The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2016-03-09. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.
I hate it when people go away too early. I like Mineola High. --violetnese 22:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
What college is Mineola, Columbia? Is my family really Columbia? --violetnese 23:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
While there are still over 2,000 redlinks in our lists of FRS's, every women FRS has an article.
We have to be careful not to get carried away when creating articles. It's great to create new articles on scientists, but it's important that we read the sources properly, and don't, in our enthusiasm, ascribe discoveries or inventions to them, where the sources do not.
All the best: RichFarmbrough, 09:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC).
@Rich Farmbrough: Out of interest, is this an actual or a hypothetical problem? SFB 19:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
"Throwaway email addresses frequently send her requests for dates, condescendingly discuss her body, insinuate that she got to where she is through sexual favors, ask her to reserve said favors for themselves, and when she doesn’t reply, they spew profanities." Angry male virgins are not underrepresented on Wikipedia, unfortunately.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I think this kind of harassment is the tip of a larger iceberg. People who want to write news columns and such, and also Wikipedians-in-Residence I think, are pushed to provide "profile pictures". Why exactly is that? I imagine some of these guys who post online aren't as pretty as Emily, and to be pushed to provide such a profile photo raises anxiety and fears of discrimination. When they then turn around and post anonymous nasty comments, they may even feel like they are evening a scale. Whatever the reason, we can't condemn discrimination against the pretty without also condemning discrimination against the ugly; like Eros and Anteros, neither cause can grow properly on its own. We should question whether general, routine practices like profile photos are culprits hiding in plain sight, which have evaded due responsibility for the terrible harassment and invasion of privacy that eventually has come to target a few people. Wnt (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
"we can't condemn discrimination against the pretty without also condemning discrimination against the ugly" -- this is not really the same problem. There's no larger iceberg of attacks on ugly people. The iceberg is completely exposed, and any female that posts a picture of herself on wikipedia welcomes a stream of dick pics in return. Even without a photo, simply identifying as a woman is enough. Even claiming to know a woman in real life ("I have a sister", i.e., stalk my username to find her) can result in such antics.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@Milowent: Well, I've seen several instances of this type when controversies about various Wikipedia people hit Wikipediocracy, where they are always quick to start in on people that way. But to be clear, the "larger iceberg" I referred to was discrimination by appearance in general, not this particular aspect either. Wnt (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually there is surprisingly little about the ED's resignation in the link AK provided. Nothing in-depth (in English, I don't read German), nothing in the last 11 days.
AK's tabloid style op-ed on the matter a couple of weeks ago was pretty low IMHO, but making up extensive news coverage is beyond the pale. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Lila Tretikov's resignation was covered by the BBC, The Guardian, New York Magazine, Motherboard, The Next Web, The Verge, The Register, Ars Technica, Business Insider, Le Monde, Le Nouvel Observateur, Die Zeit, Der Spiegel, Der Standard, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Heise and De Volkskrant, to name just some of the more prominent European-language publications. Most of this coverage occurred Feb. 25–29, as indicated above. Regards, --AndreasJN466 22:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Where's Rob and Hunter Stetz, he's his little sister Maddie. --violetnese 22:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
As far as the publications you cite, they are essentially all just quickie pieces, a day or 2 after the resignation, without any analysis, with just the news that Lila resigned. As I said, nothing since. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, that op-ed was five weeks ago, and was about the Knowledge Engine, rather than about the ED's resignation. The latter was an international news story covered by major, national dailies in at least half a dozen countries. If you think that isn't "widespread coverage", you're welcome to your opinion. As for "nothing since", I don't see why anyone would expect the news media to be covering an event two or three weeks after it occurred. AndreasJN466 01:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
