This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
You are invited! Join us remotely! | |
---|---|
|
Those interested in gender related articles might want to take a look at the newly created article Beta Uprising. "Beta uprising" appears to be a phrase used on 4chan and reddit to refer to "beta" men who engage in violence or support violence against "alpha" men and violence against women. The current version of the article is minimally referenced and seems to need more sources and it's unclear if topic meets notability guidelines. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 19:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
This article mentions the Gender gap task force.
— Cirt ( talk) 18:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
in 2013, a New York Times reporter discovered that all female novelists had been removed from the list of American novelists and relegated to their own list, “American woman novelists.” (The pages have since been combined back into one.)
If only the Wiki-community would adopt a gender neutral approach :( GoodDay ( talk) 15:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
While the Wikia, in itself, may not violate the doxxing policy, it does openly link to and support a "predditor" doxxing list, a list of personal information tied to Reddit accounts they allege have harassed people. I don't think we should be supporting a website that supports doxxing against ANYONE, no matter who it is. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 12:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Art+Feminism has prepared a combined renewal of our IEG grant and PEG grant. If awarded, these grants will fund: childcare and refreshments for the 2016 international Art+Feminism Edit-a-thons; in-person training sessions for New York-city based volunteers and online training sessions national and international node organizers; the expansion of our outreach to post-secondary institutions and international Wikimedia chapters; building sustainable infrastructure for node organizers; and making our materials more intersectional. We seek community comment to help complete the grant process: here -- Theredproject ( talk) 00:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Gamaliel has written a powerful editorial for the Signpost: Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching. Sarah (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I think someone from here needs to put the main page on their watchlist as no-one there seems to realise this project exists - see Talk:Main page#Gender bias on main page content. The discussion there is not the best example I've seen of the way to encourage more women to join the project. Richerman (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
As regards the gender imbalance when it comes to article subjects at FA level, this is something highly unlikely ever to reach parity, at least in anything but the very long term; there are many fields which were historically exclusive to or dominated by men, and fewer fields which were exclusive to women, so the imbalance within historical biographies is always going to skew things even if the imbalance is completely addressed in present-day biographies; plus, many of those male-dominated fields such as politics, warfare, art history and sports are fields with a disproportionately active number of editors. (While more focus on women's history is probably a good thing, I don't see parity in biographies ever being reached even with a significant push to get editors to focus on female bios.) There are obvious reasons why WT:GGTF is not a good place to direct brand-new users; many of the discussions are in a wikispeak which assumes a familiarity with Wikipedia policies, history and jargon which has the potential to be very off-putting to new editors. ‑ iridescent 17:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Anne Quinlan, "Wikipedia Has a Misogyny Problem", Verily magazine, 28 October 2015. Sarah (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, just an FYI that there is a nomination over on the ITN page for Michelle Payne, first female to win the Melbourne Cup. Anyone interested in supporting feel free to put in your two cents' worth. :) I think the link to that page is WP:ITN/C MurielMary ( talk) 09:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, thanks for the invite over here! I made (what I thought was) a fairly innocent post on the main page discussion last week, which resulted in quite an interesting thread! Due to the time difference between the northern hemisphere and southern (where I am) I missed the latter part of it - but it was cool to see other editors chiming in with the exact points I wanted to make. (e.g. SlimVirgin)
Cheers! MurielMary ( talk) 06:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I am inclined to support
User:MurielMary here. If it is considered useful to have FFAs on the front page, don't be concerned with running out. Their presence will encourage the creation of more. By the way Women In Red have had some considerable success with DYKs. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
22:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC).
Apparently some editors, including myself, have had trouble adding information on "comfort women" coerced by the Koreans into prostitution during the Korean and Vietnam Wars. The sources seem fairly solid on this: . [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] but I'm getting some pushback from established WP editors. If anyone here is interested in joining the discussion, it's here. I will also leave a notice at WProject:Feminism. Cla68 ( talk) 05:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
One of the criticisms laid at the door of the Arbitration Committee is that it is too male. The only way to solve is to get more women elected and that cannot happen unless women are prepared to stand - last year's election featured only one person who openly identified as female. As of a few moments ago, there were 17 candidates only two of whom I believe openly identify as female. I figure that here is a good a place as any to find women who will be willing to improve that ratio, but if there are other or better places please spread the message.
Nominations are open until 23:59 UTC 17 November 2015. All the details are at or linked from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections 2015 ( WP:ACE2015). Thryduulf ( talk) 12:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
If you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Article alerts, you'll see that a large number of nominations are all against female biographies. The editors there need to be scrutined more as their deletion spree is now stopping but it's still disruptive. 166.171.123.86 ( talk) 22:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Just want to make sure that everyone is aware of this: meta:Harassment consultation 2015. The Foundation is asking for ideas, and I know several GGTF members have talked about this, so now is the time to tell them. Pinging Djembayz, who has written eloquently about these issues. SarahSV (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
There's been a lot of interest in the ArbCom election this year and all the candidates. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015 for general questions. Anybody who wants to view my recommendations for voting, please see User:Smallbones/ACE2015. All other voters' guides are also linked to from the top of the page.
