Grants:IdeaLab/Disconnect 'feminism' from editing by women

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
statusnot selected
Reading to Grandma Drawing.jpg
Disconnect 'feminism' from editing by women
Other, potential, intelligent non-feminist-activist women shy away from editing because they don't necessarily want to be identified with the aggressiveness of a few women editors on Wikipedia.
amount2000 usdollars
granteeBfpage
Hex icon with lightning white.svg
idea creator
Bfpage
Hex icon with hand white.svg
volunteer
BfpageColectivaNomada
this project needs...
Hex icon with hand black.svg
volunteer
join
endorse
created on03:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


Project idea[edit]

What is the problem you're trying to solve?[edit]

To get rid of the Wikipedia impression that women typically write about gender/feminist/related topics. Women should feel welcome to write about topics that they are interested in, topics considered 'traditional' or 'conservative', family-issues, fashion, baby-sitting, biographies of women, motherhood, etc.

What is your solution?[edit]

Stop equating involvement of women with feminist-social-action agendas. Wikipedia seems to recruit editors who are also interested in feminist ideas. Cut it out.

Goals[edit]

Get Involved[edit]

Participants[edit]

  • Volunteer Provide a 'place' to meet and review the ad campaign I propose. Bfpage (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Volunteer There's a feminist field that promotes the motherhood, as a way to dignify to women... You could think about the heterogeneity of feminist theory and feminist movement. Greetings from Colombia, the Global South. ColectivaNomada (talk) 06:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Good point. There is no way I want to disparage feminism. Yet leaving feminism out of the whole recruitment of women editors helps make editing as woman much simpler. I am a woman and I edit. Plain and simple. Women can contribute to articles on pregnancy, NASCAR, baking soda and the male reproductive system. I just re-vamped the whole article on the Scrotum for example.
Bfpage (talk) 10:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

ColectivaNomada - it is with shock that I need to let you know that this 'idea' has progressed to the point of being seriously considered funded. I guess I made the suggestion/idea barely even believing that I would be taken seriously. But just to throw more ideas around, the idea is very simple: get some very cool banner ads to run on/above articles that we think women read (pelvic inflammatory disease, cooking temperatures of food, etc.). Have interested women click on the banner ad and be taken to our new project page to 'register'. From the point of registering, guide the new recruits through an expedited training/mentoring course. Heap on lots of encouragement. Any other ideas?   Bfpage |leave a message  00:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Endorsements[edit]

  • because it makes sense and I wrote it Bfpage (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • This is a great idea--it doesn't make sense to alienate a large portion of the female community on Wikipedia, which does not consider itself feminist. Support for all types of women, instead of a narrow group, would likely increase the amount of female editors on Wikipedia.Zaixionito (talk)
  • Dispenser (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
That is exactly my point. Feel welcome as a woman; with or without the feminist tag attached. We don't have to apologize for dressing our baby girls in pink, doting on our husbands and not majoring in Women's studies in college. We can invite women to edit on topics that interest them. Now there probably will be questions of notability on some topics, but there always will be. There are as many reliable references on topics relevant to women as any other subject.
Bfpage (talk) 10:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Many of the top ideas for increasing female additions in Wikipedia on the front page seem to think that the best way to get women to interact is by encouraging female-relatable topics like romance and female biographies.

However, I do not want for Wikipedia to cater to women as if women are stupid children. There are many smart women out there, and we should encourage them to edit, not just all women. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia- not a gossip magahe zine.

Bad, stupid edits are done more bad by men (LOL, thats only because there are more editing, a misleading statistic, obviously.) I just spent my afternoon reverting bad, stupid edits done by school kids vandalizing their school's websites. Nothing could be worse than that. I really don't hang out with too many women who act like stupid children. We aren't obligated to 'fight' that stereotype except by doing a good job on the articles in which we have interest. Simple. I couldn't see how any type of catering could take place....