It is great that User:Keilana has found a way to combat harassment that works for her and applaud her bravery and contributions. I worry that such stories are not good for addressing systematic bias in general though. Most people do not want to suffer harassment and to an extent this story just reinforces a lazy narrative that harassment of minority editors is to be expected and something they have to deal with. We should be working harder for solutions to harassment that ensure a welcoming atmosphere and comprehensive dispute resolution across the project if we are to address problems with systematic exclusion and bias in an effective manner. AlasdairEdits (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The iOS app has its good points. Especially the editor is far smoother on my iPad than the others. However, despite saying I'm logged in, it leaves an edit record giving my IP instead of my username. As for exploring, one nice addition would be a click so see what articles are near the geolocated article I'm reading, not just what's near where I'm sitting. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I fear I find reposting an email here is certainly unacceptable, whether one finds its earlier reposting to the mailing list improper or not. Collect (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Why? It's already the matter of widespread public discussion. We can't put that genie back in the bottle. Gamaliel (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, no use closing the barn door after the horse has gotten out. But I have to say that User:Peteforsyth was completely out-of-line releasing a private e-mail without permission. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales and I have never had a substantive professional relationship. There is no reason for him to expect that I would keep an unsolicited email private; he never requested that I do so; and he himself has not, to date, expressed any concern about my having shared such an email. He was welcome, of course, to continue the discussion he put in motion by sending me this unsolicited email; but my reply went unanswered. I violated no agreement, nor even any request, by publishing the email. -Pete (talk)
However, I did not take the decision to publish such an email lightly. I did ensure that Doc James consented, since he was the one who was insulted in the message. As I said on the list:
Manipulative behavior thrives in an environment where a person can say different things to different audiences, and can speak freely with the expectation they will not be held accountable for their words. -Pete (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
As I stated on the mailing list, there is not much one can say in response to an email such as Jimmy's.[1] I was and am more than happy to discuss the evidence behind my statements or to clarify my position but I do not see his email to me as a request for such a conversation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Here's an observation I've made over the years, in part based on my own experience, in part part based on other incidents (I hope this stuff helps explain a dynamic, but sadly it never seems to do any good): In some disputes, I believe Jimmy Wales interacts with people as if he is a senior executive or superior officer who is "chewing out" a lowly subordinate. I mean in that sort of style, that social mode. That is, he's not looking to have "a conversation" with you, on terms of equal status. Rather, he's giving you a chance to explain yourself to an angry superior, in the presumed context of having done something very wrong. You're expected to endure the recitation of how you have messed up due to personal failings, and to be contrite to him. Note this often does not work well when the other person doesn't think of themselves as being "outranked", much less as having done something very wrong. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it would do not only Jimmy but the rest of the movement good if he stood for community election in 2017. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Not going to happen. He's a former options trader. He doesn't make bets where he has little to gain and much to lose. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I think the same was sort of said before a few other recent major changes. If there was a RfC with a super majority in support it would be hard to say no. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Par for the course for Wales to engage in personal attacks like that. DuncanHill (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
agree that email reflects poorly on the sender--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Maybe my view is coloured by years as a committed trade unionist, but to my mind any manager who would speak to one of their subordinates like that (and in writing!) would be guilty of workplace misconduct. If that email was sent from a superior at my current place of work, and the recipient complained, they'd have a fair bit of explaining to do to HR. Lankiveil(speak to me) 03:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC).
Lankiveil, you definitely work in a far more civil & fair environment than the ones in the US I am familiar with. Complaining to an American HR about an abusive boss is (at best) a waste of time, & (at worst) begging to be fired. (And I regret I have say that.) This is probably why Wales thinks he can get away with that. -- llywrch (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Good idea. WMF's director's name is Kat! --violetnese 23:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I just read the entire email thread. I recommend that others trying to understand all of this do the same. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I do think people are reacting viscerally to this email. The root of the whole imbroglio is very likely a communication problem. Jimmy appears to be trying his best to get to the root of the later disagreement, even if his phraseology might not be ideal, it is far better than things that have been said publicly by both sides.
A "sit down" with an honest broker would not necessarily be a bad thing.
All the best: RichFarmbrough, 14:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC).
