Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Project notification

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Montanabw/Brat in a bubble. Notifying this project because a link to gender gap issues was part of the page. Montanabw(talk) 21:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

94% of wiki users female

Editing interface not necessarily a barrier.

I think it's this notion that women just don't like technology that is the most damaging. Although a lot of our users who have first used the site found the syntax confusing, many of them persevered and learned how to use mediawiki effectively. Consequently many would contact me or report that they loved using it once they got the hang of it and would then feel a form of ownership over the pages they were creating.Lola co-founder of Wikifashion

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC).

Um... 94% of a wiki's users are female. Not Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Indeed - the reverse of Wikipeida and then some. The point it that the editing interface may not be the barrier it is claimed to be - it certainly does not create the same gender gap on Wikifashion. All those buttons and menus and gadgets might be just as much or more of a barrier. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC).
To be clear, the whole quote is "But I am a founder and dedicated user of a wiki that has a contributor base of 94% women-in fact many are fashion bloggers who are not usually described as geeks." So not quite as relevant here unless we want to remove all content but fashion :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
On average, males and females have different interests - for example technology and military history being "male ones" and the aforementioned fashion more of "female ones". Some hardcore Wikipedia editing - like updating some heavy wikitable statistics numbers is a pretty Aspie thing to do on your free time. Incidentally, boys develop Asperger's syndrome four times more often than girls[1]. Of course those interests are influenced by culture. But Wikipedia's job isn't to somehow change the global culture so that females are exactly as interested in things like technology as much as males are. --Pudeo' 01:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
But a number of people worldwide, including editors of the various projects, feel it is Wikipedia's job to deal with male editors who have hostile and immature ways of dealing with other editors, especially ones they suspect might be female. If those individuals are driving off half or two thirds of the women who might otherwise edit if it wasn't for their incivility, hostility, game playing, etc., then those individuals are destructive to the project and must be dealt with, if only by having their immature and ego centric consciousnesses raised to a more rational and civil level. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
This raises two concerns. 1. Are you proposing that the gender of the editors, which in most cases is not disclosed, be used as a litmus test to decide whether to enforce WP behavioral policies, case by case? 2. I don't see that WP has embraced any mission to raise the consciousness or improve the real lives of individuals who come here, only that we ensure that editors' behavior on this site supports our work building the encyclopedia. SPECIFICO talk 13:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. Obviously we really don't know the real sex, age, occupation, details of most editors but given that most editors are male and thus make up the great majority of problematic editors, I think we can assume it's male editors who engage in most actual uncivil behavior.
  2. If 90 percent of the editors here only wanted to edit on sex acts, playboy bunnies, porn stars, and killing anything that moves, and let out 3 paragraphs of curses at anyone who disagreed with them on any issue and sent them 20 harassing messages a day, we'd have a very different encyclopedia. And a very low consciousness one at that. But you don't have to use the phrase "higher consciousness." You can call it more rationale or more mature or more academic or more encyclopedic if you prefer. To me it's just whether people choose to act primarily from their largely unconscious, automatic, lower brain (brainstem and cerebellum) or the most rational and civil parts of their higher brain (cerebrum/cerebral cortex) and, thus, higher consciousness. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
If the majority of editors are male, it is likely (not necessary) that the majority of uncivil editors are male. Even if both parts are true, this does not mean that a) no female editors are uncivil, or b) uncivil female editors should be treated differently from uncivil male editors. Nor does it mean that incivility should be addressed differently based on the assumed gender of the "target". If I call Editor X "scum", I'm being uncivil whether it's Mr or Ms X I'm addressing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Obviously we really don't know the real sex, age, occupation, details of most editors but given that most editors are male ...". Extraordinary, quite extraordinary. Eric Corbett 22:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Sex ratio is from surveys, not user profiles. Carol is saying we don't know sex from user profiles. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Carol is talking bollocks, and you know it but just won't admit it. Eric Corbett 22:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
It would be hard for a reasonable editor to avoid thinking you're being deliberately provocative at this point. I don't care if most people swear but not if it replaces actual discussion. (It can be fine as a spice, but it shouldn't be the meal.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
It would be even more difficult for any reasonable editor to believe that you are in full possession of your faculties if you're unable to see the evident nonsense on display here. Eric Corbett 23:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Why respond to it with more schoolyard taunting? If your whole contribution is to shout out "bullocks" then you're not adding anything of substance. I'd feel the same way if you just stuck your head in the door to say "horseradishes". It's silly and disruptive at this point. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm simply pointing what ought to be obvious to any rational person. If "we don't really know" than we can't draw conclusions from what we assume, as Carol continually tries to do. Eric Corbett 23:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know the actual addresses of most editors, but there are reliable sources that say a lot of them are in the United States, and it's a safe assumption that the majority are not in Iceland. That's rational, and more rational than making an assumption that most Wikipedia editors are women, ignoring all studies and surveys so far. It's not a particularly difficult point being made here.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be a little confused. Where have I ever claimed that most WP editors are women? I'm simply objecting to the obvious illogicality of Carol's "we don't know ... but we know". Eric Corbett 23:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
What's illogical? We don't know which particular editors are men or women, but we do know that better sources have found there are more men overall. This is not an illogical concept and it doesn't need snarky derision. We can know something generally about a population without knowing the specifics of all of the individual cases. I don't know the location of all trees, but I'm pretty sure we know most of them aren't in the Sahara Desert. (And if you still have a problem with the concept, maybe keep tit to your self, as this is a bit time-wasting.).__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

