Grants:IdeaLab/WikiProject Women

Idealab

WikiProject Women

An on-wiki area for women only (those who identify as women) to recruit, encourage, and support other women editors.

idea creator• Lightbreather

volunteer• ParulThakur• Smirkybec• Hmlarson• Luxxxbella

this project needs...

volunteer

created on23:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Project idea

What is the problem you're trying to solve?

There is currently no space on-wiki where a woman can go and be sure that she'll be able to participate in discussions without being dominated by men's voices. Wikipedia needs a place where women can feel safer and not always overwhelmed by male advice, criticism, and explanations.

• Lam, S.; Uduwage, A.; Dong, Z.; Sen, S.; Musicant, D.; Terveen, L.; Reidl, J.; et al. (October 2011). "WP:Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia’s Gender Imbalance" (PDF). WikiSym '11 (ACM).  CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. (link)
• Gordon, Stacey (May 2, 2012). "Why Women Need Women-Only Networks". Forbes (Forbes.com). 
• Simonite, Tom (October 22, 2013). "The Decline of Wikipedia". MIT Technology Review. 
• Thompson, Derek (August 21, 2014). "Why Women Prefer Working Together (and Why Men Prefer Working Alone)". The Atlantic (The Atlantic Monthly Group). 

What is your solution?

Using the user preferences "Internationalisation" setting for those who prefer to be described as "she" (or the "Female Wikipedians" category), plus a project-moderator process where editors pledge that they are women and have read and agreed to the project's rules, registered women editors may join the group and discuss Wikipedia related matters. It would probably be more focused on community, policies, and guidelines than on content, but content discussion would not be off limits.

Women editors would not be required to join the project, of course, and all editors, regardless of gender, would be able to read the project's pages.

The pledge process would be similar to the subscription process that the Anita Borg Institute "Systers" forum has been using successfully for over 20 years.

Goals

• Create a space conducive to women's participation on Wikipedia.
• Maintain the space for women to seek advice from women peers.
• Maintain the space for women to discuss the challenges they share as women Wikipedians.
• Increase the number of women editors on Wikipedia.

Get Involved

Participants

• Volunteer I can spread the word, contribute in any way possible to make this success. ParulThakur (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Volunteer I've been trying to run more events in Ireland about increasing content relating to women in Ireland since we've started a Wikimedia Community Ireland, so I'd love to be able to tie that work in with the larger community. I'm happy to do anything I can to raise awareness etc Smirkybec (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Volunteer I can spread the word and I'll keep an eye on this project... I'm confident we can become a strong community of women, it's about time we organize :) Luxxxbella (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Volunteer Can help support + will keep an eye on project. Hmlarson (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Endorsements