Telling someone they're either dishonest, an idiot, or over-emotional, is never a way to start a constructive conversation. And as Lankiveil says, such an email would result in disciplinary action against the sender in many companies. I'd also suggest anyone who thinks it is ok try sending something similar through the Wikipedia "email this user" function to half-a-dozen admins, and seeing how long they retain the ability to use Wikipedia email, or even to edit. DuncanHill (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Rich Farmbrough you mention worse thing being publically stated by both sides. I am unclear where I have made personal attacks against JW. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I can assure you, from discussions with fellow Wikimedians, that you are by no means a "side" of one person.
But the important point is that you and Jimmy are talking past each other. From the outside I see that both your positions can be compatible with different scenarios where neither party is behaving deliberately badly.
If so, it would be good if this could be clarified, lessons learned and we all move on. I am aware that is a difficult thing to make happen. You would have to both feel it "worth the candle", and even then it may not get any further than "He thought I meant X, when I meant Y, and there's no convincing him otherwise."
All the best: RichFarmbrough, 19:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC).
Yes we have of course disagreed regarding the correct interpretation of the KF grant application and documents. But I do not see stating that we disagree as a public personal attack. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't have anything pticly interesting to add to the main thrust of this op-ed apart from it seeming like a reasonable suggestion. One thing I would suggest, though, is that I don't believe the community wishlist should be the only criterion for feature prioritisation. While the existing editor community is important, we are not the primary stakeholders in Wikipedia — the readers are. And we have other issues to deal with (systemic bias and the loss of readership to Google's Knowledge Graph search sidebar, to name only 2), which need addressing yet are less likely to seem important to the existing editor community (by definition, in the case of the former). One of the purposes of the WMF Board — or some part of the proposed Wikimedia Technology Foundation, rather — should be to determine which external tasks need prioritising over which community-defined tasks. That said, this is definitely a great starting point for discussion; let's hope a fruitful conversation starts from here... — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The overriding question is who gets to speak for "the readers"? They are hopefully the reason why we are all here and I spend much of my time thinking about this question. The WMF definitely does not get a monopoly when it comes to doing so. IMO these decisions need to be made jointly by the movement as a whole and hopefully based as much as possible on evidence.
With respect to "losing readers" our pageviews per the most recent data from Feb 2016 has been flat or with a slight decrease. While we would all like to see it growing we are not becoming insignificant. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
She's an Aquarius ten years older than me! Wikipedia is young! --violetnese 23:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of whether the community-defined tasks should be unequivocally prioritised... “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses,” as Henry Ford famously said. Some of the best things were invented or created by doing something that hadn't made sense to anyone at the time. Like Wikipedia. Instead of asking people, would they like an online encyclopaedia that any person on the internet can edit anonymously, you-know-who just launched one. And it worked, phenomenally. Google is everything it is now because it keeps investing into things that don't make sense at the time of investment. Some of them work (like YouTube), some don't (like Wave). If we want Wikimedia Foundation to innovate and come up with great stuff, we should give it a mandate to try stuff and fail at it, too. If we ask the community that formed, culturally, in early 2000s, how can a website, which was designed in early 2000s, be improved, we will never get a website that can work in 2020s. And more importantly, we won't attract people who would have been able to build such a website. I think that a significant portion of that huge budget should go towards fostering startup and innovation culture, globally, to support people who want to build "a better Wikipedia", or "a different Wikipedia", or "not at all a Wikipedia", to finally figure out, as a movement, what Wikipedia should be in the next 15 years. --SSneg (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
so, I realize that the tongue-in-cheek headline indicates (at least to those who get the cultural reference or click through twice from the image) that these ideas and thoughts are not entirely serious. And to your credit you are candid ("won’t let that stop me") about a lack of expertise in the matters for which you are positing these solutions. Plus I happen to think that such a lack of expertise can be mitigated by keen observation and a good memory. Unfortunately though, the sheer amount of factual errors, distortions, omissions and misquotes in this piece makes me think that these mitigating factors are absent here, leaving these sweeping opinions and proposals on a very shaky basis. To highlight just a few examples:
"As detailed by recently departed veteran staffer Oliver Keyes in The Signpost last month, systemic problems with hiring, promotions, and human resources in general were an issue at the WMF well before Tretikov’s arrival."