This idea is appealing to me to because it is encouraging women to create good articles, which would maintain the quality of articles and increase female participation. AMadahar (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Project results can help figure out to what extent anti-feminist sentiment is present among female users. --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure what that would accomplish. I am pretty sure we are looking apathy straight in the face here, not rabid-antifeminist activists.
  Bfpage |leave a message  23:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I as a writer on Wiki experienced very badly aggressiveness of female editors. Compared to male editors. Most often I feel they behave in this manner because they hate men writers. Nevertheless, those female editors who do not harbor the gendre bias should come up and remove this impression. I do not see any other way to correct it. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the idea of recruiting women interested in traditionally feminine topics (fashion, domestic life, crafts, etc.) is worthwhile, though I don't like the way this request is framed ("aggressiveness" "cut it out" etc). It might be that recruiting women interested in these topics would do more to reduce systemic bias than our current recruitment efforts, given Wikipedia's poor coverage of these areas. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I could endorse this project if it actually defines feminism, via its primary dictionary meaning. Thus we will know what we are rejecting:
  • "Merriam Webster": the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities
  • "Dictionary.com": the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men
  • "Oxford Dictionaries": The advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
  • "Cambridge Dictionary": an organized effort to give women the same economic, social, and political rights as men
  • "En.Wikipedia: Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women
Also you would need to define what part of the above you are rejecting or you will totally confused educated people - or those capable of using a dictionary - who know these are the primary definitions of feminism. Thanks. Carolmooredc (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I would go with the en.wiki definition, at least that it what I am referring to. I am not rejecting anything, I am saying that editing as a woman on Wikipedia seems to be strongly associated with feminist topics.
  Bfpage |leave a message  23:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Confused by the topic. Why do we have to reject the strides we've worked so hard to make in order to encourage intimidated men and brow-beaten women to feel more comfortable with us "little ladies"? We are who we are and shouldn't have to assume an apologetic posture. The fact that women are able to contribute to any topic they want (if "allowed" to by gate-keepers) means that feminism is working. I'm not really interested in refining an article about lawn mower motors myself, but would be happy to do so (and have) on building construction and architecture topics, for example. Excellent point, Carolmooredc, and it strikes to the heart of this discussion. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm confused by the response. If it weren't for the achievements of feminist activists we could very well not even be having this discussion. One reason I am not a feminist is that I can't take any credit for what others have done on my behalf, so I can't pretend to be one. But there are others like me, 'empty-nesters', women with time and expertise who could be encouraged to edit just as a woman. They should be encouraged to edit.
  Bfpage |leave a message 
...and if you are a feminist, you are more than a feminist.
  Bfpage |leave a message  23:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Expand your idea[edit]

Do you want to submit your idea for funding from the Wikimedia Foundation?

Expand your idea into a grant proposal

Project plan[edit]

Draft of portal to welcome new women editors who have responded to a banner ad on becoming an editor[edit]

Mock portal

  Bfpage |leave a message  12:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Activities[edit]

Create a banner campaign that will display on wikipedia and related wikiprojects that uses images of women doing traditionally feminine activities, possibly little joey boasting to his buddies at school that his mom writes for wikipedia or other some sort of humorous graphic Maybe a movie of a busy mom juggling cooking and kids -- and trying to be a woman editor.

Budget[edit]

pay some graphic artists and designers to come up with banners

Community engagement[edit]

Women topic edit-thons that are NOT billed as feminist gatherings.

Sustainability[edit]

I suspect you will see more involvement by women who don't describe themselves as feminists.

Measures of success[edit]

Ask new editors who have identified themselves as women how and why they decided to start editing in a survey

Project team[edit]

I don't know any other women editors who don't identify themselves as feminists. I bring a different point of view to the whole discussion by not identifying myself as a feminist, being 56-years-old, the mother of 6 grown children, grandmother of two and being married for 35 years. I will wager that this might be a non-typical demographic.

  • I identify as a woman and a feminist, as well as a pet lover and coffee drinker. I could care less if i meet someone's demographic.
If someone asks for resources or money (like I am) there has to be some way to measure success. Goal=get more women editors. How do we determine whether we reach that goal using the recruitment suggestion that I propose?
Bfpage (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Community notification[edit]

Please paste links below to where relevant communities have been notified of your proposal, and to any other relevant community discussions. Need notification tips?