Talk:Gender gap stories

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

White Ribbon Day[edit]

In this case there was a perfectly good articles at w:en: National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women (the Canadian day) and the UN designated w:en:International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. w:en:White Ribbon Day (with caps) is about a band, with links to the other articles at the top. The editor over-wrote the band article, the situation was explained and the article resotred. It is not uncommon for an occasional Wikipedia editor to take offence at their edit not being reverted and ascribe it to bad behaviour or bad motives of the Wikipedia community. This appears to be the case here.

Rich Farmbrough 16:43 26 October 2014 (GMT).

Note- even after all this, the editor continued to over-write the bad article, even after a clear explanation. They then go on to upload a number of copyright violations.
Rich Farmbrough 16:48 26 October 2014 (GMT).

Please notice also that the message from "C.Fred" was actually a quite polite response to her adding of her personal comment into a wikipedia article. Her other contested edits in "White Ribbon Day" (which at that time was an article about song, now moved to page "White Ribbon Day (song)") were two months later. She also writes: "I tried to contact him but there was no link or any other way of doing so." - eventually she find to contact him and this was before she wrote here. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am afraid I see this is a sad story about how wikipedia's bold motto "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is actually a disservice to newcomers. Quite a few newcomers, especially the ones with an agenda (and often a noble one, too), start writing in a way they do it in a blog. When reverted, they, probably due to the false sense of entitlement imprinted by Wikpedia's logo, start warring instead of politely asking oldtimers now to correctly deliver their message in wikipedia. And as a result, sadly, they never learn that wikipedia needs their information (which is appropriate for encyclopedia) rather than their message (which is appropriate for forums). Staszek Lem (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anita Sarkeesian[edit]

This is a story about abuse of Wikipedia.

Despite what the commentator implies the page was protected

locked by Wikipedia moderators so that only those with registered accounts could make further changes.

Sarkeesian herself thanks the community:

I want to extend a big thank you to all the dedicated Wikipedians out there that helped remove the vandalism and continue to monitor the page!

Standard operating procedure was followed, and worked correctly.

I'm not sure we can take any lessons from this story to improve the way we work.

Rich Farmbrough 16:43 26 October 2014 (GMT).

Wikipedia thus proved the effectiveness of its policy and of the mechanism regulating personal harassment, i.e. hate speech, and received the written appreciation from the victim of this episode of hate speech. (Source:

Rich Farmbrough 13:46 18 December 2014 (GMT).