Um, what? Nowhere did Oliver's linked article say that. In fact it pretty much stated the opposite, i.e. that these work environment problems (not really mainly about HR in general BTW, but much more about executive leadership style) started after Lila's arrival: "In most respects, Sue was just an ED, but she instilled values of transparency outside the organisation and transparency inside it. She created an environment where you might disagree with a decision, but you could still respect it, because you were there for it. She created an environment where everyone, even executives, were answerable for the work they did and did not do. She created an environment where dissent was expected and valued rather than classed as unprofessional. [...] The things that always distinguished the Wikimedia Foundation as a workplace are gone [...]. Because of that, I am leaving."
As OwenBlacker already indicated above, these are not "community-enumerated goals" for the Foundation's software development as a whole, but proposals limited to "discrete, well-defined features and fixes that will directly benefit the core community, in line with the scope of the Community Tech team", which explicitly excludes "large, long-term development projects" such as the one the Discovery team has embarked on. In other words, this doesn't support your claim at all.
Who said that this will be a five-year plan? It seems you just made that up. In reality it was acknowledged in public a while ago already (e.g. in late 2014 IIRC) that the previous 2010-15 strategy had been too long-term and rigid and that the new strategy should not again be a fixed document covering five years at once. Consequently, the current draft page (that you link in the blog version of this sentence) emphasizes that the new strategy will be "iterative".
You take one single example where things went wrong, and extrapolate it to a sweeping overall judgment. Those $250k from the Knight Foundation represent about 0.5% of the money raised in a single year, but it seems you can't be bothered to even look at the other 99.5%, or past years, before you jumping to extremely strong conclusions about WMF's fundraising capabilities. And my impression has been that many or most people in the movement would agree that WMF has been quite effective at fundraising (separately from concerns about size of the targets, and about the messaging in some banners, which that team has worked to address).
Like in other examples, you fail to make the case why a specific problem that many staff and community members have called out as this particular ED's failure (and cited as a major argument for her removal) should be considered a structural issue of WMF instead.
"The WMF should keep only what is mission critical—fundraising, grantmaking, legal, and communications—and spin off the rest."
This must be the first time ever I've read the opinion that operating the actual Wikipedia website is not mission-critical. And that aspect alone shows how shoddy the thinking behind this proposal is: Of course whichever organization operates one of the world's largest websites and takes all the liabilities that come with this will need a legal team of its own.
"In the business world, this has been seen in the arrested development of agglomeration, once large corporations realized they had become slow and bureaucracy-laden."
Sounds erudite, but as the lede of the linked article clarifies, this refers to a situation that is not comparable at all ("A conglomerate is a combination of two or more corporations engaged in entirely different businesses", my emphasis - think Samsung building both smartphones and ships while also running theme parks and selling life insurances).
"This is also an operating principle at Amazon, where they call it the 'two-pizza rule': 'Never have a meeting where two pizzas couldn’t feed the entire group."
Hello? Amazon has more than 200,000 employees, so it's very strange to invoke this as an argument that 300 employees are too many for a single organization.
"An early initiative of this spinoff should be to think about how to position Wikipedia for the mobile web and even to consider partnerships with today’s media orgs—not so much the New York Times and CNN, but Facebook and Snapchat."
You create the impression that WMF has so far neglected these two tasks. However, regarding "to think about how to position Wikipedia for the mobile web": The mobile web version has in fact been a major focus of WMF engineering work for about half a decade (not just the separate mobile apps that you link earlier in the article and commented on favorably), combined with a lot of thinking, experiments and research. I happen to think that these engineers did great work, but then again I'm partial here as a member of that department, and of course you don't need to agree with me here - a criticism like "I think that the mobile web version of Wikipedia created by WMF engineers sucks for reasons A, B and C, and that a spinoff will be do a better job for reasons X, Y and Z" would be an opinion that can be reasonably discussed. But it appears that your proposal is based on no such factual arguments.