• we can use a multiplicity of friendly spaces. Slowking4 (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• yes indeed. as per this post from Planet Wikimedia, we are discovering as we grow our community that not all plants need the same amount of water, light, or temperature. -- Djembayz (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Excellent idea. I think this could make a big difference to the gender-gap problem. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Good idea; I could see it strongly benefitting some women. A space like this might benefit from having a community manager, as well. Fhocutt (talk) 07:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Great idea!! WikiWomen's Collaborative is at your disposal :) Missvain (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes please - there have been discussions amongst female-identified volunteers and editors in the UK community and while we want to continue to collaborate across all spaces and projects, we feel that a female identified specific space would be a useful source of advice and support! Leela0808 (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• There are numerous spaces where men and women can discuss women's concerns and collaborations, and they quickly become spaces where mostly men are discussing women's concerns and collaborations. The WikiProject needs a community that prioritizes women's voices, due to women being such a slim minority. Will spread the word, and hope to contribute when I have time. Ongepotchket (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• women need support for a stronger voice in wikipedia 2602:306:8B12:6970:1CD3:3441:4DFC:9D6D 13:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly endorse. Would encourage women. We are losing ground. we should be 50-50. it's time to do something different.Kmccook (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Weak endorse. I wholeheartedly want to support women editors, but I don't like the feeling that we need a ghetto or the short bus to participate. We need to toughen up a bit. I know a lot of men who have also been run off WP due to many of the same issues. That said, women do face unique challenges, and contrary to the oppose votes below, it isn't "discriminatory" to acknowledge the reality of harassment and the need for a safer place. When editors who I know to be men posing as women start to troll places like this thread, (note the oppose votes below then go read wikipediocracy to find out which one I'm talking about) I must throw my lot in with the supporters as I don't want to make the perfect the enemy of the good. Montanabw (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• I may not join but if there are female editors who feel that they need a place like this then one ought to be available. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Weak support. At this point, I'm pretty much of the mind that women don't encourage women to edit Wikipedia. The potential for harassment is real, and is a threat to their employment and work in academia. The support infrastructure is... well, not there. Unless there is a way to address the underlying cultural issues that make Wikipedia such a hostile environment for women, this feels like trying to find a bandaid solution to a gunshot wound. :( Look at what happened with the GenderGap Task Force. Something needs to be done though, and if a bandaid is it, then a bandaid it shall be. --LauraHale (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Sounds like a great idea for encouragement and support for women contributors. Hmlarson (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Although I understand the concerns below, this may be a needed alternative to the GGTF. Miniapolis (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Somewhat endorse. I would really like to be a "she" here. Yes, I am female and a "she" IRL. The internationalization idea is great. It is my own damn fault for choosing the user name that I did (I love javelinas), but as a result, I am often perceived as a teen-aged male. I realize that this is more than pronouns, although that is important. However, I agree with what Montanabw said, and have similar concerns as expressed by LauraHale. Also, there will be genuine not-cis people and a variety of trolls who will pitch a fit that this is exclusionary. Trolls should never be a reason for not doing something though. Whatever form this takes, you/we really will need to lay down the law so that you/we are not undermined, ridiculed and eventually defeated as in the past. I'm referring to the obstacles that Laura mentioned. It becomes overwhelming to fight these people, then one questions "why even bother?" and that ends a female Wikipedia editor's participation. --FeralOink (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Tlhslobus, struck by Tlhslobus.
Comment/Suggestion: First, my apologies for being a foolish and uninvited male offering unsolicited advice which quite likely is either already been followed by some of you, or has already been considered and rejected as inadequate for some other reasons. But I feel kind-of-obliged to make this suggestion just on the off-chance that it turns out to be actually useful. As I coincidentally already more-or-less said on LB's English Wikipedia Talk Page before I even knew about this proposal, it seems to me that the best solution, for those of you who want such a solution, is quite likely to be to form a discussion group off Wikipedia, by invitation only, either on Facebook, or on Yahoo Discussion Groups, or on some other forum with which I'm unfamiliar. As it's off-Wiki, you don't have to worry about males (or others) complaining about discrimination (any Wikipedian objecting is trying to violate your right of free association, etc), you don't have to worry about opposes, you don't have to get consensus. One or more of you can just go ahead and set up a discussion group with 'closed' (by-invitation-only) membership, then invite Wiki-women and/or Wikifeminists and/or female WikiFeminists to join, perhaps using Wikipedia's private message system to send them invitations (don't send me an invitation as I'm neither a women not a feminist, as distinct from an occasional sympathiser on a case-by-case basis). You can always start up a group right away, and then consider moving somewhere else later on if there turns out to be better forums available elsewhere. Having made this hopefully just possibly helpful suggestion, I now propose to withdraw from the discussion, as I don't feel I belong here (and quite likely my suggestion is actually unhelpful, in which case I don't want my foolish male ego pushing me to argue that it is helpful when it isn't). If somebody needs clarification of some point, please feel free to ask me on my English Wikipedia Talk Page (or on my Meta Talk Page, but you might then want to leave a short message on my English Wikipedia Talk Page to let me know it's there). But I probably won't know the answer to your question (I haven't explored much of Facebook's potential and I was last active on Yahoo Discussion Groups back in 2002). My apologies if I've been foolishly wasting your time. Good luck to you all, and I hope it all works out well for you. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC) (I've now switched to support, see below)Tlhslobus (talk) 05:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, please! Stop that "foolish male ego" stuff, Tlhslobus. I like males, and I read nchan. I do NOT want to use Facebook. I don't trust or like its data mining scruples or lack thereof. Yahoo! User Groups were better back in 2002 than they are now. Both they and the Google Usenet archive are of uncertain longevity. Going off site to do what might be discriminatory is analogous to "security by obscurity" but worse. There are significant resources provided by WMF using the Wikimedia platform, e.g. an excellent edit log and persistent URLs. Why should we not avail ourselves of them, instead of providing marketing data as fodder to Facebook or risking data loss because Yahoo! carelessly maintains Groups or suddenly closes them altogether?--FeralOink (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Additional comment This is what I wrote earlier, then deleted because it wasn't the time. I will add it now. If you're going to initiate this, start small in scope and do not capitulate e.g. to the "this is discriminatory" folks in the "oppose" section below. Ask a Wikimedia attorney if it is discriminatory, get a supportive answer (if not, fini), then be able to stand on firm ground when you fire back at naysayers. This is what I mean (and perhaps Laura does too?) by lack of support. If we can't get what we need within the WMF as an organization, then this will be fodder for another article for the Daily Dot to politely write-up, then later, describe its demise. Other online voices will be much less polite.--FeralOink (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Good idea. In my experience too many discussions get overwhelmed by men - some are aware of the risk of taking over discussions but inadvertently do it; some aren't; some (few, but a few with a significant impact) deliberately seek to disrupt discussion about gender. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