I think that anybody who is interested in this project should be interested in voting. Smallbones( smalltalk) 00:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation and others – pinging PEarley (WMF), Rubberpaw and Madcoverboy – have published a useful overview of research into online harassment at Research:Online harassment resource guide. The section called "Bystander Interventions" is of particular relevance. One of our biggest problems is that Wikipedians don't recognize harassment when it's happening, or don't step forward to say something – sometimes because a wikifriend of theirs is doing it, or they don't like the target, or they fear being singled out themselves. SarahSV (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
In case anyone here is interested, SageRad is proposing the creation of an anti-bullying task force. See Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 19#Anti-bullying task force. SarahSV (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, does anyone know whether the 25% female editors target was set for the start of 2015 or the end? Articles usually say "by 2015". The strategy pages themselves say it will take us "through 2015". Also, does anyone know what the definition of "editors" is for this target? I know we'll come up short regardless of the answers, but it seems to me that we shouldn't let an excellent opportunity to think back on the progress (or lack thereof) addressing the gender gap slip by unnoticed if it's coming up in 1 month. Thanks! -wʃʃʍ- 20:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Here's a quick sketch of an on-going survey:
The 'random editors' are the closest to ground-truth and used for the majority of the statistical number crunching. The 'long-standing editors' are valuable for perceptions of change over time and being 'informed opinions' about things. The 'engaged editors' are statistically un-useful (due to the possibility of vote stacking) but may yield useful suggestions for improvement and be useful for engaging the editor population. Responses without a correct verification hash would be grouped with the 'engaged editors'. 'Every 2000th edit' is just a number, it could easily be adjusted up or down as necessary for you desired sample size. The advantage of an on-going survey is that any timed survey will undoubtedly fall on someone's holiday weekend / low editing ebb. Thoughts? Stuartyeates ( talk) 02:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know if you are aware about these videos from the NASA, but I have uploaded some, and intend to add more. I think it is good material for Commons Media of the Day, and they might be useful for this WikiProject. By the way, if you think some other videos would be useful, please tell me, I am happy to help. Regards, Yann ( talk) 22:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Scholarship applications for Wikimania 2016 are being accepted 5 Dec 2015 - 9 Jan 2016. Please consider applying! To learn more about Wikimania 2016 scholarships, please visit: https://wikimania2016.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships. To apply for a scholarship, fill out the application form on: https://scholarships.wikimedia.org/apply. Recommendations regarding the Wikimania scholarship application... Applying for this scholarship is akin to the GMAT's Analytical Writing Assessment. This is no time to be sloppy or lackadaisical. Be clear and be thorough in each section. This is about differentiating yourself from the X number of other applicants, so do a great job in explaining: 'why you?'. I became a Wikipedian in 2007, but didn't apply for a Wikimania scholarship (and thankfully I received it) until 2015 because I suffered from Impostor Syndrome. I thank AdaCamp and my wiki friends for helping me deal with this demon. Do not let IS silence you. Get over it. You are deserving. Apply! (P.S. As a member of the Wikimania 2016 Scholarship Committee, I will recuse myself from reviewing those scholarship applications where I would have a personal bias.) -- Rosiestep ( talk) 04:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
There's a huge backlog at Good Article nominees and it's pretty awful - this backlog goes back to APRIL. There is only one woman in the list of History category (disclosure: I nominated that one - Stalin's first wife) but there are quite a few women articles in other categories that deserve consideration for GA. They're just sitting there. Any experienced editor can review an article - there's a guideline to follow. Can you take a look and try to help here? Thanks! —Мандичка YO 😜 07:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, one of the more sensitive aspects of addressing on-wiki harassment seems to be that it's hard to convince others of the magnitude and pervasiveness of the problem without citing specific examples. But to do so, we potentially find ourselves in the position of repeating some of the most repugnant slurs I personally have ever come across. I'm wondering if there's any consensus here on that issue, and what different takes everyone has on it if there isn't.
Does it perpetuate harassment to cite the extreme examples, because that may make it more difficult for the victims (which may directly or indirectly represent a large group of users) to move on? Or is it for the common good to use such examples as an effective way to raise awareness of the issue? If I found an example particularly illustrative, is there any way I could cite it while being sensitive to the victims' perspective? If, for example, it were an insult directed at a particular user, would it be OK to cite it after consulting them first? Or is it best to just steer clear of specific situations and talk instead in generalizations? What would be the most effective way to do that? Are there telling stats that could be cited instead?
Silence is certainly not the best way to address this issue, but what is the best way to speak up? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! -wʃʃʍ- 21:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Howdy, Wllm & everyone else in this discussion. IMHO, the community would probably oppose the idea of a 'private' place to report harassment. FWIW, I choose to view all editors as non-gender :) GoodDay ( talk) 15:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Could an administrator please have a look at the Vicki Garvin article? It's being investigated for a potential copyright issue, but that's been going on for ages, and I think it's clear it does violate copyright. If you agree, please delete the article and the copyright investigation notice and replace it with this article: Talk:Vicki Garvin/Temp. Please let me know by posting here if you do this. Thank you! GrecianEarn ( talk) 15:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
A socketpuppeteer was recently blocked on multiple accounts for disruptive editing.
The user had a penchant for adding sexualized imagery of women. Might be a good idea to scrutinize user contributions for inappropriate image additions.
Peter Isotalo 01:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The article bra is up for good article reassessment. Scrutiny and suggestions for improvement from GGTF would be quite welcome.
Peter Isotalo 16:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm going through our women in technology articles and updating them so they are current. I'm hoping this also has the side effect of rekindling the interest of editors who have gone inactive but kept these articles on their watchlists. I'll be adding more and doing some categorization soon. Any help would be greatly appreciated. The list I've been working off of is 3 years old, but pretty comprehensive. Not all of these groups meet WP:NOTE, but you might be surprised that some of them don't have articles yet. -wʃʃʍ- 21:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Why isn't the GGTF more active? I'm looking through the ArbCom and ANI cases for historical notes, but there are a couple of questions I'm pretty sure I won't find answers for there:
I need this group, because I need to learn how I can be part of the solution. That could be said about pretty much everyone in our community- men and women. Please help us by staying strong even in those moments when the opposition seems stronger. Thanks! -wʃʃʍ- 09:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Milowent, thanks! If anyone wants to improve it, please do. It links to the GGTF, Carol, Neotarf and Lightbreather. SarahSV (talk) 05:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a proposal here to include the recent Women's World Handball Championship in our In The News section on the Main Page. As with quite a lot of sports, the Men's Championship is automatically included per WP:ITN/R, but the women's championship is not. So comments there by people who understand our Gender Equality policies far better than I do might be useful. There are also possible 'Anglo-centrism' issues which I intend to mention in my comment there, but I don't know where to request expert comments on that aspect, so if anybody here knows where such expertise can be found could they please either let me know or else post a comment there themselves. Tlhslobus ( talk) 05:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I was just looking at Women's rights in 2014 and even though it was quite controversial when written, it seems to be a fairly successful article. B rated, about 700 views per month, fairly complete. With all the year end reviews coming up, this might be the time to start Women's rights in 2015. BTW, I think this type of article is best in a series, as more years are added, the more successful the series becomes. Smallbones( smalltalk) 03:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
(Star Wars spoilers, in case anyone is watching for that!) I've been poking at whether there's some potential future for the Finn/Poe article, which is currently nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stormpilot. Since fanwork (fan fiction, fan art, and related creative activities) is popular primarily among women, fanwork topics are negatively affected by the gender gap. It'd be helpful to see more editors review this article who have some expertise and interest in fanwork topics. Dreamyshade ( talk) 04:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't really know why midriff exists as a stand-alone article. I know I'd rather see it as a sub-section of abdomen. Currently, it seems to be exclusively about women's bare tummies. Even if it won't be merged with abdomen, it definitely more critical eyes and a some editorial love.
