Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:39, 5 May 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

Technical details turn women away

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

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

The idea is this:

Misplaced Pages is HARD

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

There are three categories that make Misplaced Pages hard to write for:

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

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

A more detailed description would be:

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

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

I agree that writing for Misplaced Pages is hard. Much of the work is inherently hard, but some rules and attitudes seem to make it harder than it needs to be. We should strive to identify those rules and attitudes and rewrite or eliminate them, especially if they have a disproportionate effect on women (or any other group of people).

But I strongly disagree that Misplaced Pages has a "requirement to use masculine-only qualities". Writing articles is something that either sex can do equally well. I've never seen any evidence that women are inferior at writing university level research papers. If anything my experience grading these papers points in the other direction, probably because men don't always take grades as seriously.

Perhaps men can be more effective on the talk pages, RfCs, etc. in getting their own way, if they are more willing to break the rules, use sockpuppets, or push inane arguments just to wear down the opposition. In my experience women tend to follow the rules more closely - but who knows if this is a general rule. In any case, our goal should be to eliminate rule-breaking where it is just used for "getting your own way."

BTW, I see that this is your first edit, which suggests that you may be breaking some rules.

In short your argument sounds like "girls like to play with dolls, boys like to edit Misplaced Pages" - total nonsense. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, if I could express myself, I would not be making arguments like that, sorry.

Dryden xx2 (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I will try to put something into words... Sex is special. Moronity supersedes. Willingess is abundant. Laughing stock material often dies a lonely death.

I cannot even express myself in words anymore in poetry, sorry. My bad. But the idea is that I cannot talk about "masculine" qualities like that without first describing that. And I haven't. And I'm also not saying it is only men who have those qualities. I am just saying wikipedia requires more masculinity than femininity. Again, ..though the words may be ..off, what I mean is that... my mind is too much hurt by madness to still be able to speak ;-). WHAT YOU GET if you make systems too much advents of logic and structure is that the intuitive parts become buried in rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dryden xx2 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Yeah, you're mocking me, I get it. — Dryden xx2 (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

(I kinda condensed that paragraph).

I am not well accustomed to these 'guidelines'. Let's say that requirements for writing anything are very high and there is a large focus on rational agreement. This agreement is based on the merit of adhering to fixed "qualities". Qualities that are often rational.

To give you an example then. Verifiability is mentioned at the top of this page. That whole message scares people away. In regular life most people don't care if everything they say is verifiable or not. You go ahead with life and see where it leaves you.

In the scientific realm there are many laymen that claim to be scientific in their thinking when their mode of assessing really precludes scientific exploration. In trying to only follow 'objective' knowledge they preclude the possibility of introducing new facts or new hypotheses. In this sense, adhering too strictly to a certain standard for knowledge can frustrate the pursuit of knowledge.

Writing for an encyclopedia just like reading it is a matter of exploration. Often teaching another is the best way of learning yourself. So teaching must be natural, as is reading. If most of what you do, is spend time on dealing with the consistencies of the system, obviously little time remains to actually write the data or knowledge that you would want to impart or develop.

I am saying that verifiable knowledge, in this case, is something that must happen as a side-effect of joyful writing. Not as a requirement before you start to write.

I know that e.g. the "no bite" guidelines that Smallbones linked to try to alleviate these issues. They are of the nature that they say not to be so strict with newcomers. But it is a bit like speaking to an empty sea. First you empty the sea, and then you say that people who put water into the sea should not be punished so severely. The sea in this case is new life, new blood. You know that your guidelines are scary, and the sentiment that older editors have is scary. And then you say: don't scare them so much, It'll Bite You Too.

Just the fact that these guidelines exist means that they are necessary for dealing with the trouble that other guidelines create??.

And then you might say: it is not the guidelines themselves, but the mentality around them. But to get back on verifiability, because it is a core issue of any objective knowledge creation.

*Sometimes* data that is presented in a truthful manner is more reliable than data that is presented to be true *because*.