  @The Land: Could you please provide examples of such discussions? I think it would be helpful for better understanding of the problem — NickK (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support, if women want it FYI, the concept was also discussed on Eng Wiki last summer. For some reason my link only opens the archive. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Conditional Support - I see no harm in doing this and condemn the remarks calling this discrimination. The project would be one of many on Wikipedia and any major proposals that come out of this all womens wikiproject would have be approved by the whole Wikipedia community anyways. The same rules apply there would be no talking nonsense about men per no personal attacks policies if that is also a concern for some here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

  NE has a point about the WMF non discrimination policy and encourage light to allow all editors to participate here. [1]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support (my earlier skeptical comments were based on my own misunderstanding; sorry about that - basically I should have realized that trying to do it Off-Wiki would presumably be less effective because it wouldn't have grant-support, etc; as such those comments seem irrelevant unless the grant application gets turned down).Tlhslobus (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support Fact is we have fewer women editors. Though some female editors (e.g. Tutelary below) may find this proposal unnecessary, if others would be more likely to contribute because of it, so much the better. As a male editor, I don't think we need to feel threatened or discriminated against by this - assume good faith! Audacity (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Montana's and Laura's comments resonated with me, so I've taken that into account before responding, and I think the new project will have to work through those issues before opening its doors. That said, the Teahouse has helped newbies in spades. If WikiProject Women (it'll need another name) is basically set up like it -- a kind, patient, helpful lounge for newbies -- then I support having a kind, patient, helpful lounge for women. I think about Asimov's Foundation encyclopedists, wondering how would Hari Seldon respond -- he always took the long view, you know. I think he'd say, "go for it". --Rosiestep (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support I think this is a splendid idea, but why stop there? We need all sorts of safe spaces. How about a safe space for our editors of Black African heritage? We can call it WikiProject Crow because, you know, crows are black. Then another good one would be a safe space for our gay editors. We can call it WikiProject Aid since it will be about aiding homosexual editors. Perhaps a safe space for our many Jewish editors would also be a good idea and we can even give them nifty badges, like, in the shape of the Star of David or something. I envision no negative consequences arising from any of these proposals!--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• For I think this is a pretty interesting idea. Many times on the internet, women are harassed and threatened for having a different idea. If you disagree with some figurehead of some movement, people immediately will attack you, for no reason other than "crimethink". Truly awful behavior I've seen over these recent months. Just for disagreement with the mob, you're targeted. People will spread the most vicious rumors, and try to ruin your life. Women should have a safe space to be on the internet. Wikipedia is no exception. Women should be able to voice their opinions without getting talked down. --DungeonSiegeAddict510 (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by idea creator

