On 11/13/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, exactly! People sem to have read in a whole lot
in what I said
that I didn't mean. I'm not saying there should be a "quota" of female
editors on the arbcom, that would be insane. I'm just saying that
there obviously is a problem here, and that we can't just say "Gender
is irrelevant on wikipedia" (like geni did), because frankly, that's
just as insane.
Not really. Particaly when you consider it is likely that there are a
number of wikipedians who would probably editify with a gender outside
the normal two (Just wait untill some of our more ah sexualy illiberal
critics notice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Furry_Wikipedians)
I don't care how old you are. I don't care what sex you are. I don't
care what skin shade you are. I don't care what sexual orientation you
are. I don't care about your marital status.
I will care about the langue you speak and sometimes which country you
are in when dealing with copyright issues.
Wikipedia is clearly a place where men feels more
comfortable than
women and that is something that is a BAD thing.
Why?
And a bunch of guys
trying to ignore the issue is just making it worse.
Why?
--
geni