"We don't know" if Eric is really a guy, but we do know his postings are not in the vein of "constructive suggestions" per the request in the header template. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Most of the postings here aren't, but whether the people making them are male or female has nothing to do with that - it's clear from the above that self-identified female editors can stray from that vein just as ably as males. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
So, @Carolmooredc: Please describe how you propose that we "deal with male editors who have hostile and immature ways of dealing with other editors" in any way that's different than we should "deal with [fe]male editors who have hostile and immature ways of dealing with other editors"? What difference in policy or enforcement do you advocate? SPECIFICO talk 02:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
There are dozens of proposals out there for recruiting and keeping women which I'll be organizing soon as finish another project. I like better than others, as will others interested in recruiting and keeping women in the project. Feel free to start beefing up those women's bios you keep saying you are interested in if that is your interest. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
That wasn't the question. Try reading it again. Eric Corbett 02:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
General note: I've warned Eric Corbett for his/her incivility and personal attacks. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Let's keep personal remarks off the project page. I think it would be constructive if Carol would respond to the several requests for her to clarify the position she is advocating for the Project. SPECIFICO talk 02:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Obviously, as a high priority, project members should encourage women to use current dispute resolution, WP:ANI remedies and relevant community and arbitration sanctions, including page and topic bans for disruptive individuals. We need to encourage women to be more assertive in resorting to these rather than just quitting Wikipedia. That might be all that is necessary to deal with the incivility/harassment/etc. problems which drive many women away. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Obviously if it were obvious we'd not need to discuss it. Have you dropped the affirmative action gender-linked enforcement approach? SPECIFICO talk 02:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
This, of course is the elephant in the room. I can't imagine any AA policies that would pass muster with editors. I doubt the WMF has the cajones to create them from edict either. I was a bit aghast reading SV's suggestion that the interface was a problem. Only if it were true. I'd rather pay high school aged girls in the Philippines (cheaper) to edit for a year. Maybe some of them will get the bug.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I have said previously I didn't think it would work, but I'm not the one to just nix an idea without discussion by others who are interested in closing the gap and bringing in more women. (As opposed to those who are opposed to that and should be bringing their concerns elsewhere when and if there is some proposal that's actually brought somewhere else.) This is not the place for a third degree to harass people about things you think they think. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not right to equate disagreement of ideas with harassment. Skepticism is healthy. To be honest, and I've no intent to offend here, I've gotten the impression from your posts and disagreement with others that you have might have an agenda of some sorts. What that possible agenda is, I've not a clue, as some of the sexuality topics I've seen you work on fly right over me. Now don't get me wrong, I don't care even if you do have one, but a while back you made a post that seemed gleeful about playing a "bias card". That bothered me, and probably others. Maybe that got SPECIFICO's goat (mmm, delicious goat), and maybe he's pulling your chain a bit. I dunno. That being said, SPECIFICO seems genuine about wanting to improve the treatment of women in articles and of women editors. Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I find it kind of ironic that User:"Two kind of pork" would use the phrase "I doubt the WMF has the cajones.." in a forum like this, implying that the ability to take action is a result of male genitals. By the way, what does the user name "Two kinds of pork" mean? The Urban Dictionary informs me that "pork" means "To engage in sexual intercourse." —Neotarf (talk) 08:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I note that you just used the word "Irony". Since a "y" at the end of a noun extends it into an adjective, you clearly must be talking about irons. How insensitive of you to bring up ironing in a forum related to women's issues. And as for my username, yes "pork" has been used to describe intercourse before, though it's a childish phrase with no gusto. But I tells ya it means precisely what it says. Perhaps shoulder meat or chops? Or even loin meat? OMG, loins! How could I say such a thing here??? Now that I've established its the farm animal variety, are you going to start calling me a male chauvinist pig? You should report my name to the username snitching board if you have an issue with it.Two kinds of pork (talk) 09:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"Pay to play" proposal?

No more personal remarks please

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If people have a serious proposal - especially one controversial to the list or the community - they should create a section and not just put it on the main page so we can discuss if we want it to go past the proposal stage. Perhaps the author could explain it here? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't have the time right now to respond fully, but I would request that you ratchet it back a knot. I'm not sure if "serious proposal" was a dig at me, but in the section below this you also are suggesting that people are trying to "nitpick this project out of existence". This is not the first occurrence. WP:AGF Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Your first posting to this Task force was at this diff:
This is a joke, right? Women getting "protecting from reversion" is a real proposal? Ignoring verification for the moment , this is the most asinine thing I've ever heard suggested on Wikipedia. This is a joke, right? Women getting "protecting from reversion" is a real proposal?
At this diff you made a joke(?) about paying teenage girls from the Phillipines to edit. So you can see how your putting a proposal to pay women to edit on the main page seems to me to be a similar proposal.
You've also at this diff doubted systemic bias exists. At this diff you yourself closed a section because "the sniping is getting out of hand". I was happy to see it cause it was mostly nitpicking. But soon after you at this diff started a derisionary thread about something that just needed a little text tweak to correct a mis-impression.
So you can see why a rational person might be getting skeptical at this point. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Many "help" pages need improvement so the language is clearer and less unnecessarily technical & other musings

This is listed as one of the "todo" elements. Did Malibu "Math is Hard" Barbie propose this? I hope I'm misinterpreting this, but I'm certain I'm not the only one who will read it as women are less capable then men in understanding technical language. Let's combat bias by assuming bias!

This project looks like it focuses on two areas. The gender gap on Wikipedia, and then BLP content. As for the latter, a lot of that boils down bias in society. Fewer opportunities for women, leads to fewer notable women, and fewer sources about women. We can't control outside forces. Trying to focus on writing more BLPs about women is about all that can be done. Addressing the gender gap on Wikipedia won't do much for this, as women aren't more likely than men to write articles about women. Look at the suffrage movements of the 20th century as a reminder. There is a faulty assumption that more women editors and administrators will fix this and a myriad of other problems this project has tried to identify. The only thing that jumps out at me that more women editors would affect would be in making new women editors feel welcome.Two kinds of pork (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I fully endorse Two Kinds of Pork's comment. I am dismayed at the level of sexist denigration of women I see in various discussions of gender bias on WP. SPECIFICO talk 13:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Exaggerated beyond recognition, minor issue fixed. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The denigration of women here is by no means exaggerated. The suggestion that women are in "mommy-mode" and can't edit, the suggestion that ladies don't do software and can't figure out how to use a web page, etc etc. SPECIFICO talk 14:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Only you and Two kinds of pork are making any such (adjectives withheld) insinuations and from basically no evidence. But that's all I have to say on this disruptive thread. Hint: helpful threads suggest solutions, don't put enormous energy into insulting editors and/or the project for language that may be slightly ambiguous allowing other readings. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)
I'd say the observations are spot on. I'm questioning the validity of this project if it is use is to support "playing the bias card" to gain an advantage vs improving articles.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, let's look at the articles of indisputably notable women such as Hannah Arendt, Stella Adler, Maya Lin, Clara Barton and Golda Meir just to name a few. Are these articles fully developed today? How do we get them up to a higher standard. Then we have the articles in this excellent list [2]. Many of the articles about great women are sub-par relative to articles about even second-rate major league American baseball players. On the other hand, let's not lose focus and indiscriminately attribute WP's shortcomings to broad statistical profiles of the editor population. We must be disciplined in our prioritization of key tasks. SPECIFICO talk 17:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

