[Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
41 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision

Nathan Awrich
You certainly put a lot of time and effort into being wrong. Any first year
undergraduate writing course will tell you that to make an argument you
need to address the counter-arguments, which you have failed even to
mention. Diversity of contributors isn't a social justice goal, or even a
cultural engineering goal. It is aimed squarely at increasing the diversity
and caliber of content. Not only does the small proportion of women mean
that millions of them with huge amounts of expertise to contribute are
unheard, it also means that their perspective and approach are
underrepresented or missing entirely.

And yes, the same is true for others - not only African-Americans, but
Africans. Not only people of "Indo-Asian" descent, but the people of the
Indian subcontinent itself. This is not an American movement, yet the
"global south" is deeply under-represented, and the WMF has been working
for years to address this issue. This is, again, because diversity of
contributors matters for the breadth and depth of coverage in our projects.
The goal of the Wikimedia movement is the sum of all human knowledge, not
the sum of knowledge held by white men between 15 and 35 living in Europe
and North America.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision

Leigh Thelmadatter
I dont think the issue is the idea of encouraging projects that increase the participation of women, but rather the message that everything else is getting shoved aside.  

I dont see this as sexism and playing that card is counter-productive.  

What I suggest is that instead of saying that for three months everyone else is  sidelined, focus on inclusion.  If there arent enough or good enough projects for addressing the number of women participating in Wikipedia, perhaps we should look into why. Perhaps also look into the Foundation directly reaching out to women's groups for collaborative purposes.

But the OP does have a point. By telling certain groups "we are not interested in you right now" you are playing an "us-against-them" game and quite probably causing more harm than good.


Leigh


> Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 09:03:40 -0500
> From: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision
>
> You certainly put a lot of time and effort into being wrong. Any first year
> undergraduate writing course will tell you that to make an argument you
> need to address the counter-arguments, which you have failed even to
> mention. Diversity of contributors isn't a social justice goal, or even a
> cultural engineering goal. It is aimed squarely at increasing the diversity
> and caliber of content. Not only does the small proportion of women mean
> that millions of them with huge amounts of expertise to contribute are
> unheard, it also means that their perspective and approach are
> underrepresented or missing entirely.
>
> And yes, the same is true for others - not only African-Americans, but
> Africans. Not only people of "Indo-Asian" descent, but the people of the
> Indian subcontinent itself. This is not an American movement, yet the
> "global south" is deeply under-represented, and the WMF has been working
> for years to address this issue. This is, again, because diversity of
> contributors matters for the breadth and depth of coverage in our projects.
> The goal of the Wikimedia movement is the sum of all human knowledge, not
> the sum of knowledge held by white men between 15 and 35 living in Europe
> and North America.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
     
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision

Jens Best
Sorry to interrupted, just a short question.

I'm looking for statistics of how many project ideas/requests were
submitted in the past. How many volunteers and WMF-employees were and are
involved in evaluating all these submissions and so on.

Can anybody provide me with a link or any other kind of reliable
informations on that?

best regards

Jens Best

2015-01-08 15:13 GMT+01:00 Leigh Thelmadatter <[hidden email]>:

> I dont think the issue is the idea of encouraging projects that increase
> the participation of women, but rather the message that everything else is
> getting shoved aside.
>
> I dont see this as sexism and playing that card is counter-productive.
>
> What I suggest is that instead of saying that for three months everyone
> else is  sidelined, focus on inclusion.  If there arent enough or good
> enough projects for addressing the number of women participating in
> Wikipedia, perhaps we should look into why. Perhaps also look into the
> Foundation directly reaching out to women's groups for collaborative
> purposes.
>
> But the OP does have a point. By telling certain groups "we are not
> interested in you right now" you are playing an "us-against-them" game and
> quite probably causing more harm than good.
>
>
> Leigh
>
>
> > Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 09:03:40 -0500
> > From: [hidden email]
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender
> gap project-related decision
> >
> > You certainly put a lot of time and effort into being wrong. Any first
> year
> > undergraduate writing course will tell you that to make an argument you
> > need to address the counter-arguments, which you have failed even to
> > mention. Diversity of contributors isn't a social justice goal, or even a
> > cultural engineering goal. It is aimed squarely at increasing the
> diversity
> > and caliber of content. Not only does the small proportion of women mean
> > that millions of them with huge amounts of expertise to contribute are
> > unheard, it also means that their perspective and approach are
> > underrepresented or missing entirely.
> >
> > And yes, the same is true for others - not only African-Americans, but
> > Africans. Not only people of "Indo-Asian" descent, but the people of the
> > Indian subcontinent itself. This is not an American movement, yet the
> > "global south" is deeply under-represented, and the WMF has been working
> > for years to address this issue. This is, again, because diversity of
> > contributors matters for the breadth and depth of coverage in our
> projects.
> > The goal of the Wikimedia movement is the sum of all human knowledge, not
> > the sum of knowledge held by white men between 15 and 35 living in Europe
> > and North America.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Fred Bauder-2
Did someone suggest that men should reduce editing or participation? I missed that.
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of FRED BAUDER
Sent: 08 January 2015 02:10 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List; Liam Wyatt
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision

On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 11:29:57 +0100
  Liam Wyatt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> As this thread demonstrates, what discussions about the massive  
>gender imbalance in Wikimedia editorship need is more men discussing
>why it  might or might not be important.
>
> </sarcasm>

Radical feminist notions that men should reduce editing or participation are counter-productive. The solution is OR not NOT; anyone should be able to edit without struggle.

Fred


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4257/8890 - Release Date: 01/08/15


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision

Nathan Awrich
In reply to this post by Leigh Thelmadatter
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Leigh Thelmadatter <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I dont think the issue is the idea of encouraging projects that increase
> the participation of women, but rather the message that everything else is
> getting shoved aside.
>
>
I don't see how you can come to this conclusion. His entire e-mail is
explaining why no effort should be expended on the gender gap. It seems as
if the grant initiative is simply the proximate motive for explaining why
the gender gap is not a problem and working to address it is harmful and
insulting. I did not describe that position as sexist, and I couldn't
confidently assert that it is. It is, however, ignorant.