About the second task, the Foundation actually has a partnerships team (part of the Advancement department) that is exploring such partnerships in general, of course mindful of the issues that collaboration with commercial partners can bring.
Again, you don't have to agree that they are doing a good job for the amount of resources they are given, but the problem is that you don't seem to be aware of their existence at all.
"a kind of intrigue—“Montgomerology” (a word coined by Liam Wyatt, referring to the WMF's address on New Montgomery Street) —that plays out daily on Wikimedia-l, a semi-public mailing list populated by Wikimedians, and lately the semi-private Wikipedia Weekly Facebook group, which this blog is frankly obsessed with. Which, I acknowledge, isn’t exactly healthy."
Here we are getting somewhere. You are intelligent enough to realize that obsessively following the drama, controversy and speculation in these discussion venues is not sufficient for getting a full picture of how this organization at the center of the free knowledge movement is actually performing. But you are not taking the consequence of taking a step back and trying to get a more solid picture from other sources. And such sources exist. As opposed to the Soviet regime that Liam's slighly snarky epithet evokes, WMF is actually a very transparent organization (objectively so, compared to most other nonprofits), some recent shortcomings notwithstanding. For starters, how about actually reading its activity reports? For many people that would seem like an obvious first step. As luck has it, the most recent one just came out. I would love to read a thorough critique of it on your blog, instead of permanently rehashing secondhand opinions.
With all that said, I agree that WMF should not be doing all possible work on its own. This has actually long been recognized, see the "Narrowing focus" strategy change implemented under the previous ED (a change which BTW has not been uncontroversial in the community, many felt that the Foundation should direct more attention to e.g. supporting GLAM work instead of just funding chapters to do so). The spinoff of the US and Canada education program in form of Wiki Ed is consistent with that, and they are doing excellent work. And the German chapter's success with Wikidata proved that some software development areas can be handled well by separate organizations. But cooperation between organizations comes with challenges of its own. Speaking of Dunbar's number (which BTW does not actually imply that successful organizations can't have 300 or more employees), it's worth being aware that successful cooperation between organizations in the movement has relied a lot on personal contacts too, facilitated by conferences, hackathons, site visits etc. E.g. I guess the Wikidata team would confirm that a good working relationship with WMF engineers - who operate the site their software runs on - has been quite important for Wikidata's success.
Disclaimer: My views here, while personal, are of course informed by my perspective as WMF employee, but also as a longtime Signpost author and former editor-in-chief who covered WMF activities from the outside (as main writer for "News and notes") for an extensive amount of time before joining the organization myself. Having written from a similar perspective, this make me appreciate that you are reading a lot of information, and processing it - which is actually not too easy a task. I have been reading your "The Wikipedian" blog at least since then, and linked to it myself repeatedly. That said, this is also not the first time that it contains glaring misconceptions that would have been evident to anyone familiar with the matter - such as when you informed your readers in 2013 that Jimmy Wales would leave the Board of Trustees by the end of the year (an error you graciously corrected after being notified, but I can't help seeing a similar pattern here of reading things into your sources that just aren't there. It makes me itch for the edit button to add lots of [failed verification] templates ;)
And speaking of the Signpost: I anticipate that the decision to syndicate this piece here will be defended with arguments like "but it was just meant to stimulate discussion" etc., and of course the Signpost should not shy away from publishing strong opinions and well-argued thought-provoking pieces. But even with op-eds, a certain minimum standard of factual correctness should be maintained. These topics are too important for the future of our movement to be covered at an accuracy level resembling that of a supermarket tabloid.
I have to agree that there has been too much tabloid material in the Signpost lately.