yup. It's the articles that count. Wikipedia isn't a site about social justice or a place to make editors feel good about themselves. It's about writing great, free articles,Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

And the problem is that notable women may indeed be under-represented in the world literature of reliable sources. Our challenge is to find what RS do publish and to accurately and proportionately represent it in well-crafted encyclopedia articles. I see many articles such as Jamie Geller and Angie Motshekga where we have women of undisputed notability whose stories need to be told in full detail per RS coverage. SPECIFICO talk 18:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I choose largely to work on other aspects of closing the gender gap myself right now, as opposed to working on a lot of women's bios articles as you doing. Or coming up with affirmative action proposals like TwoKindsofP. We all have different interests. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Civility, sexism, gender gap discussion at Jimbo Wales talk page

A few good proposals ("light") in the middle of the "heat" on the talk page that we might look at in the future. Editors who care about closing the gender gap might want to read some of the better sub-threads and even join in. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's a link to a transcript of Wales speech at Wikimania 2014. It does focus on civility but not very effective solutions.
He tried to be inspirational and talked about "moral ambitiousness" to try to be on our best behavior, but then claimed this was working in BLP; maybe I'll go back to a few trashed bios I gave up on and find out.
He did inspire me to extend wikilove by ending more messages with smilies, though depending on my mood and who I'm sharing it with, I may have to mention it's wikilove and not apologizing for daring to open my female mouth... ha ha
He did have one good idea for dealing with chronically toxic personalities: encourage them to create content off line on their own web sites and encourage others to use it. I've thought of that a few times myself as a way of escaping toxic personalities. Though actually one can just do it in sandboxes too and promote them on talk pages. (I used to have two articles on my own sites that were higher than Wikipedia on two topics, but stopped promoting them and now they are 7 or 8 entries down.) Of course, the issue he doesn't get is that women have to walk a very narrow line of "proper behavior" before they get labeled in a negative fashion. Sigh...
Paying more attention to Wales page lately, I can see a lot of people are pissed off at the Foundation "super-protecting" all the Wikis so that no one can shut down the new media viewer, which they previously could. So expecting too much "top down" from the foundation probably won't pay off; even my favorite and relatively non-invasive hiring of mediators (and mediation trainers for volunteers) so that more content disputes would be solved earlier. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Apologies if this has already been discussed here before, but this has just come across my watchlist. There are quite a few names with redlinks on the International Women of Courage Award list. Having received the award should solve any notability issues for these individuals. Note that there is also a footer available associated with the award.[3] Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Australian women scientists

I stumbled across a project that has just added nearly 100 new BLPs, many of which start with "X is an Australian woman scientist". The pages are listed at Category:Wikibomb2014 and there is a tiny bit more information at WP:Meetup/Canberra/2014-08-14-Wikibomb. Many of the new articles will need help to avoid deletion. I gather that nearly all of them have been written by new female editors, so this is a good opportunity to counter systemic bias. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I don' understand the last sentence. It's a good opportunity to counter systemic bias regardless of who wrote them. Do you mean to counter the editor gender gap? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC).
I think he's talking about new editor retention, and the phenomenon of new editors becoming discouraged when their early attempts are deleted. Some more experienced editors could help deal with the technicalities--find sources, add categories, add internal links, etc--to make these articles stable. —Neotarf (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Example (AfDs)

At AfD right now: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Marie Olsson. Montanabw(talk) 23:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this really an example of SB? The subject is an editor; there are multiple previously deleted versions of the article; contributors to the current article want it deleted. At the very least it's not a typical gender gap issue. – SJ + 01:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Just alerting the wikiproject, not debating the topic. There is a problem that articles about women in general tend to be held to a higher standard of notabiity than many about men (my classic example is cricket players in Sri Lanka, who appear to get an article if they play one season of professional ball). This is an article about a woman, it's up for AfD. Members here can assess the situation on its own merits. If the topic is not notable, people here have the ability to discern that and recommend deletion. I'm just posting. Montanabw(talk) 04:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