Perhaps the grants teams could have gone about this initiative in a better
way - that is usually the case when it comes to WMF communication and
organization. They could have set aside a specific dollar amount, or some
proportion of grants over a period of time. But three months is a short
period, and I find the sense of entitlement to WMF funds reflected in some
comments to be troubling.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Risker
How is it possible to give a realistic answer to that question?
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Risker
Sent: 08 January 2015 02:42 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision

I have one simple question:  if the Grants program was to focus on some other  key area rather than the gender gap, would we be having this discussion about how horrible it is to waste time this way?  Would we see throwing up of hands in this way if the focus was, say, requests from the Global South? A focus on getting great bots built and working across wikis?  A focus on events and processes for media collection? (Incidentally the latter more or less happens anyway with several groups applying for funding for WLM within a narrow period...)


Frankly, there's not a single thing I've read, or a single objection I've seen raised, that wasn't about how unnecessary it is to focus on women.  I don't think we've ever heard that about the global south, or non-European languages, or a lot of other areas where there are acknowledged biases.

Risker/Anne




On 8 January 2015 at 02:07, mcc99 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dear fellow Wikipedia devotees,
>
> While I'm new to this list, I've been an avid fan and proponent of
> Wikipedia and all the great service it gives people since it launched.
> People can learn not just all the basics of nearly any topic
> imaginable, but for a large number, readers can with diligence become
> expert on more than a few and save themselves the cost of
> tuition/training.  All this, in addition to satisfying their curiosity about millions of subjects.
>
> That said, it doesn't matter who writes the content on Wikipedia so
> long as it's relevant and factual.  Unlike the published,
> single-authority edited encyclopediae of the past, Wikipedia allows
> anyone with relevant information to contribute to it.  Their additions
> or other edits are checked by volunteers to make sure the edit isn't a
> defacement, irrelevant, patently unfactual, or unverifiable.  They are
> typically left as written or maybe edited only for grammar/spelling.  
> Wikipedia is a rare success story in democracy of knowledge.  If one
> feels moved to contribute, they do.  If not, they don't.  It's like
> voting in a sense, though it's true people in democracies should
> perhaps take the opportunity to do so more often.  But it's up to them.
>
> Like voting or anything else, to single out a particular group of
> people based on their indelible characteristics as being desirable as
> contributors to any field implicitly devalues the contributions not
> just of those currently contributing who don't fall into that
> category, but also says to any other group of a particular identity
> that you care more about the group you're trying to get more involvement from than them.  "Identity politics"
> is unfortunately a fact of our current political climate and I hope
> one day we can, as MLK Jr. hoped, judge one another not by skin color
> (and I'd add gender, sexuality, and a few others), but by content of
> character.  In the context of Wikipedia, this would translate to the
> veracity and applicability of contributions made to the vast Wikipedia
> knowledge-base -- not who in particular is doing the contributing, nor
> their indelible characteristics of person.
>
> Because identity politics is today part of general electoral politics
> doesn't mean it need be for anything else, and especially given how
> such things as a person's ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc., say
> nothing about what they know about or can do, I don't see how it's
> relevant to the veracity and applicability of Wikipedia's knowledge
> base.  I don't care that, for example, a black person (Charles Drew,
> MD) came up with the process of creating blood plasma, an innovation
> that has saved millions of lives.  He was tragically and mortally
> injured in a car accident, however, and so his potential future
> achievements were lost to humanity.  (He was not refused treatment for
> his injuries at the hospital he was taken to because of his ethnicity,
> as is widely but falsely believed; he was just so badly injured that
> he died.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_R._Drew#Death ).  I
> also don't care that Adm Grace Hopper (USN) wad female, only that she
> wrote the first computer language compiler so programmers of lesser
> brain power than her (such as myself) could go on to program computers
> without struggling with binary switches and punch cards.  Her
> contributions were what was important, not her gender, skin color, or
> anything else as far as her professional achievements go.
>
> If you ask any RN the names of the greatest contributors to the
> nursing profession, you'll get a stream of women's names.  To suggest
> that nursing "needs" more men or else it won't be able to achieve its
> greatest potential would be a crass and inaccurate insult to the many
> thousands of women who have made modern nursing what it is.  Of course
> there have been and will be male nurses who stand out as contributors,
> but only a very small percentage, probably in keeping with the ratio of men to women in nursing.
> And yet, despite the high salaries RNs command, are there any
> gov't-sponsored initiatives to get men into nursing?  If so, it'd be
> news to me and many others.  But I ask, if men by and large, for
> whatever reasons, aren't interested in becoming nurses, why make a big
> deal about it?  Are there gov't-sponsored campaigns to get more women
> into the relatively lucrative job of refuse collection?  Or, the
> likewise lucrative jobs of plumber, ordnance disposal engineer,
> nuclear materials technician, etc.?  No.  But other fields that are a
> lot less dirty and/or dangerous, yes.  (Think professional STEM
> fields.)  This isn't by accident, nor is the fact that the nursing
> profession with its high salaries (for RNs, anyway) is in no hurry to
> recruit men simply because they're men.  But why should they?  That one receives care from a female vs. male nurse isn't relevant.
> To trumpet a "need" for men in nursing minimizes the huge
> contributions of women nurses and is a patently false proposition.  
> Nursing needs competent, dedicated people in its ranks.  The gender of them is irrelevant.
>
> This returns me to my primary point, which I hope you can see.  WMF
> may think this idea to single out a particular group based on an
> innate characteristic to encourage them to be Wikipedia contributors
> is good for some reason, but it rests on false assumptions around a
> connection between one's gender and their competence at any given
> task.  Unless the task is inherently tied to a person's sexual
> biology, it doesn't play a part in whether or not they are good or not
> at something, nor whether or not they want to do it. (I am for example
> a good improv-style comedian; many have suggested I go to open-mic nights and share my schtick with the crowd.
> Thing is, I don't want to, so I don't.  It's enough for me to know I
> can keep my friends in stitches when I am so moved.)
>
> As for devaluing current contributors should they happen *not* to be
> female: WMF, like a political party, needs to be careful, I suggest,
> not to drop a dozen eggs while going to pick up three.  Also, in the
> process of telling other identity groups you're focusing on just one,
> you marginalize them.  "Playing favorites" is a trap the gov't has
> fallen into and the results have been bad for it.
>
> Like others on this list, I also got an email today from someone who
