| Revision as of 01:00, 29 June 2014 editSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits →Categorization needs own subpage??← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:42, 17 March 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,063 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/Archive 13) (bot | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Template:WikiProject CSB/Gender gap task force/Tab header}} | |||
| {{shortcut|WT:GBTF}} | |||
| {{Gender gap task force/Talk header}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader |
|archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = |
|maxarchivesize = 150K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 13 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| |minthreadsleft |
|minthreadsleft=3 | ||
| |algo = old( |
|algo = old(30d) | ||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender |
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{archives| |
{{archives | style=background-color:lavender; border-color: #aaa |auto=yes |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=60 |units=days | | ||
| <center>'''By topic'''</center> | |||
| *] | |||
| == Attribution for borrowed text from WP:BIAS == | |||
| *] | |||
| }} | |||
| {{copied|from=Misplaced Pages:Systemic bias|from_oldid=552290486|to=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender bias task force|to_diff=554075507|to_oldid=554064595|date=04:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)}} <span style='font:1em"Avenir";background:#CCF;padding:2px 4px'>] ] ]</span> 07:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| == Category list == | |||
| I started a category list ] - I am hoping to put categories here that need to be de-ghettoized, so members of the task force can start chipping away at them if interested. I also added an algorithm for correct categorization without ghettoization that I think will work and is relatively simply to apply - please read and provide feedback. If you think this should all be moved somewhere else, like a sub-page, that is fine too - just let me know. thanks! --] (]) 02:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for posting that, and this is a good place for it. I'm not sure I follow what's needed, mind you. Whenever I've tried to work with categories, I've mostly been beaten back. :) ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ok - plz read through the algorithm, and let me know if it makes sense - otherwise, let's fix the description until it does make sense. The only way this ghettoization will stop is if people understand how to categorize without ghettoizing. I realized I'd been doing it the wrong way all along - first putting people in the most-specific-ethnic/gender cats, then trying to de-ghettoize up the tree, but that is a bad approach - it's much easier to basically classify them multiple times, each time adding more and more facets - that way, you start with a fully de-ghettoized/generic person, and then you're just adding facets along the way, so if you screw up, the result is less specific than it should be (which is ok), instead of ghettoizing (which is not). It's just harder, as you have to initially think of the person as not having any of the facets that they have. Also, on another note, I hope you'll consider my randomization solution for the vegetarians page. cheers! --] (]) 02:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Has there been some sort of more detailed discussion about 'ghettoization' somewhere? Just curious. ] (]) 20:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::check the NY Times, Huffington Post, NY Review of books, etc... --] (]) 20:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You're saying the press have told Misplaced Pages to 'de-ghettoize'? ] (]) 20:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::In effect, yes. (see the top of ] for a representative list of media coverage). Unfortunately, the press has focused mostly on women being moved from {{cl|American novelists}} to {{cl|American women novelists}} - now that that's fixed, the press is likely (hopefully?) going to go away. But the problem is not solved, not even by a long-shot. There are probably 10s of thousands of bios of women, men, african americans, LGBT people, or whatever else, that are "ghettozied", eg present in a gendered/ethnic category but not also present in a generic category of the same type. Whether you consider this situation "sexism" or "racism" or not (which, for the record, I don't really, I just see it as laziness and the result of a generally broken category system -]), our guidance says this is wrong, so it's really a question of following that guidance (and, potentially, refining that guidance). The problem is, fixing these bios one by one takes a lot of time, and it's rather hard, as you'll see if you take my ]. | |||
| ::::::Another (simpler) approach I've been taking is spotting and trying to kill categories which by their nature ghettoize, and which are in violation of ] (which says you should never have ethnicity/gender/etc as the last-rung in a category tree), but I've had mixed success so far - there are far fewer participants in CFD than on April 24th, and some people are arguing to keep categories which are clearly on contravention of our guidelines - take a look here and give your thoughts if you like ],],],],],],],],],],],],],],],],]--] (]) 21:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Great, that makes it a lot clearer, thanks! ] (]) 21:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===American women painters=== | |||