More examples (not listing all articles on women, only a sampling). I am taking no position on whether these articles pass WP:GNG, people can make up their own minds. I voted on one, but not the rest. Montanabw(talk) 04:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Found all but one deserved articles and said so, even if I did have to pull out the systemic bias card a couple times. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I just can't see where a vote to Keep with comments such as "Actors like this can become very notable over night so why make someone go through the work of having to rewrite it? I'm sure we can find lots of white male actors with far less impressive resumes and maybe one more ref who are kept without question. Let's not practice systemic bias here, please." are going to help our female editors seem intelligent and fair-minded. As a matter of fact, that actor had no refs other than a movie database link. How do you know if the article contained libelous material? Let's not attempt to improve the image of women editors by insisting that if the other editors on a page are not voting to keep a particular female bio they must be biased. Carol, that is no joke to say you had "to pull out the systemic bias card a couple times". You did exactly that and it is not in the best interest of Wikipedia. Gandydancer (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually it was a naughty joke. As an inclusionist in general I've always used the "what if" argument and lots of other less than perfect ones. I did take a quick look at the articles just in case they looked squirrly, but you are right about BLP problems. Will be more careful. Actually after today's round decided I should make myself a little "data base" of good arguments so I don't get lazy and rely on subprime ones. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm torn about creating BLPs nowadays. We do need more women – I've lost count of the number of times I link an academic's name, only to find the men are blue and the women red. On the other hand, we don't know whether the subjects will welcome them; having a BLP isn't necessarily a blessing. Writing to each subject to ask whether they mind is the best thing, but it's extra work. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Good point. I was happy to see mine go even though it probably had more mainstream RS than all but two of the ones I voted for. I guess I'm just a "more the merrier" type of person. But will also keep that in mind. (The most obvious example is the British woman politician best know for an allegedly racist remark, which was well documented; though by now I should know in such matters to look at the sources more carefully for RS and accuracy.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm a little surprised by the fight to Keep Anna Frisch, otherwise I'm trying to provide reasons for Keeping all of them. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 21:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Under Article improvement on main page I add links to two more "articles alerts" pages (which often include AfD alerts) and the AfD page for those who want to keep on top of article issues. In addition to any listings here.
OOPs, forgot to mention in edit summary I remove the "infobox" info; they are for both sexes and may be outdated. Feel free to add as separate section if it's more important than I realized. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I am surprised by the discussion about whether notable women would mind an article on Wikipedia. I was unaware that this was a criteria for adding an article. Am I missing something? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it's more women (and guys) in the mid-range of notability who have found that previously created articles are sloppy, put WP:Undue emphasis on negative aspects, are vandalized a lot, etc. and their complaints have brought no change. It seems a couple individuals over the years in that situation wanted to get rid of them. Really notable people probably are used to bad reviews and their pages probably are watched more carefully to speedily get rid of the worst problems. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
My only experience with this was for Mindi McDowell, who summarized computer security threats for US-CERT. After I wrote a stub, she asked the Foundation that it be deleted, which they took care of. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

WP article on Amanda Filipacchi

The section regarding Amanda Filipacchi's op-ed on sexism was recently tagged as containing excessive quotes. I’m not actually convinced the section contains excessive quotes, as I communicated on the talk page, but it could probably be improved and perhaps the improvement would alleviate need for quotes to explain issue. This section is in regards to the controversy regarding Women's categories which has been discussed by task force so I thought task force members might be interested and knowledgeable enough to review it for potential improvements. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

For whatever reason, this issue didn't make a big impression on me when it happened and I was only vaguely aware that it was a major issue related to the Gender Gap categorization debate. I have a feeling I'm not the only one. As I finish final clean up on my big list of articles/research/etc. links, I see lots of articles on/mentioning the Filipacchi complaint and even a Huffington Post one in May. (I'm still confused what the status is now: are all articles being put into subcategories unless there is not one or no one has bothered to? Or what? Later note: I just noticed that is something User:Obiwankenobi claimed, quoted in a couple articles...)
Anyway, I have a feeling this topic is not adequately covered in the Filapacchi article and needs to be an essay written/edited by those not trying to sweep the issue under the rug. Obviously there was enough arguing about it by women editors last month that they must have some perspective(s) on it that would clarify the matter for others of us - and even for the media when they try to discuss it again. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Maryam Mirzakhani Fields Medal

Stanford mathematician Maryam Mirzakhani is the first woman to be awarded the Fields Medal in mathematics. See here. This is a good opportunity for editors to ensure that WP treats this important event with appropriate detail and encyclopedic perspective. SPECIFICO talk 23:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yay! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC).
Amazing that the IMU links her name to Wikipedia. Also, this PDF is public domain which could help a lot. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I really hope that this Project can focus on beefing up the articles about women who are indisputably notable and recognized within mainstream and academic circles. This strikes me as a far more urgent priority than trying to give life support to articles threatened by deletion because their subjects are of marginal interest and known principally to activists and thinkers outside the mainstream. SPECIFICO talk 20:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I certainly could use some help. I added almost direct quotations from that press release. Now I'm worried the source did not get sufficient credit. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Some Notable Women

Here is a group of mainstream notable women whose articles we could beef up as required. [4] SPECIFICO talk 13:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Systematic bias?

You can call this project whatever you wish, but I'm a bit perplexed at the inclusion of the term "systematic". That the WMF has established there is a gender gap for editors is one thing (I don't know their methods, but I'll accept the claim on face value), but where is there any evidence of systematic bias? That's an extraordinary statement. Something that is systematic, by definition requires methodology. Is this "systematic bias" a bias living in wikipedia, or is the systematic bias that been established to be real in society? If it is the former, I'd love to see evidence. If it is the latter (bias in society) then I'd say its really none of our business. We can't make society do anything. We can't make the sources give equal treatment to women. This smacks of victimization.Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The project is called Countering systemic bias. Not systematic. The gender gap in editors is the source of this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
For the benefit of relatively new members of the Project, could you briefly review the ways in which this systemic bias has been demonstrated to affect article content? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 02:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Systemic bias sums it up. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Examples are provided in Lam, S.; Uduwage, A.; Dong, Z.; Sen, S.; Musicant, D.; Terveen, L.; Reidl, J. (October 2011). "WP:Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia's Gender Imbalance" (PDF). WikiSym '11. ACM. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) According to a 2013 comment on the Gender Gap mailing list U of Minn researchers found among other things that contributions of users who identified as women are significantly more likely to be challenged or undone by fellow editors and there is a culture that may be resistant to female participation." (See also this overview.) I know there is at least one male editor who has wikihounded me for a year plus, reverting probably 60-70% of my edits in articles he followed me to, and criticizing me elsewhere. That's individual bigotry, of course, but turn it into a bunch of guys frequently reverting a bunch of edits by those perceived as female, it becomes systemic bigotry. (Good luck getting help from WP:ANI or even ArbCom since that's not recognized as systemic bias.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
My apologies, I completely misread that.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Scope

The Scope section of the article appears to say that women reject WP because it is fact-based. This seems ill-defined and problematic -- highly prone to various interpretations which would be sexist and denigrating of women editors and users of WP. SPECIFICO talk 15:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. No Malibu Barbie language please.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This isn't (or shouldn't be) superficial stereotyping. It is a subject that has been researched, see Simon_Baron-Cohen#Autism_research, for example. We know Aspies are often great systematisers, and this is a good characterisation (indeed a classical description) of encyclopeadists. (We have female Aspies here too.doing good work.) The possibility that women "just don't wanna" should not be discounted, after all most men "just don't wanna" either. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC).