I disagree with the all too common characterization of the WMF as a bloated money-waster that needs to be broken up. It's difficult to find comparable organizations, but if we look to the "knowledge industry" we can try to judge the WMF's bang-for-the-buck. All figures are approximate. WMF annual budget, about $60 million. Khan Academy, $35 million. WBEZ public radio in Chicago, about $25 million, WGBH public radio and TV in Boston $200 million. Slippery Rock University in PA with about 9,000 students $125 million.
I'd say Khan Academy is doing pretty well, spending its money very efficiently with good results. WMF probably has a much larger audience and is doing pretty well also. The older technologies don't really have the reach or audience. Yes, these organizations are difficult to compare, but the WMF hardly looks bloated here. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
PS, I could go on and on, but just one more example of hyperbolic catastrophizing combined with an apparent misinterpretation of sources:
"... the precipitous decline in staff morale that sent more than two dozen key employees and executives for the exits. The loss of talent, relationships, and institutional memory is devastating, and it is not something the Wikimedia Foundation will recover from soon."
OK, without doubt that decline in staff morale happened. And yes, some very highly valued colleagues have left because of the since departed ED.
However, that number of "sent more than two dozen key employees and executives to the exits" seems quite exaggerated to me. You appear to have generated it by counting entries on GorillaWarfare's timeline. Which is an awesome source of information (and has quite frankly helped many within WMF too to get a better sense of what happened). But it prudently doesn't actually make the claim that all of the listed employees left because of the ED as main reason. That claim would be incorrect. It's obviously difficult to demonstrate this in public for every example where I know it to be wrong without violating people's privacy. But for example in Terry Chay's case you just need to click through one of the links helpfully provided by Molly to find him stating that he had already drafted his resignation letter long before the new ED joined. In other examples, the main reason why a person left may have been issues within their team rather than at the executive level, or because a time-limited employment ran out, or because they were let go for performance reasons. Also, most of those on the list - which, again, contains many awesome people that are missed a lot - were not actually executives (C-levels) or "key employees" in the only concrete meaning I am aware of.
According to the actual numbers from WMF's HR department, "Looking at turnover trends since 2012, beyond normal seasonality, the trend line is flat and our turnover is lower than market average." (as of January)
The Signpost's own ResMar confirmed this in an independent analysis (I have some slight misgivings about the details of the method used there, but the overall conclusion about churn seems correct to me): "employee survival rate today is the same it's always been!" The exception, as ResMar also correctly pointed out, has been the C-level team which indeed had some bad retention and large gaps in the last 1.5 years. But as important as this group of 7-9 employees is, the departures there do not even come close to justify these claims of a "devastating" "forest fire" that the entire Foundation could not hope to recover from anytime soon.
Granted, there was a real risk that without action, there would have been a more substantial loss fairly soon, as my colleague Ori warned shortly before that action occurred. But as he also showed with many concrete and convincing examples in the same post, a whole lot of excellent work got done even during these times of low morale, quite contrary to the picture painted in your post.
What's more, I feel confident reporting that staff morale has already much improved in the last two and a half weeks, further boosted by Thursday's announcement of the interim ED decision (and a separate HR-related staffing decision announced internally on Friday - to be reflected on the public staff page soon, as usual - which was greeted with unanimous expressions of happiness on the staff mailing list).
Tilman, I appreciate the in-depth response, even if it's not precisely the reaction I was hoping for. Indeed, this piece was intended to be provocative, and I am glad it is receiving strong responses on either side. And though I think our disagreements rely more on emphasis and interpretation than you suggest, I do want to address a few things:
You got me on the Keyes blog post. I had originally intended to link this Wikimedia-l comment of his, which does argue the WMF "is not good at making sure that the recognition of employees is fair and treated equitably", among other issues. I changed it at the last moment without realizing the error.