| I've made a start on ]. ] (]) 14:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Women mayors=== | |||
| Having had a look in ] the 'ghettoization' problem seems to be minimal. Of all the random entries I've looked at in ] and ], for example, they seem to be in a general mayoral category too. Minor problem? ] (]) 15:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :When I looked at several other countries they seemed to be ghettoized, but I may not have looked carefully enough. In any case, I think we're now actually close on a category intersection solution that make all of this deghettoization work not worth it anymore, so I'm going to focus on that for now.--] (]) 15:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===English comedians=== | |||
| I've noticed an editor starting to '' ] and ]. I've on their Talk page. ] (]) 16:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :See ] for my response. Apologies for any inconvenience. ] (]) 16:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == WikiProject Gender Studies CSGB == | |||
| I happened upon ] recently, which was the interest for this TF but in 2008, now preserved for (our) historical interest. Has some useful ideas worth considering. <span style='font:1em"Avenir";background:#CCF;padding:2px 4px'>] ] ]</span> 06:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == "Proposed change: consistency in article title gendering" == | |||
| ] In response to the ], there is a ] for your consideration. <span style='font:1em"Avenir";background:#CCF;padding:2px 4px'>] ] ]</span> 02:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Proposal== | |||
| I wish to draw group members' attention to the current AfD on ]. A number of male editors are asking for article deletion, and failing that, have proposed (and then initiated, even during AfD proceedings) to a 56.9% reduction in article content including removal of some 3 references in a ] dominated country. The latest proposal is a article move to ] as if anybody is claiming that women are currently in positions of power, political, corporate or economical, in SK. The problem is unfortunately complicated by the South Korean media pratice of requiring junior reporters to serve as gofers for politicians for 2-3 years before they are permitted to question them--something noted in ]'s work in Japan and Korea--resulting in SK and J mass media often parroting government announcements and major scandals such as the recent Korean diplomatic affair being broken by 'citizen media.' US-based editors are claiming, "the mainstream media denies there is a problem, ''ergo'' there is no problem, delete on sight," but that is applying US media standards to a closed country. | |||
| Part II of the problem is that I ultimately hope to create ] entry, which is an entry dealing with a totalitarian, Communist nation with an entire state-controlled media. Upon entry creation, once again, of course, we will have US-based editors claiming, "Look! The Communist Youth Daily claims there is no gender bias in China!", and the whole cycle of AfDs and RfCs and RfAs will start again, with most WP editors staying on their sidelines to keep their discipline records clean. Further, there is a known vocal and well-organized group of Chinese nationalist editors here on WP, so, ironically, we will inevitably see a common cause alliance of convenience between the US techs and the Chinese nationalists. | |||
| As I noted on the AfD for Sexism in South Korea, there are over 500 mainspace articles fitting the pattern 'Racism in ' and it's time we deal with the well-known and decades-long gender bias issue here on WP. ] is just a first and necessary step. ] will be a nightmare but ultimately a progressive step. ] with its article start as a long screed against discrimination against ''men'' in India (a country which burned widows and demands bridal dowrys, that continually engages in ]) defies even outrage. It's ] or ], of course, that will ultimately decide whether we're all running terrified like rabbits or commited to WP core values.-] (]) 05:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :You didn't cite "citizen media" for ] - you cited a Blogspot, an American online celebrity tabloid and a pornographic site. I have no objection to a well-sourced, encyclopedic article on ], which is, no doubt, a real thing. I do have an objection to an obviously-POV, highly-polemic and terribly-sourced essay in the encyclopedia. | |||
| :Note that the ] page is chock-full of reliable sources, including newspapers, academic studies, books and other media which can be relied on to provide even-handed, accurate information. That is why '''nobody''' is attempting to argue against that page or to delete it. It is perfectly encyclopedic. | |||
| :I have attempted to explain ] to you on the article Talk page, and I am willing to work with you to improve the article. But it starts with finding reliable sources. ] (]) 07:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Avoiding sexist bias in writing == | |||