> subbed me to a supposed Google Group for lesbian Wikipedia contributors.
> While I knew immediately it was a fake [1. I'm not female and thus 2.
> Cannot by definition be a lesbian], its very existence shows the
> disaffection with the decision.  It also underscores the hazards of
> going the identity politics route.  For example, to be extra-inclusive
> within the target audience (women), would this initiative now need to
> be tweaked to include a special sub-effort of outreach to gay women?  
> And what about bisexual women?  They are, arguably, like gay women, a
> group in need perhaps of specific outreach and encouragement.  But
> maybe the same can be said of black people (or African-American, if
> you prefer), Lationos (or Hispanics, again, if you prefer), or maybe
> people of western Asian descent (i.e., people whose ancestors lived in
> pre-modern era Asia in countries now named China, Mongolia, Korea, and
> Japan).  And then there are people of Indo-Asian ethnicity (India, Pakistan, etc.).  Polynesians.  Mexicas.
> Native Americans (or Indians, depending on who you ask).  Gay men.  Bi
> men.  Gay Latinos.  Transsexual Polynesian-Indo-Asian women, men, or both.
> There's no end of it once the precedent is established, and there'll
> be no peace for the WMF.
>
> The gov't can get away with using identiy politics and pursuing
> policies of favortism based on whatever aspects they choose to use.  
> Age, sex, ethnicity, non-natural personhood (i.e., corporate
> welfare/punishment), etc., are all open to them because they are the
> gov't.  Unless people are ready to rebel against them, they have the say about where the taxpayers'
> bounty goes and who is favored over another.  It may annoy some in the
> pop'n (esp. those not getting the largesse), but too bad.  Unless
> you're ready to go rebel, you have to accept it.
>
> Non-profit shoestring volunteer-dependent endeavors cannot afford to
> be choosy or worse, be or appear to be high-handed. One key to success
> in the marketplace is recognizing that everyone's money is as green as
> anyone else's.  In the case of WMF, the currency is contributors of knowledge.
> WMF can't afford to alienate them in favor of *maybe* picking up a few
> more volunteers/contributors.  Again, don't drop a dozen eggs trying
> to pick up three more.  The risk isn't worth the reward.  The only
> thing WMF has going for itself is popularity and justifiable faith in
> what it provides.  Lose either of these things and it's done for.  If
> you start counting such irrelevancies as the physical or similar
> aspects of contributors (like their ethnicity, gender, sexual
> orientation, etc.) as being ipso facto relevant to the value of their
> contributions, you've lost the second thing (justifiable faith).  If
> you openly, in fact or in appearance, start playing favorites from
> among your readers/contributors/volunteers for any reason, you are sure to lose the first (popularity).
>
> WMF would be better-served focusing not on the sex, etc. of its
> contributors, but on its long-term survival strategy.  At the moment,
> WMF is living hand-to-mouth and relying on end-of-year micro-donations
> to keep itself afloat.  This isn't a sustainable model.
>
> Wikipedia is a free web-based teaching and reference service.  It is
> only a question of when someone with a better mousetrap who has a way
> to make money from their site comes along.  (Remember the #1 search engine in
> 1996?  It was called "Alta Vista".  Then came Google.   The rest is
> history, and the big reason for that is simply Google's AdSense.  If
> Alta Vista had come up with that idea, maybe they'd still be around.)
>
> I won't suggest Wikipedia stop being Wikipedia.  Did Google stop being
> a free search engine after they learned how to make money from it,
> allowing them to continue being Google (and more)?  No.  Neither should Wikipedia.
> But WMF has to figure out how to become able to sustain itself without
> the kindness of strangers.  Projects like closing the (so-called)
> gender gap will actually work against the aim of making Wikipedia more
> atteactive than it is now as a web site for gaining knowledge but
> without the heaps of embedded editorializing found today in newspapers
> on- and off-line, in textbooks covering almost anything but the hard
> sciences, etc.  Still, it can create for itself opportunities to pay
> its own way and attract donations that people feel good to make.
>
> About a week and a half ago, I asked for input re a project
> suggestion.  ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiTribute ) To date,
> I haven't gotten feedback because perhaps the list has been filled
> with discussion about the exclusivity of the 3-month gender gap
> project funding.  Already, the topic has distracted people from
> possibilities that may otherwise have been entertained that could
> generate income for WMF.  Aside from the idea's merits as such, it is
> also a way to encourage donations/get fees, and in an ongoing basis rather than principally at one time of the year (December).
> But even if WMF thinks it isn't worth pursuing, it needs something
> else -- something it can charge for that will have broad, on-going
> appeal to many people and/or business entities.  (AdSense, for
> example, is used by ordinary people with blogs and large high-traffic
> commercial web sites
> alike.)  It has to leave people feeling good about Wikipedia and WMF
> and be popular broadly and "agnostically".  Does your local gas station care if
> you're male or female?  Gay or straight or bi or asexual?   Or does the Red
> Cross decide when there's a blood drive that only certain donors will
> get the cookies and coffee or be encouraged to get them while telling
> other donors to wait until that particular group has gotten some
> first?  If they did, donations'd fall off fast, or blood donors would
> go directly to hospitals to donate -- assuming they still felt like it.
>
> Maybe my note and/or opinion will be ignored, or denounced, or
> something else.  Perhaps it'll have no effect at all.  But as a
> devoted Wikipedia enthusiast, donor to WMF, and
> pro-knowledge-democracy advocate, I can tell you that raising a fence
> if even temporarily to full participation in WMF activities for
> Wikipedians interested in seeing it grow is bad on multiple
> levels: politically, philosophically, practically, and financially,
> and most especially, relative to its foundational purpose of allowing
> others to contribute/participate to this great effort of recording the
> world's collective knowledge on an on-going basis and without
> hindrance, except insofar as the contributions are accurate, relevant, and sincere.
>
> It's a dream worth keeping alive.  I for one would hate one day to
> look back on 1Q 2015 and say to the others with me in the nursing home
> "Yeah, Wikipedia -- it was a sad day back in '15.  The beginning of
> the end.  I was there.  I tried talking them out of it, but... it just didn't work.
> Now we're all stuck with
> www.selected-contributors-only-o-pedia-not-wikipedia.com and that's
> nothing close to what we used to have in Wikipedia."
>
> Of course by then, we may all have computers implanted in our brains
> that tell us anything we want to know just by thinking the question.  
> Doubt it, but who knows.
>
> Thank you for reading.
>
> Matt
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4257/8890 - Release Date: 01/08/15


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision

Fred Bauder-2
It's a rhetorical question, but, based on experience, I would probably
chime in if a similar proposal was floated about native people such as
African tribes or American Indians; most hardly ever edit, even in
their own language, and throwing money at the problem is unlikely to
be productive. It may be that a few clever effective proposals about
gender participation might surface. I've noticed that women are often
quite motivated and good at writing grant proposals.

