Agreed...very good points.
On 11/25/06, charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com <
charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
Stan Shebs wrote
The
hazard of asserting that women editors have something similarly
distinctive to bring to WP, by virtue of gender alone, is that one is
playing right into the stereotype of "women's topics" or "female
viewpoints", and risks creating a sort of "pink collar" ghetto in WP
that new female editors would be subtly (or not-so-subtly) steered
towards.
The argument is broken.
Sure, creating the editorial equivalent of traditional newspapers' Women's
Pages is not only a generation out of date and patronising, it is nothing
anyone with WP experience would want anything to do with.
But WP is a voluntary organisation, first and foremost. Discouraging women
in any way is shooting ourselves in the feet, big time. Not just because
slant in topic coverage will be harder to correct. But because women are (on
average) better quality volunteers. Why else did we elect Angela and Anthere
to the Board?
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from
www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit
www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l