I am reviewing comments one-by-one and will put my responses here. Lightbreather (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Discrimination

Some have brought up concerns that a women-only space would violate the WMF Non discrimination policy. As FeralOink has suggested, I will ask Wikimedia legal for guidance on this, but in the meantime here is my take. The policy states that it applies to all Wikimedia projects, meaning Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Commons, and so on - not the individual Wikipedia WikiProjects. A woman-only WP WikiProject would not prohibit anyone from editing on WMF projects.

Further, if you read just the lead of the WP:PROJ page, you'll see that a WikiProject for women would simply be a "a group of contributors [women contributors] who want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia." It could:

• Help coordinate and organize the group's efforts at creating and improving articles;
• Write advice for editors;
• Use bots to track what is happening at articles of interest to the group;
• Create lists of tools and templates their members commonly use;
• Use project discussion pages as a forum for its members to talk about what they are doing, ask questions, and receive advice from other women.

The project could not:

• Make rules (that apply outside the group);
• Have special rights or privileges;
• Impose its preferences on articles.

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why there should be a ban for male editors here. I don't see any problem with males writing advice for female editors and vice versa. Nor I do see a problem if a bot owner will be a male and not a female user — this will not have any impact on article lists or tools used by the project. As I see from the discussion, the problem is that a few editors (and probably exclusively on enwiki) have offensive behaviour on gender-related issues. In this case the solution is a topic ban for them (or, probably, ban from the project in this case). I have not seen even in this thread even a single example of a discussion that shows how male editors harm discussions on gender-related topics, and you propose a quite radical change to all Wikimedia projects (as if you had wanted to propose a change for enwiki only, you would have probably chosen a local RFC page and not IdeaLab on Meta) — NickK (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with males writing advice for female editors and vice versa. This is exactly what happens on every other talk page on WP right now, and that won't change. There will be no rule that women have to go to WP:WOMEN to get advice. Lightbreather (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, really, males writing advice for female editors and vice versa? So far my experience was more about a healthy collaboration between male and female editors who are writing advice for both male and female editors together.

By the way, I have found that fr:Projet:Femmes has also male participants... will they be banned from the project after this decision, or will French community have to create a female-only fork? — NickK (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

... the problem is that a few editors (and probably exclusively on enwiki) have offensive behaviour on gender-related issues. That is only one problem, not "The Problem," but nonetheless, women who would like a more peaceful environment have no option right now that doesn't involve many hours of complaining and defending your complaining... with no guarantee at the end that the environment will improve. In fact, you're likely to be attacked, harassed, and/or labeled a "civility warrior" for complaining about it in the first place.

Also, it should be noted, offensive behavior doesn't only happen on gender-related topics. Lightbreather (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Still, could you please provide an example of discussions — preferrably from several different wikis — where the discussion would have been constructive only without male participation? I can hardly remind seeing even a single similar discussion, I do remind only one gender-related discussion where both male and female editors had both constructive and offensive discussion patterns. But probably even after 100K edits I do miss something... — NickK (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Grant

Some have asked why a grant is needed. That was my first thought, too. However, having the proposal go through a vetting process at the WMF level might help to get the project off the ground. Women online receive a lot of harassment. Just reading the news this past year makes that clear. It is also clear from the amount of opposition "votes" piling up below (especially some of the comments that accompany the votes), and from the vandalism this page is already undergoing (I have asked for semi-protection), that the project can expect disruption. Although I myself plan to work on this project as a volunteer (as do others), there will be some up-front costs.

• Possibly a prettier (for lack of a better word) interface for the project pages - kind of like the Teahouse.
• Definitely software for project moderators (volunteers) to:

1. Invite women editors to join (using the user preferences "Internationalisation" setting, or perhaps the "Female Wikipedians" category).
2. Verify that editors who ask to join the group are women or people who identify as women (to minimize the disruption and help members feel safer).