Fred

On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 17:43:40 +0200
  "Peter Southwood" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> How is it possible to give a realistic answer to that question?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
>From: [hidden email]
>[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Risker
> Sent: 08 January 2015 02:42 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month
>gender gap project-related decision
>
> I have one simple question:  if the Grants program was to focus on
>some other  key area rather than the gender gap, would we be having
>this discussion about how horrible it is to waste time this way?
> Would we see throwing up of hands in this way if the focus was, say,
>requests from the Global South? A focus on getting great bots built
>and working across wikis?  A focus on events and processes for media
>collection? (Incidentally the latter more or less happens anyway with
>several groups applying for funding for WLM within a narrow
>period...)
>
>
>Frankly, there's not a single thing I've read, or a single objection
>I've seen raised, that wasn't about how unnecessary it is to focus on
>women.  I don't think we've ever heard that about the global south,
>or non-European languages, or a lot of other areas where there are
>acknowledged biases.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
>
>
>
> On 8 January 2015 at 02:07, mcc99 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Dear fellow Wikipedia devotees,
>>
>> While I'm new to this list, I've been an avid fan and proponent of
>> Wikipedia and all the great service it gives people since it
>>launched.
>> People can learn not just all the basics of nearly any topic
>> imaginable, but for a large number, readers can with diligence
>>become
>> expert on more than a few and save themselves the cost of
>> tuition/training.  All this, in addition to satisfying their
>>curiosity about millions of subjects.
>>
>> That said, it doesn't matter who writes the content on Wikipedia so
>> long as it's relevant and factual.  Unlike the published,
>> single-authority edited encyclopediae of the past, Wikipedia allows
>> anyone with relevant information to contribute to it.  Their
>>additions
>> or other edits are checked by volunteers to make sure the edit isn't
>>a
>> defacement, irrelevant, patently unfactual, or unverifiable.  They
>>are
>> typically left as written or maybe edited only for grammar/spelling.
>>
>> Wikipedia is a rare success story in democracy of knowledge.  If one
>> feels moved to contribute, they do.  If not, they don't.  It's like
>> voting in a sense, though it's true people in democracies should
>> perhaps take the opportunity to do so more often.  But it's up to
>>them.
>>
>> Like voting or anything else, to single out a particular group of
>> people based on their indelible characteristics as being desirable
>>as
>> contributors to any field implicitly devalues the contributions not
>> just of those currently contributing who don't fall into that
>> category, but also says to any other group of a particular identity
>> that you care more about the group you're trying to get more
>>involvement from than them.  "Identity politics"
>> is unfortunately a fact of our current political climate and I hope
>> one day we can, as MLK Jr. hoped, judge one another not by skin
>>color
>> (and I'd add gender, sexuality, and a few others), but by content of
>> character.  In the context of Wikipedia, this would translate to the
>> veracity and applicability of contributions made to the vast
>>Wikipedia
>> knowledge-base -- not who in particular is doing the contributing,
>>nor
>> their indelible characteristics of person.
>>
>> Because identity politics is today part of general electoral
>>politics
>> doesn't mean it need be for anything else, and especially given how
>> such things as a person's ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc., say
>> nothing about what they know about or can do, I don't see how it's
>> relevant to the veracity and applicability of Wikipedia's knowledge
>> base.  I don't care that, for example, a black person (Charles Drew,
>> MD) came up with the process of creating blood plasma, an innovation
>> that has saved millions of lives.  He was tragically and mortally
>> injured in a car accident, however, and so his potential future
>> achievements were lost to humanity.  (He was not refused treatment
>>for
>> his injuries at the hospital he was taken to because of his
>>ethnicity,
>> as is widely but falsely believed; he was just so badly injured that
>> he died.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_R._Drew#Death ).
>> I
>> also don't care that Adm Grace Hopper (USN) wad female, only that
>>she
>> wrote the first computer language compiler so programmers of lesser
>> brain power than her (such as myself) could go on to program
>>computers
>> without struggling with binary switches and punch cards.  Her
>> contributions were what was important, not her gender, skin color,
>>or
>> anything else as far as her professional achievements go.
>>
>> If you ask any RN the names of the greatest contributors to the
>> nursing profession, you'll get a stream of women's names.  To
>>suggest
>> that nursing "needs" more men or else it won't be able to achieve
>>its
>> greatest potential would be a crass and inaccurate insult to the
>>many
>> thousands of women who have made modern nursing what it is.  Of
>>course
>> there have been and will be male nurses who stand out as
>>contributors,
>> but only a very small percentage, probably in keeping with the ratio
>>of men to women in nursing.
>> And yet, despite the high salaries RNs command, are there any
>> gov't-sponsored initiatives to get men into nursing?  If so, it'd be
>> news to me and many others.  But I ask, if men by and large, for
>> whatever reasons, aren't interested in becoming nurses, why make a
>>big
>> deal about it?  Are there gov't-sponsored campaigns to get more
>>women
>> into the relatively lucrative job of refuse collection?  Or, the
>> likewise lucrative jobs of plumber, ordnance disposal engineer,
>> nuclear materials technician, etc.?  No.  But other fields that are
>>a
>> lot less dirty and/or dangerous, yes.  (Think professional STEM
>> fields.)  This isn't by accident, nor is the fact that the nursing
>> profession with its high salaries (for RNs, anyway) is in no hurry
>>to
>> recruit men simply because they're men.  But why should they?  That
>>one receives care from a female vs. male nurse isn't relevant.
>> To trumpet a "need" for men in nursing minimizes the huge
>> contributions of women nurses and is a patently false proposition.  
>> Nursing needs competent, dedicated people in its ranks.  The gender
>>of them is irrelevant.
>>
>> This returns me to my primary point, which I hope you can see.  WMF
>> may think this idea to single out a particular group based on an
>> innate characteristic to encourage them to be Wikipedia contributors
>> is good for some reason, but it rests on false assumptions around a
>> connection between one's gender and their competence at any given
>> task.  Unless the task is inherently tied to a person's sexual
>> biology, it doesn't play a part in whether or not they are good or
>>not
>> at something, nor whether or not they want to do it. (I am for
>>example
>> a good improv-style comedian; many have suggested I go to open-mic
>>nights and share my schtick with the crowd.
>> Thing is, I don't want to, so I don't.  It's enough for me to know I
>> can keep my friends in stitches when I am so moved.)
>>
>> As for devaluing current contributors should they happen *not* to be
>> female: WMF, like a political party, needs to be careful, I suggest,
>> not to drop a dozen eggs while going to pick up three.  Also, in the
>> process of telling other identity groups you're focusing on just
>>one,
>> you marginalize them.  "Playing favorites" is a trap the gov't has
>> fallen into and the results have been bad for it.
>>