Please note that we also have waist.
Peter Isotalo 13:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I created an article for Susanna Paasonen and added her to the following categories (amongst others): Erotica and pornography websites · Gender · Feminism · Social theories · Third-wave feminism · Women's rights · Internet ethics · Internet culture. These were removed without explanation, on restoring them as unexplained content removal they were reverted again as: Reverted good faith edits by The Vintage Feminist: I'm pretty sure these categories were removed because they don't seem to be appropriate for (living) people. ( User:Drmies). I can see how the Erotica and pornography websites might be an issue but in what way are the others inappropriate for blp? -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 05:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
@ The Vintage Feminist: I went to argue keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deirdre M. Condit. It was open when I started, but by the time I had previewed and tried to save, Seraphimblade had closed it as delete. As of January 2015, 15.5 percent of our 1,445,021 biographies were about women. Are standards other than the WP:GNG being applied more often to women than to men? Pinging SusunW too. SarahSV (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Peter Isotalo has created a {{
GenderPOV}}
maintenance template to place at the top of articles with "unbalanced perspectives" in their description of gender. It will be useful for articles like
Midriff.
SarahSV
(talk)
04:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
There's only one way to find out if a template will be problematic or not & that's to use it. GoodDay ( talk) 15:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I suggest keeping an eye on images that are used in link templates like template:smoking. I just switched out a very pretty, but also stereotypical portrait of an old (white) man in a mustache smoking a cigar, to a simple pic of a burning cigarette.
Link templates like this are often used quite frequently and adding just one image can have an immediate effect on hundreds, or even thousands, of articles at once.
Peter Isotalo 13:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Quick question, just off the top of my head, if there were a proposed name change from WikiProject Pornography to WikiProject Pornography Perceptions, what kind of reception would it get? I know there would be a opposition from some, but I'm talking about if it were put to the wider community.
If you take something equally contentious like
WikiProject Abortion, the main page states the project's scope as: The purpose of this
WikiProject is to provide a central place to discuss work on articles in
Category:Abortion and its subcategories. These articles relate to
Abortion,
Abortion law, the
Abortion debate, and the
History of abortion.
... in other words its intention is neutral.
Compare that with the opening statement of
WikiProject Pornography:
The closest it gets to suggesting anti- as well as pro- is the last statement, the over arching tone is we ♥ it. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 01:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
A new project, or a sub-project seems like a good idea. Of course, there is no requirement to join a project in order to edit whatever you want, or even if you were to join the project to put up a user box. I've read criticism of our "Mind the gap" user box right on these pages. -- GRuban ( talk) 01:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I've been engaging in discussions at talk:Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain and talk:Dead or Alive 5. There's some disagreememt of how much coverage criticism of sexualized portrayal of female characters should have. Please feel free to comment on how to achieve appropriate neutrality in these matters.
Peter Isotalo 11:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Editors here are likely to be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taharrush gamea. SarahSV (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
You might be interested in my page: User:Biscuittin/Reform of Wikipedia. If not, just ignore it. Biscuittin ( talk) 12:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Some editors here may be interested in the discussion on this page: /info/en/?search=Talk:Hero#Requested_move_17_January_2016 Note that the motivation of gender balance among Wikipedia editors is invoked there. I've added some (intuitive rather than particularly informed) opinions and would like to see comments from others who have thought more about this sort of thing than me. I found the link c/o /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy Arided ( talk) 20:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I have been arguing the case for the notability of UK entrepreneur and property developer Draft:Gill Fielding for some time and the best I have got from one editor is that there 'may' be 'solid notability.' My references span the period 2001-2016 and include The Daily Telegraph, The Times, Daily Mail and Daily Express plus multiple regional/local publications. There is also a chapter in a published book about millionaire women. The references prove that Gill has appeared on Channel 4 and the BBC on mainstream shows. I am now concerned this article will be deleted due to the systematic bias against women on Wikipedia and would like to request help from the participants in this project. Thank you. Neilho ( talk) 11:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I thought this might interest you: "Women Through the Glass-Ceiling: Gender Asymmetries in Wikipedia" by Claudia Wagner, Eduardo Graells-Garrido, David Garciam; submitted on 19 Jan 2016. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 15:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a problem on the Suffragette page with a user edit warring under an account and as an anonymous IP. I am just going out, but after this message on my talk page it doesn't look like the problem will be solved any time soon. Perhaps others would like to answer the user's concerns here on the article talk page. Richerman (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a requested move that may interest people here at Talk:Taharrush jamai#Requested move 1 February 2016. SarahSV (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to one of our own, @ FloNight:, Women in Red was mentioned in Time earlier this month. [7] We work hard, and sometimes we don't know if anyone is paying attention, but the world is noticing. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 14:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I've collected some data and done some simple analysis on it at User:Smallbones/1000 random results. In particular the section at the bottom on "Biography, Women and Men" might be of interest to folks here. Very briefly, women's bios, according to several measures, are slightly lower in quality than men's bios one month after being started, and the difference increases over five years. IMHO, this likely results from cultural bias and a lack of source information, but in any case, knowing about this likely lower quality for women's bios is important and seems to be just another obstacle to overcome.