Re "On average, males and females have different interests":

Dear editors: As a person trained in the interpretation of statistics, I urge editors not to put individuals, male or female, in a box because of averages. There is a great deal of variability in the interests of both men and women. Do statistics showing that on the average more women than men are interested in fashion, makeup, jewelry, romance novels, or whatever, make me less feminine because I prefer math, logic puzzles, science fiction and computer programming? The overlap in interests and personality traits between genders is far greater in most cases than the difference (see this graph which is from p. 11 of the book Pink Brain, Blue Brain: How Small Differences Grow Into Troublesome Gaps - And What We Can Do About It by Lise Eliot). It's much more important (IMO) to meet all new editors with an open mind and present them with an environment that encourages happy editing of whatever topics catch their interest. If something in the Wikipedia culture is deterring editors (for example, incivility, complicated formatting, belittling of some topics as trivial, or whatever other barriers come up), we need to improve it because it is deterring current and future fellow Wikipedians, be they women or men. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

hear hear!! (And don't forget "some topics are too important for annoying women to be meddling" -the easily inferred attitude I've run into a lot.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
"some topics are too important for annoying women to be meddling" That would be an outrageous statement. Could you provide several examples of such statements? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Carol, sometimes your posts make me wonder if we're working on the same encyclopedia. For instance, I've been here since 2006 and I've never seen it inferred that "some topics are too important for annoying women to be meddling". Could you give a few examples? Gandydancer (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Outrageous is guys coming here to disrupt this project. The evidence accumulates daily.
Otherwise, I'll write you an essay when I get a chance describing in general (or through reference to various ANIs, etc.) personal experience and quoting various females with various similar perceptions. Meanwhile for starters to educate the naysayers and doubters see"
Much more to come. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
If you have links which demonstrate "guys coming here to disrupt this project" please provide the links so we can all discuss and evaluate "evidence accumulates daily." Disruptive editing is unacceptable on WP. SPECIFICO talk 15:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. I went to Gender Gap Stories. The first story there is about how a new editor went to an existing article about a song, deleted its contents, and replaced them with unreferenced information about an unofficial name for an event. Then when that was reverted, and a pointer to the already existing article about the event was added, right at the top, she went back to the article, and not only readded the information about the event right into the article about the song, but added a political rant about cyber-bullying being the reason the info was being deleted. In main space. Right at the top of the article. Right underneath the link to the already existing article about the event. Which she left in. Frankly, I would not consider this an example of systemic bias, I would consider this an example of complete editor cluelessness, and I'd support her ban from the project until she understood just how clueless she was being. --GRuban (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, she is no different than any other new good faith editor who tries to make good faith edits, but gets chastised for their troubles. There is no gender discrimination here, but their experience is used to assert there is.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
All of these links are works in progress; the real horror stories are accumulating in other data bases to be added later. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you present only well-formed and documented evidence and fully-reasoned suggestions here. On WP, as in life, the road to hell is paved with good intentions and this Project could be irreparably sidetracked and ruined by undocumented, false, or misdirected discussion. SPECIFICO talk 16:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Yes, you've said in multiple places "more is on the way" several times. Do you have an estimate of when that might be? Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Why are multiple editors who are not part of this project here using this space as a forum to discuss their opinions about the project? It needs to stop. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