>> Like others on this list, I also got an email today from someone who
>> subbed me to a supposed Google Group for lesbian Wikipedia
>>contributors.
>> While I knew immediately it was a fake [1. I'm not female and thus
>>2.
>> Cannot by definition be a lesbian], its very existence shows the
>> disaffection with the decision.  It also underscores the hazards of
>> going the identity politics route.  For example, to be
>>extra-inclusive
>> within the target audience (women), would this initiative now need
>>to
>> be tweaked to include a special sub-effort of outreach to gay women?
>>
>> And what about bisexual women?  They are, arguably, like gay women,
>>a
>> group in need perhaps of specific outreach and encouragement.  But
>> maybe the same can be said of black people (or African-American, if
>> you prefer), Lationos (or Hispanics, again, if you prefer), or maybe
>> people of western Asian descent (i.e., people whose ancestors lived
>>in
>> pre-modern era Asia in countries now named China, Mongolia, Korea,
>>and
>> Japan).  And then there are people of Indo-Asian ethnicity (India,
>>Pakistan, etc.).  Polynesians.  Mexicas.
>> Native Americans (or Indians, depending on who you ask).  Gay men.
>> Bi
>> men.  Gay Latinos.  Transsexual Polynesian-Indo-Asian women, men, or
>>both.
>> There's no end of it once the precedent is established, and there'll
>> be no peace for the WMF.
>>
>> The gov't can get away with using identiy politics and pursuing
>> policies of favortism based on whatever aspects they choose to use.
>>
>> Age, sex, ethnicity, non-natural personhood (i.e., corporate
>> welfare/punishment), etc., are all open to them because they are the
>> gov't.  Unless people are ready to rebel against them, they have the
>>say about where the taxpayers'
>> bounty goes and who is favored over another.  It may annoy some in
>>the
>> pop'n (esp. those not getting the largesse), but too bad.  Unless
>> you're ready to go rebel, you have to accept it.
>>
>> Non-profit shoestring volunteer-dependent endeavors cannot afford to
>> be choosy or worse, be or appear to be high-handed. One key to
>>success
>> in the marketplace is recognizing that everyone's money is as green
>>as
>> anyone else's.  In the case of WMF, the currency is contributors of
>>knowledge.
>> WMF can't afford to alienate them in favor of *maybe* picking up a
>>few
>> more volunteers/contributors.  Again, don't drop a dozen eggs trying
>> to pick up three more.  The risk isn't worth the reward.  The only
>> thing WMF has going for itself is popularity and justifiable faith
>>in
>> what it provides.  Lose either of these things and it's done for.
>> If
>> you start counting such irrelevancies as the physical or similar
>> aspects of contributors (like their ethnicity, gender, sexual
>> orientation, etc.) as being ipso facto relevant to the value of
>>their
>> contributions, you've lost the second thing (justifiable faith).  If
>> you openly, in fact or in appearance, start playing favorites from
>> among your readers/contributors/volunteers for any reason, you are
>>sure to lose the first (popularity).
>>
>> WMF would be better-served focusing not on the sex, etc. of its
>> contributors, but on its long-term survival strategy.  At the
>>moment,
>> WMF is living hand-to-mouth and relying on end-of-year
>>micro-donations
>> to keep itself afloat.  This isn't a sustainable model.
>>
>> Wikipedia is a free web-based teaching and reference service.  It is
>> only a question of when someone with a better mousetrap who has a
>>way
>> to make money from their site comes along.  (Remember the #1 search
>>engine in
>> 1996?  It was called "Alta Vista".  Then came Google.   The rest is
>> history, and the big reason for that is simply Google's AdSense.  If
>> Alta Vista had come up with that idea, maybe they'd still be
>>around.)
>>
>> I won't suggest Wikipedia stop being Wikipedia.  Did Google stop
>>being
>> a free search engine after they learned how to make money from it,
>> allowing them to continue being Google (and more)?  No.  Neither
>>should Wikipedia.
>> But WMF has to figure out how to become able to sustain itself
>>without
>> the kindness of strangers.  Projects like closing the (so-called)
>> gender gap will actually work against the aim of making Wikipedia
>>more
>> atteactive than it is now as a web site for gaining knowledge but
>> without the heaps of embedded editorializing found today in
>>newspapers
>> on- and off-line, in textbooks covering almost anything but the hard
>> sciences, etc.  Still, it can create for itself opportunities to pay
>> its own way and attract donations that people feel good to make.
>>
>> About a week and a half ago, I asked for input re a project
>> suggestion.  ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiTribute ) To
>>date,
>> I haven't gotten feedback because perhaps the list has been filled
>> with discussion about the exclusivity of the 3-month gender gap
>> project funding.  Already, the topic has distracted people from
>> possibilities that may otherwise have been entertained that could
>> generate income for WMF.  Aside from the idea's merits as such, it
>>is
>> also a way to encourage donations/get fees, and in an ongoing basis
>>rather than principally at one time of the year (December).
>> But even if WMF thinks it isn't worth pursuing, it needs something
>> else -- something it can charge for that will have broad, on-going
>> appeal to many people and/or business entities.  (AdSense, for
>> example, is used by ordinary people with blogs and large
>>high-traffic
>> commercial web sites
>> alike.)  It has to leave people feeling good about Wikipedia and WMF
>> and be popular broadly and "agnostically".  Does your local gas
>>station care if
>> you're male or female?  Gay or straight or bi or asexual?   Or does
>>the Red
>> Cross decide when there's a blood drive that only certain donors
>>will
>> get the cookies and coffee or be encouraged to get them while
>>telling
>> other donors to wait until that particular group has gotten some
>> first?  If they did, donations'd fall off fast, or blood donors
>>would
>> go directly to hospitals to donate -- assuming they still felt like
>>it.
>>
>> Maybe my note and/or opinion will be ignored, or denounced, or
>> something else.  Perhaps it'll have no effect at all.  But as a
>> devoted Wikipedia enthusiast, donor to WMF, and
>> pro-knowledge-democracy advocate, I can tell you that raising a
>>fence
>> if even temporarily to full participation in WMF activities for
>> Wikipedians interested in seeing it grow is bad on multiple
>> levels: politically, philosophically, practically, and financially,
>> and most especially, relative to its foundational purpose of
>>allowing
>> others to contribute/participate to this great effort of recording
>>the
>> world's collective knowledge on an on-going basis and without
>> hindrance, except insofar as the contributions are accurate,
>>relevant, and sincere.
>>
>> It's a dream worth keeping alive.  I for one would hate one day to
>> look back on 1Q 2015 and say to the others with me in the nursing
>>home
>> "Yeah, Wikipedia -- it was a sad day back in '15.  The beginning of
>> the end.  I was there.  I tried talking them out of it, but... it
>>just didn't work.
>> Now we're all stuck with
>> www.selected-contributors-only-o-pedia-not-wikipedia.com and that's
>> nothing close to what we used to have in Wikipedia."
>>
>> Of course by then, we may all have computers implanted in our brains
>> that tell us anything we want to know just by thinking the question.
>>
>> Doubt it, but who knows.
>>
>> Thank you for reading.
>>
>> Matt
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe:
>>https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe:
>https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
><mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4257/8890 - Release Date:
>01/08/15
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe:
>https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
><mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision

Fæ
On 8 Jan 2015 16:11, "FRED BAUDER" <[hidden email]> wrote:
...
>  I've noticed that women are often quite motivated and good at writing
grant proposals.

Extending good faith I would presume this is irony. It does not transmit
well by email. Please keep in mind how offensive this sort of thing appears.

Fae
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision

Peter Southwood
If you take it entirely at face value, I find it quite inoffensive.  As I have no experience with reviewing grant proposals, I can't comment on its accuracy, but I am quite happy to take Fred's word for it.
Offence is often available if you search for it hard enough.
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Fæ
Sent: 08 January 2015 06:17 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision

On 8 Jan 2015 16:11, "FRED BAUDER" <[hidden email]> wrote:
...
>  I've noticed that women are often quite motivated and good at writing
grant proposals.

Extending good faith I would presume this is irony. It does not transmit well by email. Please keep in mind how offensive this sort of thing appears.

Fae
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4257/8890 - Release Date: 01/08/15


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision

Fred Bauder-2
I am optimistic that some great proposals might surface.

Fred

On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 18:30:08 +0200
  "Peter Southwood" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> If you take it entirely at face value, I find it quite inoffensive.
> As I have no experience with reviewing grant proposals, I can't
>comment on its accuracy, but I am quite happy to take Fred's word for
>it.
> Offence is often available if you search for it hard enough.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
>From: [hidden email]
>[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Fæ
> Sent: 08 January 2015 06:17 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month
>gender gap project-related decision
>
> On 8 Jan 2015 16:11, "FRED BAUDER" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> ...
>>  I've noticed that women are often quite motivated and good at
>>writing
> grant proposals.
>
> Extending good faith I would presume this is irony. It does not
>transmit well by email. Please keep in mind how offensive this sort
>of thing appears.
>
>Fae
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe:
>https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
><mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4257/8890 - Release Date:
>01/08/15
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe:
>https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
><mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision

keilanawiki@gmail.com
In reply to this post by Peter Southwood
Hearing people whine “what about the men” because, God forbid, men might
not get *every single* grant this time (as they did in the pilot round of
IEGs), is incredibly tiresome.

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Peter Southwood <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> If you take it entirely at face value, I find it quite inoffensive.  As I
> have no experience with reviewing grant proposals, I can't comment on its
> accuracy, but I am quite happy to take Fred's word for it.
> Offence is often available if you search for it hard enough.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:
> [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Fæ
> Sent: 08 January 2015 06:17 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender
> gap project-related decision
>
> On 8 Jan 2015 16:11, "FRED BAUDER" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> ...
> >  I've noticed that women are often quite motivated and good at writing
> grant proposals.
>
> Extending good faith I would presume this is irony. It does not transmit
> well by email. Please keep in mind how offensive this sort of thing appears.
>
> Fae
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4257/8890 - Release Date: 01/08/15
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision

Katherine Casey
+1 to Keilana. The fact that people still believe that valuing women
somehow devalues men never fails to amaze me. It's not a zero-sum game.

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Keilana <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hearing people whine “what about the men” because, God forbid, men might
> not get *every single* grant this time (as they did in the pilot round of
> IEGs), is incredibly tiresome.
>
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Peter Southwood <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > If you take it entirely at face value, I find it quite inoffensive.  As I
> > have no experience with reviewing grant proposals, I can't comment on its
> > accuracy, but I am quite happy to take Fred's word for it.
> > Offence is often available if you search for it hard enough.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [hidden email] [mailto:
> > [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Fæ
> > Sent: 08 January 2015 06:17 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender
> > gap project-related decision
> >
> > On 8 Jan 2015 16:11, "FRED BAUDER" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > ...
> > >  I've noticed that women are often quite motivated and good at writing
> > grant proposals.
> >
> > Extending good faith I would presume this is irony. It does not transmit
> > well by email. Please keep in mind how offensive this sort of thing
> appears.
> >
> > Fae
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > -----
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4257/8890 - Release Date: 01/08/15
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision

Srikanth Ramakrishnan-3
In reply to this post by keilanawiki@gmail.com
Where is anyone whining about this?
Nobody here is.
The point being made is about why other grants are not being accepted.
On 08-Jan-2015 10:06 pm, "Keilana" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hearing people whine “what about the men” because, God forbid, men might
> not get *every single* grant this time (as they did in the pilot round of
> IEGs), is incredibly tiresome.
>
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Peter Southwood <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > If you take it entirely at face value, I find it quite inoffensive.  As I
> > have no experience with reviewing grant proposals, I can't comment on its
> > accuracy, but I am quite happy to take Fred's word for it.
> > Offence is often available if you search for it hard enough.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [hidden email] [mailto:
> > [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Fæ
> > Sent: 08 January 2015 06:17 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender
> > gap project-related decision
> >
> > On 8 Jan 2015 16:11, "FRED BAUDER" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > ...
> > >  I've noticed that women are often quite motivated and good at writing
> > grant proposals.
> >
> > Extending good faith I would presume this is irony. It does not transmit
> > well by email. Please keep in mind how offensive this sort of thing
> appears.
> >
> > Fae
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > -----
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4257/8890 - Release Date: 01/08/15
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision

Ilario Valdelli
In reply to this post by keilanawiki@gmail.com
I am in two grant committees, and I can assure that I comment the value of
the project and not the sex or the race of the candidate.

I think that a woman would appreciate more that a project is supported
because it's a good project than because it is a project submitted by a
woman.

Anyway the number of the projects focused to reduce the gender gap are not
so many, but there are no barriers for submission.

Personally I support to dedicate some months for a topic like the gender
gap not because the grants can be assigned to the women, but because the
expectation is to have a better communication and to widespread that the
women can apply for a grant and (last but not least) that some best
practices or examples can come up to be replicated in other linguistical
communities.

regards


On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Keilana <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hearing people whine “what about the men” because, God forbid, men might
> not get *every single* grant this time (as they did in the pilot round of
> IEGs), is incredibly tiresome.
>
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Peter Southwood <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > If you take it entirely at face value, I find it quite inoffensive.  As I
> > have no experience with reviewing grant proposals, I can't comment on its
> > accuracy, but I am quite happy to take Fred's word for it.
> > Offence is often available if you search for it hard enough.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [hidden email] [mailto:
> > [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Fæ
> > Sent: 08 January 2015 06:17 PM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender
> > gap project-related decision
> >
> > On 8 Jan 2015 16:11, "FRED BAUDER" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > ...
> > >  I've noticed that women are often quite motivated and good at writing
> > grant proposals.
> >
> > Extending good faith I would presume this is irony. It does not transmit
> > well by email. Please keep in mind how offensive this sort of thing
> appears.
> >
> > Fae
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > -----
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4257/8890 - Release Date: 01/08/15
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Wikipedia: Ilario <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario>
Skype: valdelli
Facebook: Ilario Valdelli <https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli>
Twitter: Ilario Valdelli <https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli>
Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469>
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision

Oliver Keyes-5
In reply to this post by Srikanth Ramakrishnan-3
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Srikanth Ramakrishnan <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Where is anyone whining about this?
> Nobody here is.
> The point being made is about why other grants are not being accepted.
>

So, to summarise:

"Please, let's stop complaining on the basis that this excludes men"
"Where is anyone doing that? We're complaining on the basis that this
excludes men".



> On 08-Jan-2015 10:06 pm, "Keilana" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hearing people whine “what about the men” because, God forbid, men might
> > not get *every single* grant this time (as they did in the pilot round of
> > IEGs), is incredibly tiresome.
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Peter Southwood <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > If you take it entirely at face value, I find it quite inoffensive.
> As I
> > > have no experience with reviewing grant proposals, I can't comment on
> its
> > > accuracy, but I am quite happy to take Fred's word for it.
> > > Offence is often available if you search for it hard enough.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [hidden email] [mailto:
> > > [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Fæ
> > > Sent: 08 January 2015 06:17 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender
> > > gap project-related decision
> > >
> > > On 8 Jan 2015 16:11, "FRED BAUDER" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > ...
> > > >  I've noticed that women are often quite motivated and good at
> writing
> > > grant proposals.
> > >
> > > Extending good faith I would presume this is irony. It does not
> transmit
> > > well by email. Please keep in mind how offensive this sort of thing
> > appears.
> > >
> > > Fae
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > -----
> > > No virus found in this message.
> > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > > Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4257/8890 - Release Date:
> 01/08/15
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision

Isarra Yos
In reply to this post by geni
I'm just going to preface this by pointing out that I didn't actually
read all of the OP due to a philosophical opposition to giant walls of
text, but I think you've kind of missed the point in a few places.

Also please don't call people names. That's not nice.


On 08/01/15 10:52, geni wrote:

> On 8 January 2015 at 07:07, mcc99 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> If you ask any RN the names of the greatest contributors to the nursing
>> profession, you'll get a stream of women's names.  To suggest that nursing
>> "needs" more men or else it won't be able to achieve its greatest potential
>> would be a crass and inaccurate insult to the many thousands of women who
>> have made modern nursing what it is.  Of course there have been and will be
>> male nurses who stand out as contributors, but only a very small
>> percentage, probably in keeping with the ratio of men to women in nursing.
>> And yet, despite the high salaries RNs command, are there any
>> gov't-sponsored initiatives to get men into nursing?
>
> In fact nurses get paid less than the male national average wage. This is
> clearly some definition of high salaries I wasn't previously familiar with

Are male nurses paid more than female ones? Otherwise that's not really
relevant.

>> If so, it'd be news to me and many others.  But I ask, if men by and
>> large, for whatever reasons, aren't interested in becoming nurses, why make
>> a big deal about it?
>
> Reducing the recruitment pool is less than ideal. However the number of men
> training to be nurses has been increasing so it is probably felt the
> problem will solve itself.
>
>
>> Are there gov't-sponsored campaigns to get more women into the relatively
>> lucrative job of refuse collection?
>
> Ah you can tell the piece you are recycling from is dated. Post
> privatisation refuse collection has ceased to be a particularly lucrative
> job.