I know there are projects and edit-a-thons focusing on writing women's bios in March and at other times. Could you let the organizers know about this, if you consider it to be relevant to their efforts?
There's a discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales, that seems to be focusing on high quality articles (to my surprise) and you can leave feedback here or at User talk:Smallbones/1000 random results
Any feedback appreciated.
Smallbones( smalltalk) 18:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
External videos | |
---|---|
File:US Ambassador Alexa Wesner pd 2015.jpg | |
U.S. Ambassador Alexa Wesner Promotes Women in Tech Initiative, 2:13, US Embassy Vienna |
Feel free to copy it and post it where it might be most useful. Smallbones( smalltalk) 19:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Discussion at Template talk:Infobox model#Women's measurements about the template including women's bust, waist and hip measurements. SarahSV (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I created /info/en/?search=Draft:Katharine_Abraham, but the submission was declined on the grounds that "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability." The subject of this article was twice confirmed by the U.S. Senate for prominent positions, as indicated in the references I listed. Moreover, the subject of this page is one of very few red links on Council of Economic Advisers. What should I do now to get this article created? EAWH ( talk) 02:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
SPI Policy discussion may be of interest to project members: Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry#Sexist.2C_discriminatory_language_in_WP:FAMILY. Montanabw (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, "Women are everywhere" is a project about the gender gap problem in Wikipedia, with a focus on Italian Wikipedia. You can find a draft for an Individual Engagement Grant at this link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_are_everywhere. It would be great if I could have your help and your feedback on this project to improve it. Many thanks-- Kenzia ( talk) 10:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I thought this might be of interest:
Rebb ing 02:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Can anybody help out at Nathalia Holt? I'm not doing a good job, but will try again tomorrow. Smallbones( smalltalk) 02:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Just For The Record has prepared a combined IEG grant and PEG grant application to work on the promotion of more gender diversity on Wikipedia with an intersectional perspective. These grant applications build upon the exciting results of our 2015-2016 Brussels-based series of events addressing the gender gap on Wikipedia. Just For The Record has created a network in which expertise on these questions is created and shared. With our new applications, we want to expand this knowledge and network beyond the context of the edit-a-thon!
If awarded, the PEG grant will fund: location and refreshments for the 2016-2017 Just For The Record edit-a-thons. If awarded, the IEG grant will fund: research and analysis into the representation of gender on Wikipedia, combined with the construction of a research/ambassador network, leading to an intersectional non-sexist guide on how knowledge and history can be written in a more diverse way. We seek community comment, discussions and endorsement signatures (section at the bottom of the pages) to help complete the grant process: here and here! Many thanks, Lfurter ( talk) 09:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Can we do better than this?
A couple of years ago I read the history of feminism's fourth wave. I thought it was a bit US-centric so I added some material from Kira Cochrane's book All the Rebel Women: The Rise of the Fourth Wave of Feminism, (chapter one is available on Google preview). ISBN 9781783560363 ( diff). That was diluted into something that Cochrane was "advocating" rather than an account of events over the summer of 2013 ( diff).
The new article is shorter than the pre-existing section and it states that Cochrane "defines fourth wave feminism as a movement that is connected through technology". She actually says, "Everywhere you looked in the summer of 2013, a fourth wave of feminism was rising in the UK, women were opening their eyes to misogyny and sexism, and shouting back against it." She does discuss the way that technology is used in campaigns (social media, Everyday Sexism Project etc.) but to describe her book as if that is all there is to it is misleading. Also I'm not quite sure why it is called "fourth-wave of feminism" and not just "fourth-wave feminism".
I've avoided wading in so far as a lot of fourth wave feminism is oppositional to the MRA and there seems to be an attempt to quash that as a definition and define it using a more wishy-washy spiritual definition. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 16:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I thought this might be of interest to members of this wikiproject. I have opened a peer review request for Women in Classical Athens at WP:Peer review/Women in Classical Athens/archive2, with the aim of bringing the article up to featured status. I would be very grateful if anyone interested takes a look and comments briefly. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 10:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
FYI just saw this somewhat negative press related to funding? Waste Report - hopefully the project is going to at least get some use out of this funding! — xaosflux Talk 21:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm a bit lost on this - I'm sure I have read somewhere on WP about funding available for costs involved in organising meetup events which encourage recruitment and retention of women? I'm organising a WP Women writers' group in the city I live in (Christchurch, New Zealand) and would like them to be monthly events. There will be some small costs involved with hiring a venue, providing refreshments etc. Can anyone direct me to the right page/resource to make an application? Many thanks! MurielMary ( talk) 09:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I just ran into the photo on the left and thought I'd crop the original (at the LOC) and uploaded the 2 banners.
I should check in more detail, but the LOC had an exhibit on the history of the women's movement. Have these photos been uploaded in any systematic manner?
There is a new Inspiration grants program about harassment starting May 31. I'll suggest that we prepare something fairly big, get support here first and organize it, and all support it. A particular idea follows, but there may be better:
Hire academics for a study on what the WMF can do to lessen harassment on Wikipedia, particularly against women. The study could outline how other websites deal with harassment issues, what would the costs be for a proposed menu of possibilities, how would these proposals fit with Wikiculture, and expected results for a range of programs.
So this is *not* a study we'd do ourselves. Rather, we'd ask for proposals from academics to do the study. It would *not* recommend programs that we'd implement ourselves. Rather at the end, we'd be able to take the study to the WMF board and say "Here is a range of possible programs you can implement, here's what we expect they would accomplish, and here's what it is expected to cost."
How much would such a study cost? How much should we ask for? Would $10,000 be enough?
All ideas welcome. Smallbones( smalltalk) 17:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
FYI:– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High heel policy. Andrew D. ( talk) 17:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Dear all, on this talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards, I proposed to introduce a gender gap barnstar on English Wikipedia. I did the same on Dutch Wikipedia (but on that project, a new barnstar does not need community approval). Up to now, no comments resulted. Perhaps some of you are interested to introduce such a small reward. Meanwhile, keep up the good work! Ellywa ( talk) 21:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
You are invited! Join us remotely! | |
---|---|
|
Those interested in gender related articles might want to take a look at the newly created article Beta Uprising. "Beta uprising" appears to be a phrase used on 4chan and reddit to refer to "beta" men who engage in violence or support violence against "alpha" men and violence against women. The current version of the article is minimally referenced and seems to need more sources and it's unclear if topic meets notability guidelines. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 19:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
This article mentions the Gender gap task force.