I acknowledge the "wish list" cannot be the sole barometer of which projects deserve funding, and as OwenBlacker says, the reader needs an advocate, too. Still, I'm hardly the first to suggest a problem with the allocation of considerable resources to this project without community discussion (beginning with Risker in May 2015).
Regarding KE / KF and the "Tretikov disaster"—as a matter of community relations and public relations, that 0.5% overshadowed the rest, and that is a shame. Perception isn't always reality, but it can shape what future realities are possible. You may dislike my characterization, but these are issues that Katherine and any successor (perhaps that being herself) will have to deal with.
A few other things: I chuckled at your distress that I suggested the website wasn't "mission-critical". To clarify, it wouldn't be mission critical for the WMF as a linchpin organization to keep in-house, as the Wikimedia Technology Foundation would do this just fine. About the "five-year plan": I did acknowledge it wasn't currently listed as five years, albeit in a footnote; still, the additional information is helpful. Finally, I think you're reading the "conglomeration" and "two-pizza rule" comparisons too literally. They were intended as illustrations of concepts, although it is possible I may have followed them a little far afield.
Anyway, I did say in the piece that it was radical, and early in development, so it surprises me not at all that my summary will not satisfy everyone. And while I likewise disagree with plenty in your comment, this is exactly the kind of response that helps clarify the discussion, so thank you for that. Despite our differences, I appreciate that you do see some value in the suggestion of spinning off (and then building up) some of what WMF does now. Best, WWB (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The call to decentralise: A significant portion of revenue comes from institutional donors. Imaging telling them that we just parcel out their money to devolved units. They'd not be happy. Tony(talk) 05:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Spin-offs
"The WMF should keep only what is mission critical —fundraising, grantmaking, legal, and communications— and spin off the rest.
The larger an organization becomes, the harder it is for everyone to know everyone else and understand what they’re doing.
The WMF itself is a conglomerate, of a kind. Creating more community space around its current departments would make each more accessible.
A small constellation of well-funded Wikimedia Foundation spinoffs, each with a strong sense of mission, focused narrowly on the movement’s needs stands a better chance of working more efficiently among themselves and offers many more touch points for the community itself to be involved."
The reasoning sound fine. As the WMF has more roles, it could be wise to have small organizations focused on a specific task.
However, this design can also have negative effects. It could be hard to know which activity corresponds to which organization. If power is too divided, the constellation could lack strength.
Also, if we have more organizations, who controls each? Currently the WMF is controlled by the Board of Trustees, a few of which are community-selected. With more organizations, would we have more Boards of Trustees? Would they report to the WMF? Would they be controlled directly of the Wikimedia community?
I'm not opposed to the proposal, I just want to prevent issues.
"Among the WMF’s first major grants should be to the new Wikimedia Technology Foundation."
I agree. The technological requirements of the Wikimedia movement can be managed independently of the other tasks. Although, as we saw with the VisualEditor and Flow, the team must respond to the community.
"More complex would be the evolution of Community Engagement, encompassing grantmaking and outreach. While the core function of grantmaking should stay with under the provost at the slimmed down WMF, the bulk of its activity should happen outside the WMF. And the way this would happen is by the creation of a more ambitious grantmaking operation whose mission is to nurture and develop mini-foundations. Rather than there being one new foundation, this needs to be a core capability of every mini-foundation that receives WMF funding."
That model is interesting, as the decision of which organizations to support is kept at the WMF, whereas any organization can apply to funds. It's not unlike the affiliates network.
"Wikimedia chapter management: the model of volunteer support currently practiced focuses too much on geographic concerns at the expense of thematic topics, with considerable overlap."
I disagree: there is too little focus on "geographic concerns". Thematic organizations are great, but having only them would risk the worldwide coverage. Without Wikimedia Uruguay, nobody would care about the promotion of Wikimeida projects in my country.
For example, Wiki Ed covers Untied States and Canada only. Wiki Med does highlight the importance of multiple languages, and has members from multiple countries. But that seems more like an exception.