I can approach this really from a thousand angles and they are all the same: the feminine. You must allow flexiblity and come-as-you-go-ism to become something that attracts women. There must be less focus on the result and more on the process. Yadda yadda. Said a thousand times before.

*Sometimes* opinion is more reliable than objective fact. *Sometimes* what people say is worth less than what they think. *Sometimes* money is worth more than a thousand children.

Sometimes what I say is worth something, but most usually these days it has very little value.

You must do with it what you want. And it is up to you, not me.

I'll see ya.

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

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

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

If you get a brain seizure in only your left side, you lose all ability to differentiate objects. Completely. At least research or psychological knowledge (I believe the book of Gray, Psychology mentions it) has shown such instances. What you lose is a perspective on reality that implies structure and differentiation. I think you can easily agree that structure and differentiation are an important aspect of scientific or perhaps rather "objective" knowledge if that knowledge is to adhere to standards of objectivity. Lateralization of brain function mentions some of that but as the tag indicates, it is written in a tad bit of a denialist tone. There have seriously been cases of people with a stroke in the left-side that 'paralyzed' their ability to make structural interpretation of sensual data (visual data) that left them unable to perceive objects. This interpetrative aspect is, to my eyes at least, a masculine aspect. Grammar is a masculine aspect. You can term it whatever you want.

But it is pretty clear that many women, or most women, are not attracted to the culture or the sphere of the Misplaced Pages 'background'. Otherwise this discussion would not exist, or this need, or this requirement to become more 'woman' friendly.

But you cannot become more 'woman-friendly' while not also becoming more 'man-friendly'. It is an illusion to think that these things are separate. Any improvement that would draw more women in, in this case, would be an improvement for all. And you do not need to think about women, you only have to think about what your female side would like.

Also, I find most policies and guidelines intuitive, or at least logical.

If that is your opinion, or experience, please also indicate then what you like about them, or come up with an example that you would put up for debate, otherwise it is just a statement of opinion without content. Note though that "logic" and "intuition" are not exactly the same, although ideally they would be or amount to the same thing (if they were integrated with each other like they should).

A woman in a certain sense... belies the fact that... rationality supersedes illogic. (There is this song by Carbon Based Lifeforms in which a line features "Only illogics can find, / Hidden flaws in a straight logic line. / Only erratics recognize, / Errors in patterns of a perfect design."). But the answer lies in between the words.

How many strong arms are needed to lift one finger?

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

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

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

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

Another thought here: My observation is that most people, regardless of gender, would be in agreement with Dryden xx2 that expressive writing, and commentary such as blogging and commenting, is a more relaxing pastime than the discipline of carefully coding, fact-checking, copyediting and referencing encyclopedia articles. We see this phenomenon on Misplaced Pages itself, that many participants are inclined towards expressive writing and interaction-- and in fact more than one editor has called on volunteers commenting here to please stop wasting their time, and return to the core work of article quality improvement. I'm not so sure coding is a gender-specific activity: one recent commentary takes this the other direction, Coding Like a Girl. --Djembayz (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The Gender Gap FAQ isn't saying that coding is an inherently gender-specific activity, but that societal patterns disproportionately discourage women from coding, which fits with the observations in Coding Like A Girl. We could consider adding another factor to that FAQ though: that a bunch of editors have a pattern of undervaluing the important work of talking to other editors on Misplaced Pages (to answer questions, resolve problems, organize things, advise others, and so on), a kind of social collaborative work that may be traditionally considered feminine. :) Dreamyshade (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