| APA style could help this project . I'm more convinced about the utility of this project given this editor's recent changes from "humanity" to "mankind"/"man" ] (]) 21:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Just noticed the already existing ]. ] (]) 22:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Deghettoization algorithm == | |||
| I'm not sure I understand the algorithm. Why should Sue be in ] but not in ]? --] (]) 18:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Because she's in several diffusing subcats of American writers - such as {{cl|Writers from Chicago, Illinois}} and {{cl|21st-century American writers}}. American writers right now is a mess, and the general way in which people are diffused out of it, and into which subcats, is not really resolved, so you're also seeing greater confusion in the tree as it stands right now. If you look at {{cl|American politicians}} that's a bit of a better example, as that tree has been fully diffused already. --] (]) 18:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: But isn't she similarly in several diffusing subcats of American poets? Specifically ], ], and, of course, ]? What makes the difference? --] (]) 18:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Welcome to the world of non-diffusing categories. All of those cats, since they are gender/ethnic cats, are non-diffusing - which means, membership in them should not preclude membership in the parent. The trick is, what if the parent is fully diffused? {{cl|American politicians}} is again an example - just because you're in {{cl|African-American politicians}} doesn't mean you bubble up to {{cl|American politicians}} - or you can think, ok, we do bubble up, but then we get diffused afterwards, say to a state-specific category for example. When you intersect multiple non-diffusing facets, like African-American + women, then you need to bubble up to all of the adjectives individually, in a way - that's why she's in so many poets cats. Tricky, right? What are the chances that your average editor will get this right? OTOH, if these gendered/ethnic/sexuality cats '''aren't''' non-diffusing, then NY times articles get written. Quite the catch-22 if you ask me...] comes to mind... --] (]) 20:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Where, in Azathoth's name, is this unspeakable nightmare explained? Please link to it prominently in the algorithm section. I can't believe I'm the only one that would be confused by this. --] (]) 22:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No - in fact, most people are, so what they do is, they just diffuse. It's easier. And then, NY times articles get written. The basics are laid out in ] (around non-diffusing, but it's poorly explained), and some in ] - but the specifics of the non-sexist/non-racist algorithm I laid out have not, IMHO, been elaborated before in such detail - which is why I developed that in the first place - to illustrate how hard it actually is. But that's an extreme example - I've just been deghettoizing the "women mathematicians" tree, it wasn't that bad, probably took me an hour to do 30 bios or so. --] (]) 22:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC on title of ] == | |||
| Hi, there is an RM/RfC that may be of interest to this project. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| ] was the Mexican farmworker girlfriend who inspired one of ]'s characters, and the subject of a film and an upcoming fictional biography. ] (]) 00:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Gendered sports teams RFC == | |||
| There's a Request For Comment at ] which participants here may be interested in. ] (]) 01:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Deletion discussion in progress == | |||
| ] X] (]) 18:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == "Merging" (aka Deleting) categories == | |||
| There is a discussion on merging ], ] and ] into ] which would, in fact, lead to their deletion. If you would like to weigh in on the conversation (pro or con), go to ]. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 21:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Categories again == | |||
| Obi, I would like to try to revive this project a little, with others, if possible, which is why I'm tidying the main page. The categories issue is a very particular interest, and in addition there are concerns that it may not be the best approach. That's why I removed some of the detail. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::By particular interest, do you mean there was a massive media sh*tstorm the last time we did categorization incorrectly? I hardly think it's minor, and would love this project to continue to be involved in that. What "concerns" are there?