— Cirt ( talk) 18:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
in 2013, a New York Times reporter discovered that all female novelists had been removed from the list of American novelists and relegated to their own list, “American woman novelists.” (The pages have since been combined back into one.)
If only the Wiki-community would adopt a gender neutral approach :( GoodDay ( talk) 15:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
While the Wikia, in itself, may not violate the doxxing policy, it does openly link to and support a "predditor" doxxing list, a list of personal information tied to Reddit accounts they allege have harassed people. I don't think we should be supporting a website that supports doxxing against ANYONE, no matter who it is. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 12:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Art+Feminism has prepared a combined renewal of our IEG grant and PEG grant. If awarded, these grants will fund: childcare and refreshments for the 2016 international Art+Feminism Edit-a-thons; in-person training sessions for New York-city based volunteers and online training sessions national and international node organizers; the expansion of our outreach to post-secondary institutions and international Wikimedia chapters; building sustainable infrastructure for node organizers; and making our materials more intersectional. We seek community comment to help complete the grant process: here -- Theredproject ( talk) 00:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Gamaliel has written a powerful editorial for the Signpost: Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching. Sarah (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I think someone from here needs to put the main page on their watchlist as no-one there seems to realise this project exists - see Talk:Main page#Gender bias on main page content. The discussion there is not the best example I've seen of the way to encourage more women to join the project. Richerman (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
As regards the gender imbalance when it comes to article subjects at FA level, this is something highly unlikely ever to reach parity, at least in anything but the very long term; there are many fields which were historically exclusive to or dominated by men, and fewer fields which were exclusive to women, so the imbalance within historical biographies is always going to skew things even if the imbalance is completely addressed in present-day biographies; plus, many of those male-dominated fields such as politics, warfare, art history and sports are fields with a disproportionately active number of editors. (While more focus on women's history is probably a good thing, I don't see parity in biographies ever being reached even with a significant push to get editors to focus on female bios.) There are obvious reasons why WT:GGTF is not a good place to direct brand-new users; many of the discussions are in a wikispeak which assumes a familiarity with Wikipedia policies, history and jargon which has the potential to be very off-putting to new editors. ‑ iridescent 17:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Anne Quinlan, "Wikipedia Has a Misogyny Problem", Verily magazine, 28 October 2015. Sarah (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, just an FYI that there is a nomination over on the ITN page for Michelle Payne, first female to win the Melbourne Cup. Anyone interested in supporting feel free to put in your two cents' worth. :) I think the link to that page is WP:ITN/C MurielMary ( talk) 09:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, thanks for the invite over here! I made (what I thought was) a fairly innocent post on the main page discussion last week, which resulted in quite an interesting thread! Due to the time difference between the northern hemisphere and southern (where I am) I missed the latter part of it - but it was cool to see other editors chiming in with the exact points I wanted to make. (e.g. SlimVirgin)
Cheers! MurielMary ( talk) 06:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I am inclined to support
User:MurielMary here. If it is considered useful to have FFAs on the front page, don't be concerned with running out. Their presence will encourage the creation of more. By the way Women In Red have had some considerable success with DYKs. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
22:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC).
Apparently some editors, including myself, have had trouble adding information on "comfort women" coerced by the Koreans into prostitution during the Korean and Vietnam Wars. The sources seem fairly solid on this: . [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] but I'm getting some pushback from established WP editors. If anyone here is interested in joining the discussion, it's here. I will also leave a notice at WProject:Feminism. Cla68 ( talk) 05:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
One of the criticisms laid at the door of the Arbitration Committee is that it is too male. The only way to solve is to get more women elected and that cannot happen unless women are prepared to stand - last year's election featured only one person who openly identified as female. As of a few moments ago, there were 17 candidates only two of whom I believe openly identify as female. I figure that here is a good a place as any to find women who will be willing to improve that ratio, but if there are other or better places please spread the message.
Nominations are open until 23:59 UTC 17 November 2015. All the details are at or linked from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections 2015 ( WP:ACE2015). Thryduulf ( talk) 12:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
If you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Article alerts, you'll see that a large number of nominations are all against female biographies. The editors there need to be scrutined more as their deletion spree is now stopping but it's still disruptive. 166.171.123.86 ( talk) 22:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Just want to make sure that everyone is aware of this: meta:Harassment consultation 2015. The Foundation is asking for ideas, and I know several GGTF members have talked about this, so now is the time to tell them. Pinging Djembayz, who has written eloquently about these issues. SarahSV (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
There's been a lot of interest in the ArbCom election this year and all the candidates. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015 for general questions. Anybody who wants to view my recommendations for voting, please see User:Smallbones/ACE2015. All other voters' guides are also linked to from the top of the page.
