached out to them just to let them know about this group and that we are available to help if they can use it? I wouldn't represent myself as a spokesperson for the group or anything. BTW, I have a lot of experience working with agencies that sponsor government research. Although, my experience probably is mostly not relevant, it was working for agencies like NIST, DARPA, and the USAF on computer science research (no weapons research, it was general AI and software engineering). Still, the fact that I kind of speak that language might help, to some extent all government research has similar issues, e.g., how to present complex ideas in ways that the suits can understand. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

MadScientistX11, sure, if you think it would be helpful, by all means let them know, and thanks for offering to do it. Sarah (SV) 21:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Less obvious articles

Has the project made any attempts to identify topics that aren't about women's biographies, biology of women, feminism and women's studies? I'm thinking about cultural practices, social niches, hobbies, sports, games, books, etc., etc., etc., that are particularly popular among women or associated with women. As a history buff, I'm thinking this would be an important strategy to pursue since individual women in history tend not to leave that many traces in sources.

Peter 14:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. I've often thought of tackling Sati (practice) because it looks like it could use some re-organisation etc but I've always shied from it for fear of unwittingly causing some sort of cultural offence. - Sitush (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly about women's history, but I'm also thinking of much more general articles. Just off the top of my head, I'm thinking about stuff like sewing or parenting. And before anyone accuses me of assigning traditional roles to women, this is exactly the topics that tend to be underrepresented. And they happen to have been female domains throughout history, and in many ways stile are.

The articles we suggest seems like they're mostly chosen from activist's perspective. That's certainly a type of editor we should appeal to, but I'm assuming that not all women editors of the future are going to be activists. So what are their interests, hobbies, passions, etc? To make a somewhat provocative example, if there are more female Wikipedians interested in improving Twilight and New Kids on the Block than Virginia Woolf, why not attempt to tap that resource?

Peter 14:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. I was picking up on your comment about the cultural things, of which Sati is certainly one. Slim may have the thing to hand but I can dig it out if not: earlier this week I think it was The Guardian, of which she is fond of quoting, reported on recent figures for UK university entry, relating to the 2014 cohort. They demonstrated that quite substantially more women than men had begun a UK university course in the year but also, IIRC, that the numbers were very significantly skewed as to what (hate to say it) are considered "traditional" roles. (There is a massive vocational skew for things such as nursing, btw). Despite a lot of pushing since the days of Margaret Thatcher, the ratio of men to women was massively on the male side when it came to engineering and science courses and massively on the women's side when it came to nursing, teaching etc. So, I suppose, like it or not, your point about sewing and parenting probably still has actual merit even though many would like to see it gone.

I doubt that you will get many takers here, though, because this seems primarily to be a political forum rather than a content-based one: content appears to be a secondary goal, although the hope is that content bias will improve by reducing the alleged severity of the gap. - Sitush (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Gender gap in university admissions rises to record level. It seems a bit different to the paper version that I read, so I'll dig around my recycling bin for that. - Sitush (talk) 08:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• I would chime in that medical issues that affect women may also be under-represented on the project. This came up back in September, when it was noted we had no article on back labor, which I then started (and others improved). Considering about 30% of women have back labor during labor, I found it crazy that we had no article on it (especially considering we seem to have articles on every possible thing that could go wrong to a penis, and have for many years.)--Milowent • 14:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Whether this project is political or not, it has plenty of open tasks related to content. Is there no interest in expanding this beyond women's biographies and explicitly feminist topics?

Peter 14:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Peter , please feel free to post a link to an article related to women, yet outside the realm of biographies and feminist topics that you believe needs improvement and attention from this project, specifying your concerns. There's a good chance if you do that, task force members will assist you in improving the article. FYI, Sitush does not speak for WP:GGTF and you may actually find that threads dominated by him get less than average attn because it appears many members have become frustrated by lack of positive contributions to project and ongoing criticism. This project is actually highly content based. Your suggestions are not at all unreasonable, so if you'd like to assist GGTF please don't let detractor discourage your efforts. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