--] (]) 07:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, Slim, for taking this on. I agree with your truncated version. ] (]) 17:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Which 'truncated version' are we talking about? The complete removal of the de-ghettoization information? That's not truncated, but complete removal! Surely it's a perfectly reasonable activity for this Project, to de-ghettoize categories? What has changed that makes de-ghettoization incorrect? Considering neither of the removers are members of the Project, what right do they have to dictate the Project's goals? Mind you, I took my name off the project too earlier this year, for completely different reasons, though I spent many weeks on the de-ghettoization task. ] (]) 17:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::yes, Bobo and jps are involved in a vicious content battle with me about the {{cl|Violence against men}} category which jps wants to delete. The deghettoization instructions being summarily deleted here without discussion or explanation are just collateral damage from that. Id suggest to those removing this information that the ghettoization of categories was the subject of weeks of media coverage about wikipedia's systemic gender bias, indeed if you were to write an article on that bias, the categories story would be story #1. As such removing the instructions used to deghettoize categories and summarily deciding that categories are no longer part of this project is ignoring the wider reality in which we sit and the reason this very project exists.--] (]) 18:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::For the record, I'm not involved in any content dispute with you at {{cl|Violence against men}} (or anywhere else), so I'd appreciate it if you would retract that. My concern is just that it takes up a lot of the page, it seems to be contentious, and it's unlikely that women coming here will want to focus on it. Perhaps we could link on the page to where it's described elsewhere, though I'm still concerned in case it's not a standard approach. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::fixed, I didn't mean you of course. Slim, how exactly does it take up a lot of the page? The instructions are actually collapsed, so they take up no room at all. Also, this page is not just for women editors, I hope you can adjust your thinking on that point... And which part, exactly and specifically, do you find to be contentious?--] (]) 19:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Obiwankenobi, I'd describe what is happening more as serious concern regarding one editor making so many unilateral changes to gender related content/categories, absent consensus. To stay on topic here, what's the problem with these categories: | |||
| :::::Category: American women activists (and various subcategories) | |||
| :::::Category: American women comedians | |||
| :::::Category: American women by occupation | |||
| :::::Category: Male feminists | |||
| :::::Category: American women painters (and various subcategories) | |||
| :::::Category: Women mayors | |||
| :::::They appear to be valid useful categories. --] (]) 18:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I personally went through much the contents of ] and the articles in this category is largely okay. However, I've just dipped into ] and picked a couple of articles in the category at random (], ], ]) and none of them are de-ghettoized. In fact they are also in 'Jewish' and 'African-American' categories! So I see no problem in updating the Project's to-do list, but deleting it all in its entirely seems to be simply non-Project members taking out a grievance with Obiwankenobi in the wrong place. ] (]) 18:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I don't see how "de-ghettoizing" these categories serves the task force goals. Could someone please explain. --] (]) 19:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Bobo, if you don't see how it serves the task force goals, then I'd suggest you do some more reading on the Amanda Filipacchi case, all of the articles and accusations of sexism and gender bias at wikipedia as a result of that. And then, you can come back and ask what deghettoization has to do with gender bias here. I have a feeling you don't even know what you were reverting, nor why.--] (]) 19:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::This is a task force related to the under-representation of female editors on Misplaced Pages, and the bias that results from that. Seems "deghettoizing" those categories is not the way to start, and in fact, may even be contrary to task force goals. What exactly do you think needs done to those above mentioned categories to reduce the bias resulting from women being under-represented as wiki editors? --] (]) 19:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::No, Bobo, "The aim of the task force is to identify gender bias on Misplaced Pages – whether in articles, discussions, policies or implementation of policies – and to take steps to counter it". The lack of female editors is perhaps a cause, and a symptom, it's all intertwined, but this project is most certainly about content and not just getting more women editors. Again, if you haven't done any ] (see Filipacchi story) on the history of the deghettoization mess and all of the negative press wikipedia received around that, I'd suggest you stop commenting until you have. Suggesting that deghettoizing the categories is contrary to task force goals means either you don't know what the goals are or you don't know what deghettoization MEANS. I wouldn't be giving you a hard time if (a) you hadn't gotten involved in an edit war that you clearly didn't even understand and (b) you weren't making declarative opinions about the value of this or that while demonstrating that you don't even know what deghettoization means, nor whether or not it is a good thing. If you undo your revert, it would make me much more willing to engage with you, frankly. When I first added this info a year ago, another editor said: "Thanks for posting that, and this is a good place for it. I'm not sure I follow what's needed, mind you. Whenever I've tried to work with categories, I've mostly been beaten back. :" That editor's name? I'll let y'all guess.