I think that anybody who is interested in this project should be interested in voting. Smallbones( smalltalk) 00:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation and others – pinging PEarley (WMF), Rubberpaw and Madcoverboy – have published a useful overview of research into online harassment at Research:Online harassment resource guide. The section called "Bystander Interventions" is of particular relevance. One of our biggest problems is that Wikipedians don't recognize harassment when it's happening, or don't step forward to say something – sometimes because a wikifriend of theirs is doing it, or they don't like the target, or they fear being singled out themselves. SarahSV (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
In case anyone here is interested, SageRad is proposing the creation of an anti-bullying task force. See Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 19#Anti-bullying task force. SarahSV (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, does anyone know whether the 25% female editors target was set for the start of 2015 or the end? Articles usually say "by 2015". The strategy pages themselves say it will take us "through 2015". Also, does anyone know what the definition of "editors" is for this target? I know we'll come up short regardless of the answers, but it seems to me that we shouldn't let an excellent opportunity to think back on the progress (or lack thereof) addressing the gender gap slip by unnoticed if it's coming up in 1 month. Thanks! -wʃʃʍ- 20:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Here's a quick sketch of an on-going survey:
The 'random editors' are the closest to ground-truth and used for the majority of the statistical number crunching. The 'long-standing editors' are valuable for perceptions of change over time and being 'informed opinions' about things. The 'engaged editors' are statistically un-useful (due to the possibility of vote stacking) but may yield useful suggestions for improvement and be useful for engaging the editor population. Responses without a correct verification hash would be grouped with the 'engaged editors'. 'Every 2000th edit' is just a number, it could easily be adjusted up or down as necessary for you desired sample size. The advantage of an on-going survey is that any timed survey will undoubtedly fall on someone's holiday weekend / low editing ebb. Thoughts? Stuartyeates ( talk) 02:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know if you are aware about these videos from the NASA, but I have uploaded some, and intend to add more. I think it is good material for Commons Media of the Day, and they might be useful for this WikiProject. By the way, if you think some other videos would be useful, please tell me, I am happy to help. Regards, Yann ( talk) 22:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Scholarship applications for Wikimania 2016 are being accepted 5 Dec 2015 - 9 Jan 2016. Please consider applying! To learn more about Wikimania 2016 scholarships, please visit: https://wikimania2016.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships. To apply for a scholarship, fill out the application form on: https://scholarships.wikimedia.org/apply. Recommendations regarding the Wikimania scholarship application... Applying for this scholarship is akin to the GMAT's Analytical Writing Assessment. This is no time to be sloppy or lackadaisical. Be clear and be thorough in each section. This is about differentiating yourself from the X number of other applicants, so do a great job in explaining: 'why you?'. I became a Wikipedian in 2007, but didn't apply for a Wikimania scholarship (and thankfully I received it) until 2015 because I suffered from Impostor Syndrome. I thank AdaCamp and my wiki friends for helping me deal with this demon. Do not let IS silence you. Get over it. You are deserving. Apply! (P.S. As a member of the Wikimania 2016 Scholarship Committee, I will recuse myself from reviewing those scholarship applications where I would have a personal bias.) -- Rosiestep ( talk) 04:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
There's a huge backlog at Good Article nominees and it's pretty awful - this backlog goes back to APRIL. There is only one woman in the list of History category (disclosure: I nominated that one - Stalin's first wife) but there are quite a few women articles in other categories that deserve consideration for GA. They're just sitting there. Any experienced editor can review an article - there's a guideline to follow. Can you take a look and try to help here? Thanks! —Мандичка YO 😜 07:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, one of the more sensitive aspects of addressing on-wiki harassment seems to be that it's hard to convince others of the magnitude and pervasiveness of the problem without citing specific examples. But to do so, we potentially find ourselves in the position of repeating some of the most repugnant slurs I personally have ever come across. I'm wondering if there's any consensus here on that issue, and what different takes everyone has on it if there isn't.
Does it perpetuate harassment to cite the extreme examples, because that may make it more difficult for the victims (which may directly or indirectly represent a large group of users) to move on? Or is it for the common good to use such examples as an effective way to raise awareness of the issue? If I found an example particularly illustrative, is there any way I could cite it while being sensitive to the victims' perspective? If, for example, it were an insult directed at a particular user, would it be OK to cite it after consulting them first? Or is it best to just steer clear of specific situations and talk instead in generalizations? What would be the most effective way to do that? Are there telling stats that could be cited instead?
Silence is certainly not the best way to address this issue, but what is the best way to speak up? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! -wʃʃʍ- 21:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Howdy, Wllm & everyone else in this discussion. IMHO, the community would probably oppose the idea of a 'private' place to report harassment. FWIW, I choose to view all editors as non-gender :) GoodDay ( talk) 15:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Could an administrator please have a look at the Vicki Garvin article? It's being investigated for a potential copyright issue, but that's been going on for ages, and I think it's clear it does violate copyright. If you agree, please delete the article and the copyright investigation notice and replace it with this article: Talk:Vicki Garvin/Temp. Please let me know by posting here if you do this. Thank you! GrecianEarn ( talk) 15:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
A socketpuppeteer was recently blocked on multiple accounts for disruptive editing.
The user had a penchant for adding sexualized imagery of women. Might be a good idea to scrutinize user contributions for inappropriate image additions.
Peter Isotalo 01:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The article bra is up for good article reassessment. Scrutiny and suggestions for improvement from GGTF would be quite welcome.
Peter Isotalo 16:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm going through our women in technology articles and updating them so they are current. I'm hoping this also has the side effect of rekindling the interest of editors who have gone inactive but kept these articles on their watchlists. I'll be adding more and doing some categorization soon. Any help would be greatly appreciated. The list I've been working off of is 3 years old, but pretty comprehensive. Not all of these groups meet WP:NOTE, but you might be surprised that some of them don't have articles yet. -wʃʃʍ- 21:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Why isn't the GGTF more active? I'm looking through the ArbCom and ANI cases for historical notes, but there are a couple of questions I'm pretty sure I won't find answers for there:
I need this group, because I need to learn how I can be part of the solution. That could be said about pretty much everyone in our community- men and women. Please help us by staying strong even in those moments when the opposition seems stronger. Thanks! -wʃʃʍ- 09:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Milowent, thanks! If anyone wants to improve it, please do. It links to the GGTF, Carol, Neotarf and Lightbreather. SarahSV (talk) 05:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a proposal here to include the recent Women's World Handball Championship in our In The News section on the Main Page. As with quite a lot of sports, the Men's Championship is automatically included per WP:ITN/R, but the women's championship is not. So comments there by people who understand our Gender Equality policies far better than I do might be useful. There are also possible 'Anglo-centrism' issues which I intend to mention in my comment there, but I don't know where to request expert comments on that aspect, so if anybody here knows where such expertise can be found could they please either let me know or else post a comment there themselves. Tlhslobus ( talk) 05:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I was just looking at Women's rights in 2014 and even though it was quite controversial when written, it seems to be a fairly successful article. B rated, about 700 views per month, fairly complete. With all the year end reviews coming up, this might be the time to start Women's rights in 2015. BTW, I think this type of article is best in a series, as more years are added, the more successful the series becomes. Smallbones( smalltalk) 03:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
(Star Wars spoilers, in case anyone is watching for that!) I've been poking at whether there's some potential future for the Finn/Poe article, which is currently nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stormpilot. Since fanwork (fan fiction, fan art, and related creative activities) is popular primarily among women, fanwork topics are negatively affected by the gender gap. It'd be helpful to see more editors review this article who have some expertise and interest in fanwork topics. Dreamyshade ( talk) 04:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't really know why midriff exists as a stand-alone article. I know I'd rather see it as a sub-section of abdomen. Currently, it seems to be exclusively about women's bare tummies. Even if it won't be merged with abdomen, it definitely more critical eyes and a some editorial love.