• Possibly advertising dollars? (Has WMF ever directly advertised to try to get more women editors?)

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Feminism

The group would be open to all women editors. The only thing an editor would need to reveal - and swear to, to a project moderator - is that they are a woman or a person who identifies as a woman. Identifying as a feminist (or anything else, except for gender) would not be required. Lightbreather (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• Whether this idea is a good or a poor idea, it remains very unclear to me why the creation of an on-wiki space requires a grant. You could simply create a page somewhere - whether on en-wiki, meta, wherever. It can be discussed and developed from that point, and ultimately either accepted or rejected by the community. This process happens every day, without any money being directly funneled into it. Could a proponent please identify what this project would be doing with grant funding? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria, this had already been done at the Gender Gap wikiproject, and has failed miserably, for exactly the reasons given in the proposal. —Neotarf (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I put in an argument for opposing the proposal on such grounds as that Off Wiki, however unsatisfactory, seemingly makes more sense than a women's shelter at the mercy of Wiki's 90%+ males, that opposing will help show women the need to have it off-Wiki, and may usefully help show Wiki as unavoidably institutionally sexist, and so on. I've now deleted it as a probably rather pointless 'Wall of text', and a poorly-informed one (I don't understand grant application rules, etc), but in the very unlikely event that anybody is interested, it can be found at this diff. I've now switched to support (see above). Tlhslobus (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This proposal has been the subject of off-wiki canvassing, beginning January 9. [2] —Neotarf (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • To clarify, there appears to be opposition canvassing on reddit - which doesn't surprise me in the least. Lightbreather (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Everytime something controversial is done on Wikipedia, accusations of canvassing boogeymen pop up, unless you can pinpoint specific editors, please stop. It only takes me to make a proposal, link it everywhere, and then say "well it was canvassed so all Opposes are invalid". Loganmac (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• To clarify, is this a group for women per se, or for feminist women, only? Would non-feminist or anti-feminist women be welcome? 67.246.33.203 22:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment All genders are subject to harassment on the internet. That's not a good enough reason in my opinion to make a group that discriminates based on gender. I would be in opposition to any group that promotes inequality by saying someone can or can't participate based on arbitrary reasons. Thorrand (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• From what I've seen things that make Wikipedia more accessible in general attract more female users. I think things like The Wikipedia Adventure and The Treehouse would be more useful. Though the only real problem I can see is female editors getting segmented off, if this can be avoided I have no issue with this, but I think there are more effective methods. Halfhat (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Opposition

Please add your opposed "votes" after others' and sign with four tildes (~~~~), which will insert your username (or IP address) and date.

• Will fight this tooth and nail. This is ridiculous, and is in strictly prohibited by the WMF non-discrimination policy. 172.56.3.162 09:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• This is not going to work because anyone could lie or make a fake profile to gain access. Even if it wasn't accessed by men you would end up with an echo chamber effect with no real discussion or debate, but only women agreeing with themselves. Wikipedia started with the idea that EVERYONE could have equal access to all information. That is how we accomplish great things. Not by segregating groups of people. Lastly there is no need for "safe space" online. You are in no danger hiding behind a computer screen, so safety isn't a problem. - Topbookclub
• As a male contributor I would strongly support this project if it would have a different scope:
  • Either as a project targeting women-related topics, like en:Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora or en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability do.
  • Or as a project targeting participating of women, which seems already be a task of en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias

  However, I do not agree with an idea of a space on-wiki where a woman can go and be sure that she'll be able to participate in discussions without being dominated by men's voices. This seems to be a strong discrimination, as so far there were no on-wiki spaces with any sort of restriction on participation, moreover, this seems to state that male participants are not able to provide constructive arguments in disussions with female users.