--] (]). 19:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Interesting, are you suggesting ] on wikipedia, as it relates to gender, refers to bias against male editors? More than 90% of edits on WP are made by male editors, so that's a hard argument to follow. Also, I'm familiar with the Amanda Filipacchi case ] and it seems the issue there would be whether or not adding an article to the category "American woman authors" should necessitate removing author from category "American authors". It seems it should not. PS-the off topic discussion is getting distracting, but to be precise, that's not my quote, and as far as I can see, the only edit warrior was you. I only made one revert, while you made three.--] (]) 20:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::No Bobo, Im suggesting this project is about systemic bias IN the wiki. Women being ghettoized in categories is an excellent example of that bias, and that's not just me talking, that's dozens of outside reliable sources who made the same claim. You joined into the middle of an edit war and removed material that you don't even understand. For example, if I told you a category was full of biographies that were ghettoized, should that be fixed? If so, how? You just deleted the instructions. Do you understand what deghettoization means, and how it relates to the Filipacchi case?--] (]) 20:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::If by fixing you mean putting relevant authors into the category "American authors" and in category "American women authors" then yes. However, it is not clear you mean that, and my past experiences with your edits suggests you do not mean that. Also, could you review WP:CIVIL. There's no need to make this personal. --] (]) 20:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::Did you read the instructions that you so callously deleted? Do you have any idea what those instructions had to say about american authors and American women authors? I frankly don't care about your experiences with my past edits, I'm not judging you based on your obvious inexperience here, I'm asking you to read before you start reverting things. Can you try that? Read the instructions, and then come back and start making claims about what I "mean" when I say deghettoization - otherwise you're just casting vicious aspersions with veiled innuendo.--] (]) 21:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::We could just refer people to the guideline: "For anyone interested in categorization, see ] and specifically ]." ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I disagree Slim. This is a project, and the place for a list of things to fix, and instructions for how to fix them, is here. I've also in other conversations pointed people to these deghettoization guidelines, so deleting them without any consensus on talk is overly aggressive and a violation of ].--] (]) 19:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} Obi, I set this project up for women to track and discuss whatever bias they saw on Misplaced Pages, whether in articles, policies, behaviour, etc. It didn't become active, so I decided recently to try to revive or restart it. That's why I edited the page. It's not good to see it overtaken by category talk, which few would want to get deeply involved in, given how aggressive it can become. It's especially not good if a non-mainstream or non-consensus approach is being recommended (and I don't know whether it is). | |||
| I was hoping this could become a safe space for quiet, positive collaboration. It would help a lot if the talk about categories could be taken elsewhere. Lots of people watching this are likely to feel discouraged from jumping in. I know I feel discouraged by it (and I am very used to feeling discouraged on WP!). ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Slim, I'm all for this being a place of collaboration. When new participants who haven't helped here barge in, start making reverts they clearly don't even understand, and refuse to follow ] instead of calmly discussing, yes, I agree that makes things difficult. Why don't you set the bar, restore the material, and then we can have a measured conversation without disruption. You keep on suggesting that the deghettoization of categories is not mainstream or consensus - I wish you'd indicate why you believe that, or what the problems with that are? Most of the conversations that have taken place on this page have been about categorization, so even if it's not something you care deeply about, others here do. Again, I see no reason for you to unilaterally declare a topic off-topic here, in a real collaborative space we would all have the capacity to put forth things which we think are important.--] (]) 20:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Okay, but look, if most of the discussion on this page has been about categories (and still is), and the task force never took off, perhaps there's a connection? | |||
