Talk:Address the gender gap
To open discussions, ask a question or raise a topic for conversation, click «Add topic».
Relationship to other gender gap space
Also, is it meant to complement the WikiWomen's Collaborative, too? I don't think my WikiProject Women proposal is likely to go far, considering the reception by some. I'd really like to know where women can get the best return on their investment of time in trying to close the gap. Lightbreather (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Lightbreather - we didn't want to begin by presuming that the meta community would like this to replace the existing gender gap page, but if folks do end up preferring it to the old page (I find it more approachable, personally), we think it would be great to move it over there instead. Let's see how others feel in consultation (Maria is beginning some conversations about this now) and if so we can shift it when the time is right. As for the WikiWomen's Collaborative, I see that very much as a complement rather than a replacement for other work being forwarded. Very much hearing you on return on investment in terms of time spent trying to close the gap...need to be careful that all our time is well-spent. Not sure anyone has the perfect answer for that yet, but let's keep thinking on it and experimenting as March progresses... Cheers, Siko (WMF) (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Evidently the original Gender_ Gap project page can be freely edited by any editor, as long as they are supportive of the project. This new one seems to be a bit more controlled by WMF employees and/or managers of related projects. Which is fine, as long as there still is a place for regular editors to add projects, info, concerns, i.e., the original Gender gap project. Tweaking intros of the two projects to make the difference clear would be fine.
- My main problem is the new page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Address_the_gender_gap. does not address more explicitly the problem of a small number of males being hostile towards women particularly and the fact too few guys - including admins - refuse to call them on it. Nor does it recognize the double standard against women who are forbidden to lose their tempers even under relentless harassment.
- The Adrienne Wadewitz quote near the end noting that "When one group is mistreated, systematically denied a voice or rights...etc." is the only statement alluding to these facts, but it does not specify it is women who are mistreated and systematically denied. And the statement asking for males to help should specify that what women need the most help with is standing up to male bullies.
- Most problematic is:
- Assumption #3: Women will make Wikipedia a nicer place -- This assumption is also based on gender stereotypes: the idea of women as peaceful, nonconfrontational, and harmless civilizing forces. In order for the community to be more civilized, civil behavior should be expected of every member of that community, no matter the gender.
- I believe #3 practically apologizes for any woman who dares to be 1/2 as annoying as the average annoying guy. I think too many guys (including admins and arbitrators) will read it as SUPPORTING women being treated more harshly than males who act the same way and perhaps even quote it when sanctioning a female! (I've seen statements chiding unladylike behavior even without the kind of "official endorsement" some will read this statement as being.)
- Many women have complained about problems with insults, harassment, double standards and even requests they just stop editing articles where some males don't seem to want them. I have found this especially true in topic areas like economics, politics and gender/feminism. Experiences women have shared in en.Wikipedia and on Wikimedia show this is a problem in many subject areas. It is a major reason many who otherwise would have stayed decide to leave.
- In short, the real issue is: Are women to resign themselves only to editing noncontroversial and "safe" articles where no one tells them to go away? To having little voice in articles regarding current events, the public sphere and, especially, womens' views and issues opposed by even a small minority of males? To just doing the "safe" copy editing and other "secretarial" work of the project? Would a project with even 50% women, overwhelmingly relegated to those "safe" areas, be an improvement?? Or are we willing to make all topics in all Wikimedia projects safer areas for all individuals who may face discrimination and abuse?
- The original Gender Gap page has been, is, and could be more adamant on mistreatment and silencing of women if it is worked on by the volunteer women editors who have to put up with these issues regularly. (En.Wikipedia User:Carolmooredc) Carolmooredc (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Carolmooredc: This is not the proper venue for complaining about your local block/ban or local admin Abuse, I suggest you to use Request for comment just like all these blocked user on Request for comments/Possible Homophobia on Pashto Wikipedia.--AldNonymousBicara? 01:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Prime Feministerial Directive
While I agree with some of the points made in the "Assumptions/Responses" section, the tone grates on me. "Some mouthbreathing sexists on Wikipedia believe X. Here are the facts: ..." My inclination was to insert "Our position:" before each the responses, but since I'm not the "we," it didn't seem right.
Translation to galician
Hi, I wanted to translate that page to galician but the translation tool don't show me the other language translations (I have set "es, pt, ca, ast, fr" on my configuration page as helping languages) Could somebody help me with that? Thanks!, --Elisardojm (talk) 08:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)