  Just imagine an opposite — a WikiProject where females are banned from participation. Or, even worse, a page where only black users (or only white users) can participate, or a page where only users of particular religious views can participate (e.g. Jewish users who state that don't want to be dominated by Muslim voices). This would be a ridiculous discrimination, however, this proposal would set a very worrying precedent of such discrimination

  I do agree that both women-related topics and participation of women are decent topics for WikiProjects (and both are of a certain interest to me), but please do this without discrimination — NickK (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• As a female editor, this is wholeheartedly and painful discrimination. I don't need a special place where only I can speak, nor where my male editors which I encounter every day can't contribute. Plus, the proposal is just plain vague. A place where male editors can't contribute where 'advice, criticism, and explanations' from men are not allowed. Seriously, this whole proposal is based on the false premise that male editors are intimidating, that Wikipedia is deserving of being segregated by sex and that women need their own space where they can't be criticized by the other sex. This is out of the window in terms of civility, wikilove, and everything like it. Oppose. Tutelary (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as discriminatory. --Avono (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: per Tutelary, but also because it would lock out women (cis, trans, whatever) who for some reason do not wish to identify as such online. BethNaught (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per NickK's expanded example and Tutelary. Intothatdarkness (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Nowhere is it explained how a discussion being "dominated by male voices" constitutes an actual problem. If anything, this notion strikes me as patronizing, especially in an environment where participants do not see each other face-to-face and thus there is normally no reason for their gender to come up. It's antithetical to the notion that women are equal to men. Would anyone similarly object to a discussion being dominated by the voices of the right-handed? Or the brown-eyed? 69.159.80.46 23:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, in some cases gender will come up for grammar reasons, however, frequency of this varies from one language to another. The simplest example is when someone uses a male pronoun for a female user who may want to object. The only way to avoid gender coming up is to have a userpage with simplest userboxes and never participate in discussions, otherwise sooner or later it will come up — NickK (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• oppose I have to say I also see this as violating the WMF discrimination policy. Further, since by definition editors would be excluded, (and by the proposers reasoning, a super-majority would be excluded) no consensus or decision could ever be formed on any topic, rendering the site nothing but a WP:FORUM. If thats the goal, just go make a forum off-wiki where there are no policy barriers and the ladies can commune to their hearts content. 75.100.91.5 00:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: This very premise is discriminatory. Reason first. I did not receive one of the canvassing posts to my user page, although I am female. (So this will be a sorority then, for the in-crowd?) Secondly, I do not want to be in a cloister of women in habits and hair coverings. I have taken such abuse from men on EnWiki (one that is an unusual suspect and shall remain nameless) it would make your hair curl. Yet I value the input of male voices. This would make us seem like fainting flowers. I can, have and will continue to fend for myself amongst the dogs as well as the cats. Fylbecatulous (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - There is definitely a problem in gender disparity on Wikipedia, and I do want Wikipedia to be a place for each and every individual to contribute without feeling intimidated - but I do not think this is a good idea to implement. Tutelary's rationale is well-put and I agree with it. Wikipedia is largely governed by the idea that anyone in the community can contribute to discussions; splitting off discussions to a women-only forum, in which men cannot contribute, comment, or offer constructive criticism is not something that fosters a community-driven environment. We need to find solutions that help integrate women into the community, not segregate. I think any projects that do help give women editors resources is a good one, as long as anyone is able to still contribute. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Additional comment - In a way, this made me think of the Teahouse, which was created as a resource for new members to receive welcoming and patient help from experienced editors - and it has functioned very well. Not only has the Teahouse helped improve editor retention, but 28% of Teahouse participants were women in the pilot (vs. the <10% of overall women editors). Yet, anyone is free to ask or answer questions at the Teahouse if they like - the only "limitation" is that designated hosts must be experienced, and that's a merit-based allocation that is not a requirement to answer questions. I would support a similar forum that revolves around supporting women and discussing Wikipedia in regard to female editing, as long as it does not prevent participation based on gender. Such a forum would (ideally) host a women majority, without preventing potentially valid input from the proposed discluded audience (which includes men, IP editors, and anyone who doesn't feel comfortable with disclosing their gender). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as discriminatory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShotmanMaslo (talk) 08:38, 10 January 2015