There are of course, no prohibitions from non-members from commenting here, as pretty much anywhere else on wikipedia. Even if there were, one could simply join the project. IOW, "go away" isn't much of an argument.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The issues is WP:NOTFORUM, not non-members commenting. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
It's always a good idea to read an essay before quoting it. Eric Corbett 17:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
This is not a clubhouse. IOW, no membership necessary, everyone is welcome. Please wipe your feet at the door.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Again, this is not about "clubhouses". It's about people coming here to air their opinions on the project itself, its users, and "feminist bluster". That is WP:FORUM. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Airing opinions about the project and it's goals is the purpose of this page. Your comments that fall along the lines of "you're not even members" is an ad-hominem argument. Constant cries of "personal attack", when no PA were made makes you the boy who cried wolf. SPECIFICO and Eric asked honest questions. It's poor cricket to shoot the messenger instead of the message. I don't know what their motivation is, but mine is to close the editor gap. I fear AA attempts are fraught with peril. I'm willing to listen to all proposals however. But I start to wonder when the most common theme around here is "evidence is on the way" and cries of NPA. So far the only thing that I've seen on these pages that was worth discussing was SV's suggestion and (not to toot my own horn) of paying young women to edit for a year. Hey, I just suggested an AA idea (again) to close the editor gap. Am I talking to myself?Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Pork, there are clear personal attacks and derailment in these discussions. Working to improve the project is excellent. Complaining about its existence, its users, or feminism isn't. That's WP:FORUM. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
There are personal attacks, but it is not in the direction you appear to think it is. Yes, there is some minor soapboxing and disruption occurring, but it's not one-sided. I'm assuming you know how to file an ANI ticket if you think this has risen to that level. However I doubt anything will occur other than wasting people's time and you being chastised for doing so. This project is still in its infancy, and of course there will be some questions raised as to its scope and proposals. I suggest giving others the benefit of the doubt instead of poisoning the well.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • A statistical question. This topic claims that on average males and females are interested in different subjects. Regardless of whether or not that's based on any evidence, surely the term average has no meaning for nominal data such as that? Eric Corbett 18:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Obvious and recurrent disruption of any Wikiproject can be reason to go to WP:ANI and ask for a project ban (or topic ban on those couple articles most directly related, if necessary). Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Good luck with that. Eric Corbett 18:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Using a more colloquial sense of "average" as opposed to a mean. Replace with "typical" or "plurality" if it helps you. Average could also mean mode here where people in a given category have modal interest categories. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Mode and average are quite different concepts, and this is after all a thread started by someone claiming to have some statistical expertise. I really don't understand the reluctance evident throughout this project to deal in verifiable facts rather than feminist bluster. Eric Corbett 20:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
@Eric Corbett: Average can mean mean, median, mode, or other measure of central tendency. It is perfectly acceptable to use "average" in reference to a mode. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
No, it isn't, not when you're working with nominal data. Eric Corbett 09:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • As the originator of this thread, I should have made it more clear that I was responding to the use of the phrase further up the page. I wanted to point out that by welcoming each editor's skills and interests as an individual, rather than trying to target just topics that someone has decided might interest women in particular, we'd be working on the gender gap in an effective way. Maybe I'm a little sensitive about this because my interests don't conform to the average; for example, I couldn't stomach it if the project members decided that they would encourage women editors by sending them links to cute cat videos (okay, that's a silly example). There were some editors, a few weeks ago, when the page was called "Gender bias task force", who wanted to expand the mandate of the project, and this could be considered a little disruptive in that it distracted everyone from their work in closing the gender gap. Changing the name of the page to focus the discussions more directly on the gender gap was a good idea, since that was the original purpose of the task force, and appears to have settled that issue. I had no intention of starting an argument, and I apologize if my comments ended up being another distraction. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Anne, your post wasn't a distraction at all, it was very helpful. You're right – a lot of the stuff that may be causing the gender gap is putting off male editors too, and we should always be wary of generalizations and "one size fits all." SlimVirgin (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I personally think the majority of males here could be helpful. They just have to be willing to chide the minority who cause the most problems. It is some subset of them who I was referring to as seeing women annoying. (Just like in the rest of the world.) But I guess we have to specify (in bold italics if necessary?) that we are talking about the problematic minority every time we post or some will claim we are talking about all males. I guess we have to knock down those straw men before they even contemplate getting up. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:03, 28 August 20414 (UTC)
So you now seem to be suggesting that the majority of males here aren't helpful, hardly a step in the right direction. Eric Corbett 21:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Eric Corbett, if anyone had said that, you would be right - but no one said it. Responding to what was said: it's usually better to respond to or comment on the content of specific posts, instead of generalizing. However, I disagree that it's the duty of male editors to take on the responsibility of reining in disruptive editing by other males in order to be welcome here (unless they want to). The editors here seem quite capable of standing up for their own ideas. And there is always the choice of just moving on ... speaking of which, back to the gender gap: Would anyone like to help with this one? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Are we speaking the same language? "I personally think the majority of males could be helpful" very clearly implies to me that they are not currently helpful. Having collaborated successfully with many female editors I very much resent being painted with this cave man brush. Eric Corbett 22:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
This page is about systemic bias, not the misdeeds of various editors who are male editors. I have not seen any data to document the relative frequencies of disruptive behaviors among the male and female editor populations. The straw man is the suggestion that males are more often disruptive than females on WP. That is far removes from the sort of gender bias we are addressing in this Project. SPECIFICO talk 22:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, but try telling that to Carolmooredc, and good luck with that. Eric Corbett 22:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
@Eric Corbett: You are making personal attacks against Carol again and not assuming good faith of an experienced user. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Let's not make personal remars here. Noone is perfect. SPECIFICO talk 22:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Get real. What about "Carol, sometimes your posts make me wonder if we're working on the same encyclopedia"? It's about time that Carol started answering a few questions. Eric Corbett 22:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
This is getting needlessly personal and belligerent. Maybe you should take a different approach before you say things you could regret. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you should take a different approach before you say things that you should already have regretted. Eric Corbett 23:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
...before you say things that you should already have regretted. ? That might be poetic if it contained some sense. In any case, consider easing up on your fellow editors, it doesn't look like it's leading anywhere productive.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Then stop, just stop. Eric Corbett 00:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

What's all this stuff coming across my watch list? This project seems to be dominated by men who are hostile to it. @Carol, isn't there an essay somewhere that explains how men can participate constructively in this type of group? —Neotarf (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

A couple of us on the GG email list (which is moderated for civility) have started to talk about that, drawing on various techniques used by various groups. One such model is Geek Feminism's about working in communities including men. They also have one about men's responsibility: Free sexism consulting (i.e., problems with asking women to fix problems created by men). Obviously that's just one perspective. There are lots more that editors who sincerely think there is a problem and want to solve it can read, incorporating relevant material. Those who doubt the project should be active in this way obviously should not be harassing us to stop discussing solutions to the problem. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah that was it. I'd be surprised if a lot of people haven't taken this off their watchlists already. What a downer.

Behavior of male participants

Men are welcome in COMMUNITY. However, in order to further our goal of being women-focused, we must retain the sense that most of the effort and discussion in COMMUNITY is by and about women and their role in LARGER COMMUNITY. Otherwise, women will start to find that our group does not suit their needs.

Men should particularly respect that COMMUNITY:

is not a place to solicit women for relationships, advice, or emotional support. You might, in time, make friends but please focus on furthering our goals rather than enlarging your social network. must continue to be a place where women's voices are heard frequently and in conversation with one another. Hence, listen more than you talk. Make your contributions by appreciating and asking questions about others' contributions. If a woman has a problem, wait and allow other women to offer help first. If a woman is already being helped by another woman, think carefully before offering additional assistance or advice. Don't explain things unless specifically requested, especially topics in the audience's areas of expertise (see "splaining"). Offer specific help rather than advice. Don't expect special rewards or recognition for your participation as a man. Be aware that some women might prefer that this was a women's only space; accept this with grace.

COMMUNITY is not designed as a place to educate men about why we exist and to argue about whether women's participation is a real issue or needs a special support group. Please take steps to educate yourself about women's participation and do not insist that other members frequently interrupt their activities to educate you. We suggest http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Resources_for_men as a starting point for self-education. Men who participate in COMMUNITY but who persistently behave in ways that distract us from our goal of furthering women's participation may be warned, and, if necessary, asked to leave.

—Neotarf (talk) 08:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for posting it here! I especially like the part about interrupting activities... sigh... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"Pay to play" proposal?