| ::I don't want to rehash discussions taking place elsewhere, but it seems that your approach to categories is contentious. Whether that's fair, I have no idea. I don't understand the anti-ghettoization principle, because sometimes it's fine to have cats about women artists, etc. I don't understand when it's not fine and who is making those decisions. The women novelists category was never the problem; it was not allowing women novelists in the parent category too that was the problem. | |||
| ::But anyway, you seem to be saying that once you add something about it to this page, it has to stay there ... forever? It has been there for over a year, and the only reason I didn't remove it earlier was in case this happened. I was hoping that, after a year, it would be okay to start revamping the page a bit (though I don't yet know how or in which direction), so I hope you'll let that go ahead. | |||
| == Good Article Editathon event in October 2022 == | |||
| ::I can't see any reason not to refer people to ], and just leave it there, because whatever it suggests there is what people should be doing. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="border: 6px solid #2bbf08; background: #FFF; background-color:#FFFFFF; padding: 1ex 1ex 1ex 1.5ex; margin: 0px 0px 1em 1em; font-size: 99%"> | |||
| :::Okay, I see, so two of the editors than are repeatedly removing information and instructions about de-ghettoization don't actually understand de-ghettoization. This definitely sounds like you've had an argument with Obiwankenobi elsewhere and are taking out your frustration on this project. I might have to re-join to defend it! ] (]) 20:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| ::::{{tq|Okay, but look, if most of the discussion on this page has been about categories (and still is), and the task force never took off, perhaps there's a connection?}} Damn, that's a zinger. FWIW, for those playing along, the person who complimented me on putting the categorization instructions here a year ago was none other than SlimVirgin. Oh how times change... In any case, sheesh, suggesting that an area that has attracted the most talk page attention is the CAUSE for the project not taking off is, um, well, interesting. Anyway, Slim, if you want to promote an inclusive atmosphere, let's start by not deleting other editor's contributions to the common good, like the ghettoization algorithm I took a long time to develop - it would be a great sign of your good faith if you reverted your changes pending our discussion here, per ]. It's amazingly ironic that both you and Bobo deleted that, and then it turns out you don't even understand de-ghettoization! Perhaps it needs even more explanation here, rather than less!--] (]) 21:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Hello WikiProject Countering systemic bias: | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| Yeah, that's pretty obvious. I'm surprised that even Slim doesn't understand what de-ghettoization means, so let me make it explicit. Deghettoization is the process of ensuring that a biography is in all relevant non-gendered categories in addition to gendered ones (or ethnic, or sexuality, etc). Thus, the process of deghettoization almost always includes ADDING new categories to an article. Bobo disagrees with me on a few minor categorizations in a rather different domain, and thus they ascribe bad faith to me for my work on deghettoization. | |||
| :A shorter way of putting it is, when the massive shitstorm started by Filipacchi about categorization on wikipedia started, the solution AGREED upon by a vast majority of the editors who participated there was...wait for it... '''deghettoization.''' And Slim, no, I'm not saying once something is there it has to stay forever. I am saying, you are not the executive chair of this board, and if you want it to be an inclusive space the first step would be (1) Don't delete another editor's proposals without discussing and (2) Don't violate BRD on a project page - of all places. I'm also a member of this project Slim, so I hope you accept that my voice is just as important as yours.--] (]) 20:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ''']''' is holding a ''' month-long ]'''!<br /><br /> | |||
| ::I set up the task force with women in mind. I hoped that women could use it to discuss the gender gap. When I saw that other issues were being discussed, I stopped watching the page. Recently there was a discussion about needing a place for women to discuss these issues, so I was thinking of trying to revive this, which includes adding something more inviting to women to the main page, or trying to develop it in that direction (I'm not sure yet). Pinging others who might be interested: {{U|SarahStierch}}, {{U|Kaldari}}, {{U|Carolmooredc}}, {{U|The Vintage Feminist}}, {{U|Gobonobo}}, {{U|Kevin Gorman}}. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Running from October 1 to 31, 2022, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event – Wildcard Edition! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to '''any and all''' women and women's works during the event period. Want to improve an article about a Bollywood actress? Go for it. A pioneering female scientist? Absolutely. An award-winning autobiography by a woman? Yes! GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a special WiG barnstar for their efforts. | |||