• Oppose- if you feel like you need said safe haven make a feminist wikipedia, let the grown up women stay where they should be (en.wiki) and work with the rest of the community like the adults they are. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose- I have a lot to say about identity politics, but I'll just keep to what's relevant to the topic. Identity politics do not belong on a platform such as Wikipedia where users are essentially genderless, raceless, classless, nationless and religionless. The only reason you would display your identity in such a fashion is to attach it to your argument as if that gives it validity. This is completely unacceptable for an organization with a pretense of neutrality. Akesgeroth (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per wmf:Resolution:Nondiscrimination NE Ent (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Opposeyes, I also oppose it strongly. --Rafaell Russell (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - discrimination. Also I see no reason why a grant is needed. If you want to make it, make it. Takes me 10 minutes. And you instantly find out what the Wikimedia opinion is. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Both men and women can help and give advice respectfunlly. Wikimedia should promote enjoyable coexistence. Separatism as proposed goes against that. Assume good faith, please.--NaBUru38 (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose This is discriminatory, sexist, and unbelievable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 174.1.94.184 (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2015
• Oppose: The very idea is discriminatory and there is no reason to believe any gender needs a place to speak that doesn't welcome certain peoples inputs. Thorrand (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. This is a terrible idea. You don't cure discrimination by discriminating against a different group. If this is done, what will we say to those who want to start Wikiproject: WhitesOnly? --GRuban (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose, unethical as a wikimedia which is should be open to all regardless of their gender (wmf:Resolution:Nondiscrimination), it's also against the (should be) interest of WMF that should participate more on Global South, quoted from Jimmy Wales : Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.. Now we going against that?--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 20:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - On the grounds that it discriminates, what's next for men and women to have completely separate places to communicate? Hardly a collaboration. YellowStahh (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Segregation based on sex that excludes half of humanity from participating. JoshuaKGarner (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, of course - This is completely idiotic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 97.93.216.245 (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2015
• Oppose - Are you seriously campaigning for segregation of sexes on Wikipedia? This has to be a joke.130.234.187.167 22:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - Wikipedia doesn't discriminate, you will only be judged by the quality of your contributions. This would only end badly, but just imagine if a bunch of "white males" decided to do the same, there would be a shitstorm in media. Don't do this, don't segregate, the civilized world is past this. See Also look at it from another perspective, imagine if I, as a male, came here and said that "from now on all women shall have their own space and that's the end of it", this is sickening sorry people but women segregating themselves doesn't make it right. Loganmac (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Tutelary. If this was a real problem said disruptive men should be banned, but as it seems right now you're fabricating a problem where none exists. Damon Ganto (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose for this is a sexist and discriminatory proposal, completely against the WikiMedia Foundation's policies. This proposal has the means to promote sexism and misandry. 103.4.18.233 23:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, unless you create a homologous space for male editors and administrators. And another for homosexual editors and administrators, and for feminists, and for MRAs, transgender people, otherkin, queerfolk... Good luck managing that degree of identity separatism. 85.48.40.193 23:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Extremely sexist. 148.88.244.57 23:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose In addition to the WMF non-discrimination policy concerns, the grants for this project would be a poor use of donor funds and goes against the ethos of the Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are strongly opposed to displaying ads, so why would it be desirable to place ads outside of the project? It seems too commercial to me and may be off-putting to editors and donors alike. It also sets a terrible precedent by allowing other projects to make similar request. Even if a new project was established, why wouldn't you just use the free, open source MediaWiki software? What benefits would be gained by creating a new framework? I'd argue that by using the same software as the Wikimedia projects it would make it easier for women to contribute since they are already familiar with it. Finally, I don't like the idea of hiring individuals to verify that a volunteer is a self-identified female; that seems