Please note that we also have waist.
Peter Isotalo 13:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I created an article for Susanna Paasonen and added her to the following categories (amongst others): Erotica and pornography websites · Gender · Feminism · Social theories · Third-wave feminism · Women's rights · Internet ethics · Internet culture. These were removed without explanation, on restoring them as unexplained content removal they were reverted again as: Reverted good faith edits by The Vintage Feminist: I'm pretty sure these categories were removed because they don't seem to be appropriate for (living) people. ( User:Drmies). I can see how the Erotica and pornography websites might be an issue but in what way are the others inappropriate for blp? -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 05:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
@ The Vintage Feminist: I went to argue keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deirdre M. Condit. It was open when I started, but by the time I had previewed and tried to save, Seraphimblade had closed it as delete. As of January 2015, 15.5 percent of our 1,445,021 biographies were about women. Are standards other than the WP:GNG being applied more often to women than to men? Pinging SusunW too. SarahSV (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Peter Isotalo has created a {{
GenderPOV}}
maintenance template to place at the top of articles with "unbalanced perspectives" in their description of gender. It will be useful for articles like
Midriff.
SarahSV
(talk)
04:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
There's only one way to find out if a template will be problematic or not & that's to use it. GoodDay ( talk) 15:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I suggest keeping an eye on images that are used in link templates like template:smoking. I just switched out a very pretty, but also stereotypical portrait of an old (white) man in a mustache smoking a cigar, to a simple pic of a burning cigarette.
Link templates like this are often used quite frequently and adding just one image can have an immediate effect on hundreds, or even thousands, of articles at once.
Peter Isotalo 13:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Quick question, just off the top of my head, if there were a proposed name change from WikiProject Pornography to WikiProject Pornography Perceptions, what kind of reception would it get? I know there would be a opposition from some, but I'm talking about if it were put to the wider community.
If you take something equally contentious like
WikiProject Abortion, the main page states the project's scope as: The purpose of this
WikiProject is to provide a central place to discuss work on articles in
Category:Abortion and its subcategories. These articles relate to
Abortion,
Abortion law, the
Abortion debate, and the
History of abortion.
... in other words its intention is neutral.
Compare that with the opening statement of
WikiProject Pornography:
The closest it gets to suggesting anti- as well as pro- is the last statement, the over arching tone is we ♥ it. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 01:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
A new project, or a sub-project seems like a good idea. Of course, there is no requirement to join a project in order to edit whatever you want, or even if you were to join the project to put up a user box. I've read criticism of our "Mind the gap" user box right on these pages. -- GRuban ( talk) 01:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I've been engaging in discussions at talk:Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain and talk:Dead or Alive 5. There's some disagreememt of how much coverage criticism of sexualized portrayal of female characters should have. Please feel free to comment on how to achieve appropriate neutrality in these matters.
Peter Isotalo 11:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Editors here are likely to be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taharrush gamea. SarahSV (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
You might be interested in my page: User:Biscuittin/Reform of Wikipedia. If not, just ignore it. Biscuittin ( talk) 12:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Some editors here may be interested in the discussion on this page: /info/en/?search=Talk:Hero#Requested_move_17_January_2016 Note that the motivation of gender balance among Wikipedia editors is invoked there. I've added some (intuitive rather than particularly informed) opinions and would like to see comments from others who have thought more about this sort of thing than me. I found the link c/o /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy Arided ( talk) 20:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I have been arguing the case for the notability of UK entrepreneur and property developer Draft:Gill Fielding for some time and the best I have got from one editor is that there 'may' be 'solid notability.' My references span the period 2001-2016 and include The Daily Telegraph, The Times, Daily Mail and Daily Express plus multiple regional/local publications. There is also a chapter in a published book about millionaire women. The references prove that Gill has appeared on Channel 4 and the BBC on mainstream shows. I am now concerned this article will be deleted due to the systematic bias against women on Wikipedia and would like to request help from the participants in this project. Thank you. Neilho ( talk) 11:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I thought this might interest you: "Women Through the Glass-Ceiling: Gender Asymmetries in Wikipedia" by Claudia Wagner, Eduardo Graells-Garrido, David Garciam; submitted on 19 Jan 2016. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 15:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a problem on the Suffragette page with a user edit warring under an account and as an anonymous IP. I am just going out, but after this message on my talk page it doesn't look like the problem will be solved any time soon. Perhaps others would like to answer the user's concerns here on the article talk page. Richerman (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a requested move that may interest people here at Talk:Taharrush jamai#Requested move 1 February 2016. SarahSV (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to one of our own, @ FloNight:, Women in Red was mentioned in Time earlier this month. [7] We work hard, and sometimes we don't know if anyone is paying attention, but the world is noticing. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 14:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I've collected some data and done some simple analysis on it at User:Smallbones/1000 random results. In particular the section at the bottom on "Biography, Women and Men" might be of interest to folks here. Very briefly, women's bios, according to several measures, are slightly lower in quality than men's bios one month after being started, and the difference increases over five years. IMHO, this likely results from cultural bias and a lack of source information, but in any case, knowing about this likely lower quality for women's bios is important and seems to be just another obstacle to overcome.