If people have a serious proposal - especially one controversial to the list or the community - they should create a section and not just put it on the main page so we can discuss if we want it to go past the proposal stage. Perhaps the author could explain it here? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

What happened to being bold? In any case, one way of closing the gender gap is obviously to increase the number of female editors. The WMF is a fundraising machine, and apparently has funds to pay developers to create features that the community seemingly doesn't want, send staff and board members all over the world for conferences etc. Why not take some of those funds and have a little experiment. Find an all-girls school and pay them to offer a year long course that requires their students to edit articles. I don't know what the syllabus should entail, but I'm sure something can be put down on paper. My suggestion of using the Philippines is because they speak English and compared to the US/UK, it's pretty darn cheap over there. You could probably get schools over there to do this for less of a stipend then elsewhere. If you want to expand this, do the same thing for an all-boys school and a co-ed school. I'm not a scientist, so I can't speak to control groups etc, but I'm sure someone who is familiar with the scientific method could suggest a way to do this to collect statistics.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I think this is a non-starter proposal for several reasons:
  • Paid editing on topics is still frowned upon at Wikipedia and those admitting they are paid often find their editing options limited.
  • Many Wikipedians would consider the proposal that child labor in Global South nations be “exploited” in such a fashion offensive. I’m sure Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour would have an absolute and understandable fit about it.
  • We are trying to build up long term editing by people doing it as volunteers for love of the work.
Please study the draft Resource page so you will understand more about the issues and come up with more viable proposals. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 10:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, provide funds for educational institutions to have classes devoted to wiki editing. No paid editing, as the students aren't getting paid, yet earning credit.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Bigotry against women proposal

Per the section above, I'm moving this controversial proposal from the Project to talk page for discussion:

SPECIFICO talk 13:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually it's not that controversial in that editors there think it needs to be done. And thus it doesn't need to be on main page here. Of course, "controversial" here means among those who think there is a gender gap and something should be done about it, not those who want to nitpick the project out of existance.
I mean the LGBT Wikiproject doesn't let people against LGBT's dictate what's on their page, does it? (This is in response to various comments above about "anyone can comment.") Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Has someone proposed particular changes to be made to the essay? It already includes "gender" in its list of prejudices, and it doesn't appear to say anything about any of the individual targets of bigotry other than listing them. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I had some things in mind I wrote down on my do list, but haven't had a chance to deal with. Plus I'm still accumulating relevant info and sources. See next thread relevant to sources. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Back to Hatting vs. closing vs. immediate archiving

This topic was discussed here with a consensus that hatting/closing/immediate archiving would not be done. However, it's now been done twice by two contributers here (and an Admin) for reasons that were no more serious than about 6 things I (and others perhaps considering some comments above) would like to hat or close right now, including because of personal attacks. Are we going to have a consistent policy followed by everyone? If so, what shall it be? I don't want to start hatting or closing against what was discussed last time and perhaps others do not either. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Where are these "personal attacks"? Eric Corbett 20:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Carol, it's better if we just use common sense than have firm rules. The main page says: "Please be civil, respectful and stay on-topic. Off-topic threads are likely to be closed." So we can close or archive anything off-topic, or anything that descends into baiting or insults.
It's difficult to judge when threads are a mixture of things, so again we should just use common sense. If something seems helpful, leave it up; if not, close or archive. If something is upsetting you (or you think it might upset others watching), close or archive. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Will do within past precedents. Actually just the one derisive thread. Obviously there are interspersed personal comments (some which can be considered attacks) in several threads above which led to minor brouhahs which really are too complicated to hide. Probably best to hide or remove them when and if they happen again.Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I see SPECIFICO reverted me. Perhaps I should have hatted just the derisive first few comments? In any case, another example of why we have to stop the comments derisive of the project when they first start. (Or ignore and immediately forget them if they are on the lower end of the aggravation scale, which I mostly do a lot anyway.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Signpost

I hesitate to post this here, for fear of stirring up a most unpleasant thread that finally shows signs of winding down, but it seems the Signpost, which is chronically in need of writers, is also in need of writers who have some sort of cluefulness about systemic bias. Anyone interested in becoming a contributor, or collaborating on an article, might leave a message at the Signpost talk page or the talk page of the editor-in-chief. I know it says he's on wiki-break, but he does check in from time to time.

For someone who wants to take part on a more casual basis, like everything else here, the Signpost is a wiki, and can be copyedited by anyone. Every time I have had an article published, numerous other individuals have stepped in to correct simple typos (yes, they get through in spite of multiple proofreaders) and to make sure the format is compliant with the style manual. You can have the Signpost delivered to your talk page by placing {{Signpost-subscription}} somewhere on your page (preferably at the top, where it won't get archived), although some people prefer to just watchlist it. It can't hurt to have more eyes on every issue, to inspect each issue as soon as it is published, and to correct these gaffes before they can become an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Quick win

These red-links can be quickly turned blue, by importing text from DNB on Wikisource.

Even easier I have created drafts for these (and some other missing BDP articles) at s:Category:DNB drafts.

For example s:User:Rich Farmbrough/DNB/J/e/Jessie Fothergill can be cut and pasted to Jessie Fothergill, then a little attention to the wikifying, and checking anything that seems appropriate, maybe finding suitable categories etc., and it is a good start for an article. (The talk page should also be created.)

Caveat: some of the articles may be mangled, for technical reasons, or have other issues - including typos. You remain responsible for your own edits.

Note, once the article is created, the Wikisource page linked to should have a link back to the WP article.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC).

Did you create the drafts with automation? There is a thread at WP:ARCA saying that your drafts are "broken". Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
As I said above:
Caveat: some of the articles may be mangled, for technical reasons, or have other issues - including typos. You remain responsible for your own edits.
It is pretty easy to fix up any issues, for example, s:User:Rich_Farmbrough/George_Ridout_Bingham took about 5 minutes, which compared with going from scratch is pretty good.
The conversion process is still in its infancy, in fact it has been on hold for about three years, and has only done maybe 30 articles.
Of course the creation of talk pages and redirects cannot be part of the process done on WikiSource.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC).