While it may be true that fewer women take up technical careers, this doesn't mean that their brains don't function and they couldn't understand wikicode if they chose to learn it. There are plenty of men who don't easily learn technical things; the only difference is that no one attributes this to their gender. There are only a few basic tags that are needed to create a basic Misplaced Pages article; advanced tech skills aren't required. Those who don't want to learn more, because it's "hard", can leave tables, templates, infoboxes, navboxes, etc., to others. The main skills needed to create and encyclopedia are reading and writing, not coding, and I hadn't heard that men are supposed to be better at that. So, ladies, let's get out there and create some content! I could use some help with these: Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Christiane Lemieux Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Mary Millben and Draft:Marlena Kaesler.—Anne Delong (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, women are fully capable of all kinds of technical work! It's useful to recognize though that there are societal patterns related to gender that can influence how much a person feels like choosing to learn technical skills that are important for being a successful editor (such as using reference templates and comparing diffs). Dreamyshade (talk) 03:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• My impression is that the key difference is that women are more risk-averse and so less bold than men. They may also be more conformist. Such traits mean that they do well in a safe, well-ordered environment such as formal education, where they tend to outnumber and out-perform men now. But Misplaced Pages is quite anarchic and is not a normal thing for people to do and so women would have to be especially adventurous to get involved. Such women exist, of course – I was quite impressed when I discovered Barbara Toy today. But they are exceptional. Andrew D. (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Appropos this thread: The Conversation No One Wants To Have: Gender Stereotyping, Forbes (April 16). --Djembayz (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

WP:CANVAS? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not canvassing. There isn't even an RM to canvass people to. I am genuinely concerned about this problem, as I was a year ago. I think that I agree with what Jimbo said above. Do you have an opinion on the problem, or are you here to bicker instead? If editors here believe that my concerns are unfounded, I will happily drop the matter. I simply see what I see. RGloucester — ☎ 15:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not here to 'bicker'. I do however think that it would have been possible to draw attention to the discussion without suggesting that 'a group of editors' were engaging in 'systematic bias', and that it was necessary to 'protect the names of women'. Frankly, I think that the amount of on-Misplaced Pages debate over the title of an article on a woman who has been widely referred to by both alternative names is undue, and that more constructive use of contributors time could be found - and that inflaming the situation by making ridiculous assertions about WP:BLP policy being 'violated' is inflammatory, as well as nonsensical. Sadly, Misplaced Pages seems to encourage such partisan 'bickering' over matters that our readership (for whom we are supposedly creating this encyclopaedia) is unlikely to consider of any particular significance. Regardless of the title, it is self-evident who the biography is about - and the suggestion that it is somehow a 'violation' to use a name (either name) that the subject herself has self-identified by is ridiculous. Misplaced Pages certainly suffers from 'systematic bias' - and one of the biases it suffers from is infantile faction-fighting over matters of little consequence, to the detriment of what actually matters - useful encyclopaedic content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Believe you me, I agree with pretty much everything you just said. I'm not the one initiating move requests, of course. However, given the choice between the two, I believe that the subject's preference should be taken into consideration. What's more, I do genuinely believe that these repeated discussions are rooted in a lack of diversity of perspectives. You can criticise that notion, if you like. RGloucester — ☎ 16:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

If the discussion involves systemic bias or what she would prefer to be called, shouldn't this discussion be at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (people)? --Boson (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Insofar as I'm aware, there is no Misplaced Pages guidance on what to do with women who have made the decision to keep their family name. This is part of the problem. It is upsetting to see people attempt to remove "Rodham" on the grounds that it is insignificant, irrelevant, &c. This strikes me as being not only callous, but also plain wrong. When a woman decides to retain her family name, she's made a conscious decision as such. It is an integral part of her name, not a mere appendage to be discarded. Many of the arguments made in the last discussion consisted of "it is only her maiden name, and doesn't matter". I think it is apparent as to how that argument can be viewed as being rooted in a lack of diverse perspective. What's more, this is how she is called in reliable sources. I do not understand the obsession with stripping this woman of her name. Regardless, whilst I think guidance on this matter would be useful, I doubt it would gain any kind of consensus. RGloucester — ☎ 22:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, the guideline says to use the name the subject is most commonly known by, the standard being <first name> <last name>.