| :::Slim, your continued referencing of "women" is unhelpful. You can have off-wiki women-only mailing lists if you like, but especially in a place where many editors don't even declare their gender, attempting to suggest that a space or project or collaboration is primarily for women goes against the aims of the project, and suggests that men can't be part of the solution, it's exclusionary, and I'd suggest you check your language on that point. As to whether "women" are interested in categorization, during the category mess we had women novelists tweeting about it (including famous ones), deep conversations with women academics, librarians, the woman who started the whole thing was, well, a woman, so the suggestion that women wouldn't be interested in fixing the mess of ghettoization is dismissive in the worst way possible, and more importantly, doesn't have any evidence associated with it; I know a number of women who have been active in categorization here. Again, you want to create an inclusive space, but why don't you start by an act of good faith, and restore the content, so we can discuss it, per ]. You are still not responding on that point, which confuses me. Or do you think we don't need to seek consensus on this page, and it's your way or the highway? As I noted earlier, I've pointed other people in other conversations to those instructions, so by summarily deleting them, you are breaking links elsewhere in the wiki.--] (]) 21:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| We hope to see you there! | |||
| ::::Obiwankenobi, “women in mind” doesn't mean women only. The gender gap is a serious issue on Misplaced Pages, which leads to systematic bias. I suspect it would be of particular interest to female editors, but not exclusive interest. Male editors may also be interested in the gender gap on wiki, how the gender gap effects female editors, and what can be done to address it. --] (]) 23:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 01:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)</div> | |||
| ::::::the way her wording was phrased sounded exclusionary. Not acceptable. If that wasn't her intent, then great. Gender bias can be caused by more than just not enough female editors, btw. The task force has clear statement of purpose and that's what I signed up for, aggressively deleting my contributions and making me feel unwelcome is a really terrible idea. You notice that Slim Virgin has refused this far to revert and has ignored the inputs of another member here who found the categorization guidelines useful. What kind of welcoming place is this? If you want to remodel, you don't start by demolition, you stRt with agreed plans and scope, which we don't have here. If you want to create a tea house for women then why not create a special woman's room in the tea house - this is a task force focused on work to address gender bias of any stripe.--] (]) 23:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Okay, I restored the algorithm as you requested. I think it should be moved to a subpage, or perhaps the whole section (after the introductory blurb) can be collapsed as a compromise. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Discussion re: the E. Jean Carroll verdict at ]== | |||
| I suck at all things categories. I just...do... trust me. ] (]) 22:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 15:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)<!-- ] --> | |||
| == Pan IBJJF Jiu-Jitsu No-Gi Championship == | |||
| :Hi Sarah, me too. I didn't ping you re: categories, but because I was thinking of trying to revive this space for some of the things discussed on the gender gap. A safe space for collaboration, a kind of gender-gap teahouse, somewhere warm and positive (fat chance, but worth a try!). Some nice design for the page would be good. Not sure what to write on it. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| If this project is active, then any interested parties can see ], my recent , and the edit I made to the talk page there. I haven't the time to fix this example of gender bias at the moment, but if someone else wants to counter it, then feel free. What better way to subliminally tell women they don't matter than not listing their accomplishments when we do list the males? Many thanks. ] (]) 16:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Categorization needs own subpage??=== | |||
| It looks like there's been several threaded discussions of categories on this topic, a topic which can get very confusing even for those of us who are into it to some extent. To avoid the kind of misunderstandings, conflicts, etc. above, perhaps it needs it's own subpage as part of the countering systematic bias project. And then that can be linked from the main page of this task force with a short note on its purpose and how to help out. | |||