I think that was supposed to be a joke. Gender disparities exist across
the field in both low-paying and high-paying fields, but generally the
focus is only to get more women into higher-paying ones, especially ones
involving technology.

In a way it does seem to be a bit of a tangent here, where contributors
aren't necessarily paid in the first place, but research into how we as
a movement fit into the overall pattern of field-based gender
disparities might show a solid connection. It'd certainly be
interesting, if nothing else, especially if folks were to compare both
regionally and globally.

>>   (Think professional STEM fields.)
> I'm a chemist you insensitive clod. Depending on what you are doing it can
> be dirty or dangerous.

I get that you disagree, but that's not helping anything.

-I

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision

Austin Hair
In reply to this post by Risker
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Frankly, there's not a single thing I've read, or a single objection I've
> seen raised, that wasn't about how unnecessary it is to focus on women.  I
> don't think we've ever heard that about the global south, or non-European
> languages, or a lot of other areas where there are acknowledged biases.

Maybe you're only talking about this specific fork of the thread, but
I was happy to see that the previous discussion managed to stay
on-topic and largely avoid the specific social issue. I saw a lot of
people with specific criticism of the decision, completely separate
from the cause. (I appreciate that Leigh was still clinging to that
idea while the thread was being dragged into the abyss, only to be
insulted in the process.)

Having addressed that, I want to say to everybody that Wikimedia-l is
a lot of things, not all good, but the previous conversation was at
least on-topic. Does anyone seriously think that this one is? Please,
please don't make me start content filtering based on words like
"feminazi" or "misogynist."

Austin

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision

Isarra Yos
On 08/01/15 20:04, Austin Hair wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Frankly, there's not a single thing I've read, or a single objection I've
>> seen raised, that wasn't about how unnecessary it is to focus on women.  I
>> don't think we've ever heard that about the global south, or non-European
>> languages, or a lot of other areas where there are acknowledged biases.
> Maybe you're only talking about this specific fork of the thread, but
> I was happy to see that the previous discussion managed to stay
> on-topic and largely avoid the specific social issue. I saw a lot of
> people with specific criticism of the decision, completely separate
> from the cause. (I appreciate that Leigh was still clinging to that
> idea while the thread was being dragged into the abyss, only to be
> insulted in the process.)
>
> Having addressed that, I want to say to everybody that Wikimedia-l is
> a lot of things, not all good, but the previous conversation was at
> least on-topic. Does anyone seriously think that this one is? Please,
> please don't make me start content filtering based on words like
> "feminazi" or "misogynist."
>
> Austin

As far as I can tell, this is the first time either of those words have
shown up in the discussion. It's true that the bulk of this thread is
only about the particular topic chosen for the 3-month focus, whereas
the previous thread was about the nature of having 3-month focuses in
the first place and particularly the chosen implementation, but so long
as people remain civil, why can both not be valid topics of discussion?

It doesn't even matter what the topic is, really. It ought to be worth
discussing if only to clarify what it means to different folks, but even
and in doing so, how better to generate possible ideas for projects?

-I

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by keilanawiki@gmail.com
If this was intended as a response to my post I'm afraid I don’t get the relevance.
I was also not aware that the grants were awarded to men. I thought they were awarded to projects on merit.
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Keilana
Sent: 08 January 2015 06:36 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision

Hearing people whine “what about the men” because, God forbid, men might not get *every single* grant this time (as they did in the pilot round of IEGs), is incredibly tiresome.

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Peter Southwood < [hidden email]> wrote:

> If you take it entirely at face value, I find it quite inoffensive.  
> As I have no experience with reviewing grant proposals, I can't
> comment on its accuracy, but I am quite happy to take Fred's word for it.
> Offence is often available if you search for it hard enough.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:
> [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Fæ
> Sent: 08 January 2015 06:17 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month
> gender gap project-related decision
>
> On 8 Jan 2015 16:11, "FRED BAUDER" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> ...
> >  I've noticed that women are often quite motivated and good at
> > writing
> grant proposals.
>
> Extending good faith I would presume this is irony. It does not
> transmit well by email. Please keep in mind how offensive this sort of thing appears.
>
> Fae
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4257/8890 - Release Date:
> 01/08/15
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4257/8890 - Release Date: 01/08/15


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month gender gap project-related decision

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Oliver Keyes-5
Hoi,
The only point for this experiment is that there is not enough bandwidth to
cope with all the  requests for funding as it is. The idea is that by
concentrating on one area it is possible to do more. The argument against
is that it is highly demotivating for everyone that finds its request for
funding on hold. In addition, there is no continuity for a subject once its
period of attention is over and another subjects gets the "treatment".

Thanks,
       GerardM

On 8 January 2015 at 18:03, Oliver Keyes <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Srikanth Ramakrishnan <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Where is anyone whining about this?
> > Nobody here is.
> > The point being made is about why other grants are not being accepted.
> >
>
> So, to summarise:
>
> "Please, let's stop complaining on the basis that this excludes men"
> "Where is anyone doing that? We're complaining on the basis that this
> excludes men".
>
>
>
> > On 08-Jan-2015 10:06 pm, "Keilana" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hearing people whine “what about the men” because, God forbid, men
> might
> > > not get *every single* grant this time (as they did in the pilot round
> of
> > > IEGs), is incredibly tiresome.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Peter Southwood <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > If you take it entirely at face value, I find it quite inoffensive.
> > As I
> > > > have no experience with reviewing grant proposals, I can't comment on
> > its
> > > > accuracy, but I am quite happy to take Fred's word for it.
> > > > Offence is often available if you search for it hard enough.
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Peter
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [hidden email] [mailto:
> > > > [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Fæ
> > > > Sent: 08 January 2015 06:17 PM
> > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why WMF should reconsider the 3-month
> gender
> > > > gap project-related decision
> > > >
> > > > On 8 Jan 2015 16:11, "FRED BAUDER" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > > >  I've noticed that women are often quite motivated and good at
> > writing
> > > > grant proposals.
> > > >
> > > > Extending good faith I would presume this is irony. It does not
> > transmit
> > > > well by email. Please keep in mind how offensive this sort of thing
> > > appears.
> > > >
> > > > Fae
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > > -----
> > > > No virus found in this message.
> > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > > > Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4257/8890 - Release Date:
> > 01/08/15
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
123