"Some evidence" at Resources page

I see a couple editors still harping on wanting "evidence" that there's a gender gap/or that it matters/or that more women would change the encyclopedia, and then expecting it to be spoon fed to them right now. Just bother to read the list of articles and research at the Draft resources page. Maybe you'll learn something. At some point one of us will spend the 10 or 15 hours necessary to put it together in a nice paragraph or section or essay for you to slurp down. (Or you can make your own attempt.) Meanwhile you can see whatever less than perfect attempts are being made at the "Gender bias on Wikipedia" article. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

To see why some women may get annoyed at being constantly asked for proof/explanations/education, see Geek feminism on why guys need to learn about this stuff themselves. On the resources list. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
CAROLMOOREDC WROTE:
I see a couple editors still harping on wanting "evidence" that there's a gender gap/or that it matters/or that more women would change the encyclopedia, and then expecting it to be
spoon fed to them right now. Just bother to read the  list of articles and research at the Draft resources page. Maybe you'll learn something. 
At some point one of us will spend the 10 or 15 hours necessary to put it together in a nice paragraph or section or essay for you to slurp down.

Let's see... 

scarequotes-"evidence" "harping" "spoon fed" "just bother..." "Maybe you'll learn something" "essay for you to slurp down"

Some time, a day, a month or a year from now, some editor is going to take the time and trouble to compile a thousand or so examples of such needless, pointless, and witless insults, attacks and incivility and post them on a well-formed ANI or Arbitration request. Any links to these coupleeditors of yours? Nooo. You've already been warned twice previously today. Please cut it out. SPECIFICO talk 22:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Please be civil. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so some women (according to that blog) don't like being asked to produce "evidence" because A) they feel oppressed already B) it requires them to provide "free counseling" on why they feel oppressed and C) it takes time away from doing what they want to be doing in the first place. So unless you feel like giving free consulting, don't complain. I'm afraid expecting editors here to buy into that is going to be a rather large pill to swallow. {{cn}} is a way of life here. Now sourcing is an editing rule, not a requirement for formulating policy, but it's so engrained I doubt anyone will be sympathetic to those who don't want to produce "evidence".Two Kinds of PorkMakin'Bacon 22:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I believe the point of the blog was to explain why some men annoy the fuck out of women with comments and questions very similar to yours. Surely as a male myself, I entirely agree with you gents, its all jolly good fun. Now let me see what this next section below is about ...--Milowent • hasspoken 04:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it was very educational. I don't see how it will help the goals of this project much.Two Kinds of PorkMakin'Bacon 04:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hold Wales & WMF accountable

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since Wales said the WMF would be doubling down on closing the gender gap, would it behoove the project to add to its goals to monitor and communicate with the WMF about their efforts?Two Kinds of PorkMakin'Bacon 01:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean elect an ambassador or minister of communications? Set quantitative goals, per the methodology of RS studies? Possibly. SPECIFICO talk 02:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Not bad, as long as we are brainstorming a media czar to drum up pressure with news organizations.Two Kinds of PorkMakin'Bacon 02:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Are you volunteering for the role? SPECIFICO talk 02:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Heck no! I'm just an idea guy. @SlimVirgin: knows this place better than anyone else. She would probably be best suited for talking to WMF. I've no idea if she or anyone else would be interested in the post.Two Kinds of PorkMakin'Bacon 04:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
That's a relief! I would not have cast my vote for you. There are several able candidates whose names come to mind if we go that route. SPECIFICO talk 04:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Hey guys! Can I join your circle jerk? I see this is a section where no member of the GGTF has posted, and I'm not one either, so let's keep it that way! I would like to appoint myself Minister of Male Asshattedness, what we can do to support the group is to act like absolute infantile fuckheads who appear like we want to undermine the GGTF, and in doing so, we'll raise such a ruckus that women editors will come roaring into Wikipedia in droves. I mean it worked a little bit when we cleverly put all women novelists into their category, and kept the real "novelists" (the males) separate, and Amanda Filipacchi capitalized on it quite fine! I mean, this could really work!--Milowent • hasspoken 04:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • TPOK is deleting my comment to this discussion, as well as my attempt to collapse the subheading.[5] I would appreciate restoration by anyone willing to do so, because I find myself unable to engage in editing when faced with such offensive tactics. Now I know what it feels like to have my voice silenced, and it feels wrong.--Milowent • hasspoken 05:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    • The WMF doesn't really know what to do about the gender gap. Me, I'm convinced that a multipronged strategy is needed for several parts of the "pipeline": attracting more women to press the save button for the first time (which Lila T believes is the hardest bit); promoting a culture of social support for newbies (well, all editors, but especially newbies); and organising concerted efforts by editors of both genders to improve our coverage of women and women's topics (sport, anyone; science, anyone?). Each of these strategies can be pursued without dependence on the others, and be either individually or socially supported.

      Every time I come into contact with a newbie, I write something encouraging on their page. It bounces back very positively when they haven't already experienced brash rudeness. So it becomes self-therapy, if you like. Does everyone on this page encourage a newbie at least once a week? Some of them might be women. Tony (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I can see that there has been a bit of warring over inclusion of some of the messages above but I'm struggling to find when it was hatted. @Scottywong: did it but the edit summary says they were restoring something. From Milowent's message, it looks like they did it the original hatting but why do so anyway? It just looks like censorship and I don't see the need for it. Tony1's message, certainly, has value; so too does everything up to the point where Milowent began ranting. - Sitush (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know who hatted it but it's time to archive it. Milowent was very naughty taking the mocking fun of the six previous messages to their natural conclusion. Where's the wet noodle? And why is Sitush posting here when [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=619062389&oldid=619061084 he famously has written: The sooner the misconceived "Task Force" (why not "Project", instead of a military-inspired term that implies official status?) is disbanded, the sooner harmony will be restored.
Also note the Countering systemic bias main page lists seven "task forces" so ask them that question. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Famously? Really? What a bloody joke. This task force, with you effectively in charge, is a practically fascist regime at present. Why not comment on the substance of the thread instead of acting like a goading prat?- Sitush (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force/Archive_3&oldid=1083416242"