If those who close discussions give weight to arguments based on other criteria (such as the name preferred by the subject) in apparent or perceived violation of guidelines, that appears to me to be a recipe for disruption (if not itself disruptive). Since it is an issue potentially affecting many women, I don't think it is legitimate to invoke either IAR or a special interpretation of the guideline. Personally, I have much sympathy for the view that the "middle" name should be retained, but I think the only valid way to do that is to make the change to the guideline explicit, probably by making reference to cultures where women (or men, for that matter) change the name by which they are commonly known on marriage. And I think that is a valid topic for this venue. --Boson (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, Boson, this is not a "middle name". Her middle name is "Diane". "Rodham" is her family name. Referring to Rodham as her "middle name" is common tactic amongst those who wish to remove it, rendering it into insignificance. RGloucester — ☎ 03:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Speaking generally, Boson, it would be odd for WP to decide that a woman isn't to be known by a surname that she uses for herself. Sarah (SV) 00:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that she uses both alternatives. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It's ages since I looked at this, but I recall that Clinton had become a political name, and that personally she used Rodham Clinton. Sarah (SV) 00:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to speculate as to reason why "Clinton" is often used by associated political campaigns, despite her expressed preference, but I believe that the reasons for that would be apparent to anyone with a bit of brain. RGloucester — ☎ 03:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Andy, on the front page of hillaryclinton.com, she displays her signature, and it's Hillary Rodham Clinton. Sarah (SV) 03:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Her official website appears to be hillaryclinton.com, not hillaryrodhamclinton.com. In any case, is there some special reason why we shouldn't be following WP:COMMONNAME on this topic? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, Hillary Rodham Clinton is the common name for her. In addition, many sources that use "Hillary Clinton" introduce her as "Hillary Rodham Clinton". It isn't so cut and dry on the sources front. In many cases, the short form is used to save space. It is obvious that a shorter web address is preferable. I don't think that such uses demonstrate the an integral part of a subject's name should be removed. As an example, see this NYT article, where she is introduced in the prose as "Hillary Rodham Clinton", but where the headline reads "Hillary Clinton". Others use Hillary Rodham Clinton in headlines (AP wire piece), but later use plain "Clinton" as a short form in the prose. RGloucester — ☎ 03:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, let me check the first 10 reliable sources randomly selected by Google News and see what name they use. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, this is what I found:

• Associated Press - Hillary Rodham Clinton
• New York Times - "Hillary Rodham Clinton"
• US Magazine - "Hillary Clinton"
• Jerusalem Post - "Hillary Rodham Clinton"
• Reuters - "Hillary Clinton"
• Washington Post - "Hillary Clinton"
• fivethirtyeight.com - "Hillary Clinton" Note: I've never heard of this source before. Its reliability should be examined.
• New York Times - "Hillary Rodham Clinton"
• National Journal - "Hillary Clinton"
• Advocate.com - "Hillary Clinton" Note: I've never heard of this source before. Its reliability should be examined.

Preliminary Totals:

1. "Hillary Clinton": 6 sources
2. "Hillary Rodham Clinton": 4 sources

Given how close these numbers are, I don't think that a sample size of 10 sources is sufficient. Also, now that I think about it, I'm not sure if this is a valid methodology. Just because the first name of a topic is fully qualified in the first mention doesn't necessarily mean that it's the common name. For example, at Misplaced Pages, we typically use the common name as the article title, but qualify the name in the first sentence. In any case, I promised to check it out and report back what the first 10 sources stated and this is what I found. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Save the debate for the article's talk page. Thank you for letting us know about the topic. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Sarah, re "Speaking generally, Boson, it would be odd for WP to decide that a woman isn't to be known by a surname that she uses for herself."

Precisely! That is why the guideline needs to be changed to say that (and that should be discussed at the guideline talk page, not at the article talk page). Currently, the guideline says that the most commonly used name should be used, without respect to the person's own choice and the reason for one name being more common than the other. If general rules are ignored in standard cases like the use of a married woman's "maiden" name used in this fashion, it means that the discussions are held repeatedly in the wrong places rather than once in the right place. If Google ngrams clearly show "Hillary Clinton" being used much more often than "Hillary Rodham Clinton", we should not be surprised if people feel manipulated when a discussion is closed on the basis of arguments that should be used to change the guideline not ignore it. --Boson (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Boson, I didn't see this earlier. I've rarely if ever commented on COMMONNAME issues, because they seem so entrenched. I suppose the point is to stop people from changing their WP names willy nilly, but married women often do juggle their own and a spouse's names, so that should be fixed. Sarah (SV) 22:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