I know there are projects and edit-a-thons focusing on writing women's bios in March and at other times. Could you let the organizers know about this, if you consider it to be relevant to their efforts?
There's a discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales, that seems to be focusing on high quality articles (to my surprise) and you can leave feedback here or at User talk:Smallbones/1000 random results
Any feedback appreciated.
Smallbones( smalltalk) 18:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
External videos | |
---|---|
File:US Ambassador Alexa Wesner pd 2015.jpg | |
U.S. Ambassador Alexa Wesner Promotes Women in Tech Initiative, 2:13, US Embassy Vienna |
Feel free to copy it and post it where it might be most useful. Smallbones( smalltalk) 19:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Discussion at Template talk:Infobox model#Women's measurements about the template including women's bust, waist and hip measurements. SarahSV (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I created /info/en/?search=Draft:Katharine_Abraham, but the submission was declined on the grounds that "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability." The subject of this article was twice confirmed by the U.S. Senate for prominent positions, as indicated in the references I listed. Moreover, the subject of this page is one of very few red links on Council of Economic Advisers. What should I do now to get this article created? EAWH ( talk) 02:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
SPI Policy discussion may be of interest to project members: Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry#Sexist.2C_discriminatory_language_in_WP:FAMILY. Montanabw (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, "Women are everywhere" is a project about the gender gap problem in Wikipedia, with a focus on Italian Wikipedia. You can find a draft for an Individual Engagement Grant at this link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_are_everywhere. It would be great if I could have your help and your feedback on this project to improve it. Many thanks-- Kenzia ( talk) 10:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I thought this might be of interest:
Rebb ing 02:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Can anybody help out at Nathalia Holt? I'm not doing a good job, but will try again tomorrow. Smallbones( smalltalk) 02:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Just For The Record has prepared a combined IEG grant and PEG grant application to work on the promotion of more gender diversity on Wikipedia with an intersectional perspective. These grant applications build upon the exciting results of our 2015-2016 Brussels-based series of events addressing the gender gap on Wikipedia. Just For The Record has created a network in which expertise on these questions is created and shared. With our new applications, we want to expand this knowledge and network beyond the context of the edit-a-thon!
If awarded, the PEG grant will fund: location and refreshments for the 2016-2017 Just For The Record edit-a-thons. If awarded, the IEG grant will fund: research and analysis into the representation of gender on Wikipedia, combined with the construction of a research/ambassador network, leading to an intersectional non-sexist guide on how knowledge and history can be written in a more diverse way. We seek community comment, discussions and endorsement signatures (section at the bottom of the pages) to help complete the grant process: here and here! Many thanks, Lfurter ( talk) 09:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Can we do better than this?
A couple of years ago I read the history of feminism's fourth wave. I thought it was a bit US-centric so I added some material from Kira Cochrane's book All the Rebel Women: The Rise of the Fourth Wave of Feminism, (chapter one is available on Google preview). ISBN 9781783560363 ( diff). That was diluted into something that Cochrane was "advocating" rather than an account of events over the summer of 2013 ( diff).
The new article is shorter than the pre-existing section and it states that Cochrane "defines fourth wave feminism as a movement that is connected through technology". She actually says, "Everywhere you looked in the summer of 2013, a fourth wave of feminism was rising in the UK, women were opening their eyes to misogyny and sexism, and shouting back against it." She does discuss the way that technology is used in campaigns (social media, Everyday Sexism Project etc.) but to describe her book as if that is all there is to it is misleading. Also I'm not quite sure why it is called "fourth-wave of feminism" and not just "fourth-wave feminism".
I've avoided wading in so far as a lot of fourth wave feminism is oppositional to the MRA and there seems to be an attempt to quash that as a definition and define it using a more wishy-washy spiritual definition. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 16:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I thought this might be of interest to members of this wikiproject. I have opened a peer review request for Women in Classical Athens at WP:Peer review/Women in Classical Athens/archive2, with the aim of bringing the article up to featured status. I would be very grateful if anyone interested takes a look and comments briefly. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 10:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
FYI just saw this somewhat negative press related to funding? Waste Report - hopefully the project is going to at least get some use out of this funding! — xaosflux Talk 21:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm a bit lost on this - I'm sure I have read somewhere on WP about funding available for costs involved in organising meetup events which encourage recruitment and retention of women? I'm organising a WP Women writers' group in the city I live in (Christchurch, New Zealand) and would like them to be monthly events. There will be some small costs involved with hiring a venue, providing refreshments etc. Can anyone direct me to the right page/resource to make an application? Many thanks! MurielMary ( talk) 09:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I just ran into the photo on the left and thought I'd crop the original (at the LOC) and uploaded the 2 banners.
I should check in more detail, but the LOC had an exhibit on the history of the women's movement. Have these photos been uploaded in any systematic manner?
There is a new Inspiration grants program about harassment starting May 31. I'll suggest that we prepare something fairly big, get support here first and organize it, and all support it. A particular idea follows, but there may be better:
Hire academics for a study on what the WMF can do to lessen harassment on Wikipedia, particularly against women. The study could outline how other websites deal with harassment issues, what would the costs be for a proposed menu of possibilities, how would these proposals fit with Wikiculture, and expected results for a range of programs.
So this is *not* a study we'd do ourselves. Rather, we'd ask for proposals from academics to do the study. It would *not* recommend programs that we'd implement ourselves. Rather at the end, we'd be able to take the study to the WMF board and say "Here is a range of possible programs you can implement, here's what we expect they would accomplish, and here's what it is expected to cost."
How much would such a study cost? How much should we ask for? Would $10,000 be enough?
All ideas welcome. Smallbones( smalltalk) 17:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
FYI:– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High heel policy. Andrew D. ( talk) 17:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Dear all, on this talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards, I proposed to introduce a gender gap barnstar on English Wikipedia. I did the same on Dutch Wikipedia (but on that project, a new barnstar does not need community approval). Up to now, no comments resulted. Perhaps some of you are interested to introduce such a small reward. Meanwhile, keep up the good work! Ellywa ( talk) 21:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)