way too intrusive and raises many concerns. Who is qualified to view and authenticate it? How is it authenticated? Is this information stored? What safeguards will be in place to protect it? To whom would one address grievances if there was a misuse of this information? As proposed, this would create more problems than it would solve. Mike V • Talk 23:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Along with being blatantly sexist twords men on an anonymous website, this proposal will do nothing but create an echo chamber for women with no opposition to other sides of the coin, put this into fruition and I will boycott this website 24.14.126.184 00:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This is blatantly sexist to Men and is an attempt to segregate the community of Wikipedia into gender and political based factions, Wikipedia does not need a hugbox. Pepsiwithcoke (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the facts presented in articles should be judged based on their merits, not the identity of the author. Whether a voice is a "man's voice" or a "woman's voice" should make no difference to the editorial process, instead each voice should be judged on its own merits (WP:V and all the rest). I strongly believe that it is not true that women can't feel safe on Wikipedia, or that women's voices are diminished because of simply being women. And no evidence for these assertions was presented in the suggestion. Nitro2k01 (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose The goal is equality, not further sexism and division between the sexes. Women do not need special protection, to suggest so is a clear case of sexism. To outright state that it is the gender of the editor that determines whether or not they are "too hostile" and that one superior gender should get a vacation from the evil other is a clear case of sexism. To deny an editor based on gender, race, or ethnicity, is a clear violation of countless ethics policies not only on wikimedia, but across the globe. I am particularly surprised that some supporters are trying to find a loophole in wiki's rules rather than considering the purpose of those rules and respecting them. I suggest editors in support of this take a very long look at their understanding of sexism and perhaps devote some time to study and contemplation of the subject, I'd even consider banning some of these individuals. 74.108.26.100 00:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Totally sexist, impractical and a waste of money. 90.244.216.77 01:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Discriminatory, and is only punitive to neutral or constructive male editors, as destructive male editors will have no problems circumventing the approval process to inject themselves into the group regardless. Lowconfidence (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as clearly discriminatory. Correctrix (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose This is incredibly sexist! As a woman I am absolutely outraged by this suggestion, and how it infantilizes women. We're perfectly capable of engaging in intelligent discourse and working with people from all walks of life and to suggest or imply otherwise is absolutely vile. 86.155.82.89 02:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose For the same reason that segregation and "separate but equal" did not and wouldn't be expected to improve race relations, this is an absolutely terrible idea for genders as well. To whatever extent the incivility exists, this is not the solution. WhatOn (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I like the basic heart behind the idea, but this would set a precedent for all sorts of things. I'm fairly sure everyone would cry foul if Wikiproject Men were created. More inappropriately than that, what about groups based on other things, like race or wealth, or even a non-real-world idea ("The Admin's Club"). KonveyorBelt 02:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposal begins with a premise it fails to justify or explain adequately: "women can feel safer and not always overwhelmed by male advice, criticism, and explanations". What does any of that even mean? Do women feel unsafe on Wikipedia? How do women feel unsafe on Wikipedia? Is this a sensible response for women to have? Should we bend over backwards to justify paranoia? What is it about interacting with men that women find to be "overwhelming"? How has the human race managed to survive for so long with half of the population feeling so "overwhelmed" that they can't even discuss things? This proposal raises so many questions, and answers none of them. Willhesucceed (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This is blatantly discriminatory and you would be opening up a can of words if this project sets precedent.— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pietrus69 (talk)
• Strongest oppose This will become an echo chamber that is discriminatory towards men, if this is made i will help set up a males only safe space that allows men to converse without fear from women dominating conversation. Retartist (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• SRTONGLY Oppose! This is an incredibly sexist proposal that would contribute absolutely nothing to the quality of Wikipedia. Can you even imagine the outrage if someone tried to create a "WikiProject Men"? Well that's the same type of outrage that this proposal should be getting. Copulative (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Will fight this tooth and nail to the death. It is not only discriminatory, it reduces the transparency and openness of the Wikimedia project, and, as stated before, violates the rules of the Wikimedia foundation. If such a protected space is needed, it should be taken elsewhere.