| The talk page here is fairly moribund (at least when compared to something like ]). This despite . It didn't take long to scroll down to reach the deceased ] in the . May God rest her soul. Maybe someone can cross post this to gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org ? What explains the inactivity here? Any thoughts ]? I'm not a cultural expert, but I wonder if there's any waning of ] playing a role. Years ago, there seemed to be such buzz around the topic of "closing the gender gap." Is actually closing the gap just thankless, unpleasant, and never-ending work? Have "]" and/or ] leadership ideologically meandered elsewhere? Or am I just posting at the wrong spot?! ] (]) 16:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Also, a quick wiki search of the phrase ''de-ghettoization/de-ghettozie'' suggests it only has been used a few times, several related to the increasing the number of women. So it might be nice to ask the gender gap task force (including its women) if they even want that phrase to be used. Women are spread throughout society and not stuck in ghettos like racial and ethnic groups so often have been. The issue is making women important enough that individuals are willing to think about categories for them, willing to look for and recognize women who belong in existing categories, willing to put them there. It's about creating and/or ''populating'' categories. A more accurate and less loaded phrase needed. <small>'''] (])</small>''' 00:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I updated the list. Two-thirds of the editors have been on wiki some time during the last year or so. I think this page might have reached the end of its natural usefulness, due to the creation of ]. | |||
| :It's a good idea to give categories its own countering systemic bias subpage. That would allow people to specialize. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :For this particular article, I would ask for help at ]. ] (]) 21:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Many thanks WhatamIdoing! ] (]) 01:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:42, 17 March 2024
| Talk | Members | Media | Gender gap mailing list | WikiWomen's User Group | Related WikiProjects |
- 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 (~~~~).
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13 |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Good Article Editathon event in October 2022
Hello WikiProject Countering systemic bias:
WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Editathon event in October 2022!
Running from October 1 to 31, 2022, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event – Wildcard Edition! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to any and all women and women's works during the event period. Want to improve an article about a Bollywood actress? Go for it. A pioneering female scientist? Absolutely. An award-winning autobiography by a woman? Yes! GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.
We hope to see you there!
Goldsztajn (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Discussion re: the E. Jean Carroll verdict at Talk:Donald Trump
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Donald Trump § Multi-part proposal for content on E. Jean Carroll v. Trump. — Shibbolethink 15:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Pan IBJJF Jiu-Jitsu No-Gi Championship
If this project is active, then any interested parties can see Pan IBJJF Jiu-Jitsu No-Gi Championship, my recent diff, and the edit I made to the talk page there. I haven't the time to fix this example of gender bias at the moment, but if someone else wants to counter it, then feel free. What better way to subliminally tell women they don't matter than not listing their accomplishments when we do list the males? Many thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
The talk page here is fairly moribund (at least when compared to something like WT:MED). This despite 186 members being listed. It didn't take long to scroll down to reach the deceased User:SlimVirgin in the history. May God rest her soul. Maybe someone can cross post this to gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org ? What explains the inactivity here? Any thoughts User:WhatamIdoing? I'm not a cultural expert, but I wonder if there's any waning of identity politics playing a role. Years ago, there seemed to be such buzz around the topic of "closing the gender gap." Is actually closing the gap just thankless, unpleasant, and never-ending work? Have "thought leaders" and/or WP:WMF leadership ideologically meandered elsewhere? Or am I just posting at the wrong spot?! Biosthmors (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- I updated the list. Two-thirds of the editors have been on wiki some time during the last year or so. I think this page might have reached the end of its natural usefulness, due to the creation of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Women in Red.
- For this particular article, I would ask for help at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Martial arts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks WhatamIdoing! Biosthmors (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)