• Yes, and there's also one on a band made up of guys, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by AFI. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • There's also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Meghan Trainor as well as a currrent RfC regarding Trainor: --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Opinion piece on 60 Minutes presentation

• The Sexists at the Top of Misplaced Pages, Apr. 3, 2015 --Djembayz (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Tableflip.club manifesto quotes

"It’s not us, it’s you.”

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

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

Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)

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

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

Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton move request

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

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

Team editing

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

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Casey J

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

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather

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

I am restoring the above notice, which was deleted by User:Karanacs, who filed the above case. I have not stated any opinion about the case itself, but deletion of the notice does not seem appropriate. (1) Karanacs is not listed as a GGTF member. Sarah (SV) is the GGTF founder. That Karanacs knows better than Sarah what topics are and are not suitable for the GGTF to discuss seems questionable. (2) Deleting talk page comments by another user is in general frowned upon. (3) Deleting notices about an Arbitration case that one oneself opened also seems less than unbiased. (4) The GGTF is mentioned no less than 13 times on the opening page of that case, including one arb clerk who was involved with the GGTF case withdrawing because of it. In short, I do think there are ample grounds for Sarah's notice to stay. --GRuban (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The canvassing - and restoration of the canvassing - has been noted on the case evidence page (not by me) and its talk page. This case was accepted to look at the behavior of one user, across multiple areas of Misplaced Pages, NOT to retry the GGTF case. I'm disappointed that these tactics have been used. Karanacs (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Seeing that LB is a part of this project though it wouldn't be canvassing to get the opinions of editors she has worked with. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is canvassing. Just as it would be inappropriate for someone to post a notice of a (hypothetical) case about me at WP:FAC or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Texas A&M, since I've been highly active there. Karanacs (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

If Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Texas A&M were mentioned 13 times in an Arbcom case, it would be a disservice not to notify them. And, frankly, Karen, though I respect you highly, and you have said some wonderful things on these pages, the fact that the person bringing the case was also the one removing the notice about it did not look good. Thanks for stopping. --GRuban (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

This statement reads to me as though opponents to the edit-a-thon raised the title ix concerns, which is not what the linked article says. According to the article, it's the parody posters put up by the opposition that were reported as breaches of title ix: The parody posters were reported to the university’s Title IX office. Although they do not automatically constitute a Title IX violation, UC Title IX Coordinator Jyl Shaffer confirmed the Title IX office is assessing the report to see if the posters are part of a pattern of behavior that needs to be addressed in other ways. Ca2james (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

That's Title IX, just in case any non-Americans have landed on this page by mistake. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Blogsphere vs. Misplaced Pages

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

One of the fundamental differences between blogging and Misplaced Pages is that everything at WP must be neutrally stated and verifiable by reliable sources. Blogging doesn't have the same sourcing requirements: the author can pretty much just state their opinion using whatever language and sourcing they like. Some blogs are well-sourced but good sourcing isn't a requirement the way it is here. The difference in sourcing requirements means that writing a Misplaced Pages article can take quite a bit more time and effort than writing a blog post. Also, the neutrality requirement here means that personal opinions have to be checked at the door which is quite different than most blog posts, which may be written to express a particular point of view. Ca2james (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Sitush has started a gendergap related discussion on Karanacs talk page

Sitush has started a discussion - Tip of the iceberg? - that is about: 1) Alleged canvassing on this page, 2) The Gendergap mailing list, and 3) the ArbCom case that Karanacs started against me. Further, Karanacs added that she believes that the private (Systers-hosted) mailing list that I started for women Misplaced Pages editors may also be involved. (For the record: It is not.)

I believe these concerns should be discussed her, or on one of the ArbCom case pages. Feedback, anyone? Lightbreather (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)