On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Derric Atzrott <
datzrott(a)alizeepathology.com> wrote:
* bring back Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance since
women may not want to
got to WP:ANI for low grade constant nonsense
Would support wholeheartedly.
The problem with Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance was the same as the
problem with AN/I. As soon as someone took a complaint to
Wikiquette_assistance people like Baseball Bugs would make fun of them for
being too sensitive and it would basically turn into forum for criticizing
the person who complained. No one at Wikiquette_assistance took complaints
seriously, so it just ended up making things more frustrating for the
person who was being harassed.
If we want a forum that is more effective, I think we should adopt some of
the ideas from the Teahouse. Primarily, by having the responders be vetted
volunteers that are expected to provide a minimum level of helpfulness. All
the peanut gallery responders who are just there for the lulz should be
banned.
Ryan Kaldari
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Derric Atzrott <
datzrott(a)alizeepathology.com> wrote:
* bring back Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance since
women may not want to
got to WP:ANI for low grade constant nonsense
Would support wholeheartedly.
> * take complaints about harassment in general more seriously
>
> Also would support wholeheartedly.
>
> * Have a "class action" Arbitration on Sexism/Double standards so that
> discretionary sanctions could be imposed on obvious incidents
>
> Strong support.
>
> * (new one) quota of 1/3 women admins and 1/3 women arbitrators (and other
> positions?)
>
> I’m not sure this would be enforceable, but I would highly support
> encouraging more women to take up these positions. The process for
> becoming an admin or arbitrator really needs some work as well. From what
> I understand becoming an admin is hellish. People dig through everything
> you’ve ever done and call you out on anything going all the way back to the
> beginning of time. It might not actually be that way, I’ve not really
> participated in them, but if it is, that is a problem and probably a big
> deterrent to a great deal of folks.
>
> * (new one) A GenderGap wikiproject on every wiki, since it can be
> troublesome having to go all the way to
>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_gap to contact women about what to
> do with specific issues; (wikiprojects like feminism and gender and womens
> studies more article and policy related than recruitment and problem
> solving related)
>
> Would support. Given that many people don’t ever leave their homewiki,
> and a lot of new people probably don’t even know Meta exists, this could be
> highly beneficial.
>
> The archives probably have other early suggestions by women I've
> forgotten. Now a days the only alternatives seem to be doing studies,
> counting numbers, posting mainstream media articles about what Wikipedia is
> allegedly doing and links to problematic articles.
>
> Not enough to solve the problem.
>
> Studies are useful. This particular study shows promise I think:
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_and_Wikipedia For allies
> these sorts of things help us understand what we are actually trying to
> accomplish and metrics are useful for determining if we’ve actually made
> any progress. It is hard to quantitatively measure a culture though. This
> sort of research also publicises the problem, which is something that there
> can never be enough of I think.
>
> Maybe it would be worth making threads for some of these ideas. If no one
> else does, I’d be happy to.
>
> Thank you,
> Derric Atzrott
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>