My gut feeling is "no" at the present time but I'll happily be proved wrong. There are many women - probably indeed a majority - who have no interest in this project, often seemingly because it has a political bent. It may not be the best venue to achieve progress in the way you desire although, yes, improving the coverage of what I'll loosely term gender-related content is one of the ultimate goals. FWIW, I think biographies feature among the most numerous and popular articles, regardless of gender and what happens here may just be mirroring that trend. - Sitush (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this amendment by BoboMeowCat, I'm surprised to see the notion that anyone speaks for this project: that is not how Misplaced Pages works generally, although I think the military history project has co-ordinators. I've just taken another look at the lists to which Peter Isotalo linked and, woah!, that is one long, outdated mess that maybe could do with a co-ordinator or two. For example, Beekeeping is listed there but the comment doesn't seem to match the current state of the article at all. Does anyone object to me removing it? - Sitush (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Struck some of that - the beekeeping thing is not in the women's section. My apologies. - Sitush (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm simply going by what drives me to write article content: Stuff I Happen to Find Interesting (SIHFI). SIHFI is seldom political even if I consider myself to be a fairly political person. But no matter how much I would like to will myself to write more about, say, queer theory, it still hasn't fascinated me as much as describing galleys and medieval cuisine. And whether biographies are popular or not, they're still just one aspect of what we do.

I'm going to look around for suitable non-obvious topics. I'll notify the task force here when I do.

Peter 15:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Milowent, I suspect that you are right, although medical articles are particularly tricky to write because of WP:MEDRS etc - that scares the life out of me! I've just taken a look at Diverticulitis, which I'd always thought was much more common in women than in men. I can't spot where our article says that, so either I've missed it, I am wrong or the article could use a well-sourced tweak. - Sitush (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I am wrong - see this, although I've no idea if it is reliable or not. - Sitush (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a very good point, Milowent. If anyone is worried about the technicalities of medicine, perhaps WP:MED can help out. Maybe even the indomitable Doc James might be recruited. :-)

Peter 15:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Latest on the Kaffeeklatsch test area

The MfD for the Kaffeeklatsch was closed with the result page kept, and this notice re the WMF non discrimination policy was put on my page by Harej. (Thanks, Harej.)

I don't know how the proposed WikiProject Women at the IdeaLab will fare, but one step at a time, I guess. Lightbreather (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Congrats on having it kept, Lightbreather. Sarah (SV) 01:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it cuts down at least 90% of the objections. Lightbreather (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it was ever in doubt. Anyone who was trying to cite WMF non-discrimination was bound to fail and that is pretty obvious if you can actually read. It doesn't necessarily mean it is a good idea and I am narked that LB has just pinged me in some sort of gravedancing mode when I never even commented at the MfD. I look forward to seeing the outcome of the next batch of invitations but, please, let's have some decorum and not feed the trolls. As I said recently in an earlier thread here, behaving like a faction when your intention is to oppose a faction is probably not a great idea: rise above it. - Sitush (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent why I pinged you. You linked to a Kaffeeklatsch discussion in a comment you made in that discussion, so when I learned that the MfD result was "page kept," I pinged you and the three other people in that conversation who mentioned the klatsch. That's all. Lightbreather (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

And "gravedancing mode"? That was unnecessary. Lightbreather (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

What was unnecessary was the ping. For future reference, I have ARCA and this page watchlisted. - Sitush (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone help?

There was an obvious gap so a went ahead and created a bit of a place-holder at Feminism in Taiwan. Anyone with a spare 5 minutes is encouraged to help out! Cheers, St★lwart 05:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Women who have no interest in GGTF

Re this statement that was made in a previous discussion:

There are many women - probably indeed a majority - who have no interest in this project, often seemingly because it has a political bent.

A handful of editors who have commented on this discussion page have repeatedly questioned whether or not there is a gender gap, and they often ask for evidence. Evidence has been provided again and again, and can be found on this project's Media and Resources list.

The editor who made the "There are many women" statement above makes this statement regularly, without providing evidence. Although I believe he could provide evidence of some women expressing why they have no interest in this project, he cannot claim that "many" have no interest in it. As far as I know, no surveys have been done re why women Misplaced Pages editors are or aren't interested in this project, or why women do or don't participate. (There are some women on the list of participants.)

As for GGTF politics, there are at least two camps: one agrees that there are a gender gap and sexism on Misplaced Pages, another says there might be a gender gap (they're unconvinced) and they're pretty sure, if not certain, that sexism isn't a problem. I'll leave it to the reader to decide how that effects the groups ability to productively discuss, and especially to act upon, ideas that might help close the gap or to decrease sexism. Lightbreather (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I've not seen anyone say that there is no gender gap, although there has been much debate regarding the extent of it. The evidence for my comment, which was carefully worded, is based on replies to threads in which you personally have generally had some involvement. I've not canvassed for opinion but you are aware from your own canvassing and invitations etc that the political aspect crops up quite frequently. I don't think it fair to link to diffs of all the occasions when I have seen this, mainly because it drags the unwilling into the debate. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)