Wow! Totally bitchin' blog post! That's how you get the kids to pay attention! Shock! Yeah!!SteveStrummer (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
So, are you saying that she's trying too hard to get the kids to like her posts (how ya doing, fellow youths?), or dismissive that she's successfully using young people's language (back in my day, we spoke proper English in weblog posts), or just dismissing the whole thing as juvenile? (get off my lawn, whippersnappers!) Genuinely asking, you seem to be upset about all three, but they contradict each other. --PresN 23:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The subject matter (19th century biographies) isn't conductive to outsider writing IMO. But it's a fresh approach, there could be something to it with some refinement, if the jokes were urbane to 19th century lore and not 21st century street. -- GreenC 01:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
"21st century street"? Man, bruv, allow! Em's language is bare modern, right, but it ain't street. Man, how posh is your ends you think she's street?! In more modern English, describing the f-bomb as "21st century street" definitely serves as an accurate class heuristic for the speaker; actual street looks very different. Ironholds (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
What! You're working on Rosalie Mackenzie Poe! --violetnese 23:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
There's been a lot of comments last time and now about what this section should be like. Readers who have a preferred vision of how this section should look are welcome to submit their own original column to the Signpost in the style of their choice. WP:SOFIXIT. Gamaliel (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Gamaliel, I would like to take you up on that offer. I had considered writing a response to the previous column showing how it should be possible to produce new articles (or expand existing articles rather than push unnecessarily at the boundaries of notability) without producing stubs or start-class articles that will almost certainly still be at the same level of development in 5-10 years time (the aim should be, IMO, to raise the articles to as high a class as possible in the available time, not just creating them and moving on). The aim would also be to showcase the achievements of the subjects of those articles in a respectful manner. I would focus on a limited number of articles: i.e. quality rather than quantity. Another approach would be a survey of redlinks, looking at the proportion of articles about men and women in certain areas, at the dates of creation of the existing articles, and the ratio of gender in the articles yet to be created. Where would be the appropriate venue to discuss this further? Carcharoth (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Gamaliel. I will aim to post there when I find the time to get back to this, though that may not be as soon as I'd like. If anyone else wants to run with some of these ideas before then, they should. Carcharoth (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Topics editors like to write about
One of the main complaints about the previous op-ed was that the majority of the list consisted of white American women. This has been addressed in this week's list, albeit half-heartedly. This time, African Americans are also included, but they are still Americans, and would naturally be written by English-speaking editors from the United States, which dominate Wikipedia. What happened to Asians? Indians? Non-Anglophone Europeans? Why is the hard work by editors like Zanhe, Aymatth2, Charles01, Nvvchar, etc. who focus on non-Anglophone topics not mentioned? Editors writing about American women should not whine about them being "under-represented" when the coverage of people from other countries is even weaker. sst✈ 07:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@Keilana: I want to +1 this. And I think there is a simple way to ask editors to track this work: tag edits with the hashtag #systemicbias and you could get reports like http://tools.wmflabs.org/hashtags/search/gendergap , from which you could pull examples. For example, I am doing a lot of work on Women and African novels, which would probably be appropriate. Sadads (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@Sadads: I don't see why Emily or others (like you?) couldn't use this space to highlight other topics in the future like female African novelists. @SSTflyer: Yes, we should highlight work like those of the editors mentioned above, but we shouldn't blame Emily for not highlighting whatever particular thing you think she should highlight in any given week. There are five million articles on Wikipedia and as capable as Emily is she cannot possibly be aware of all of them. Please remember that she just started this column and both times she's written it she has called for reader submissions. Instead of blaming her for not covering those topics, why not simply send her a list of suggestions? Gamaliel (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't challenging the fact that others can participate, but I think queuing up articles on Keilana's talk page is not the best way to create a backlog for coverage -- if there is going to be an editor responsible for the report showing up, we should create a process that isn't leaning on her user space -- and probably should queue suggestions in a way that requires minimal extra effort on the part of individual editors -- such as a quick hashtag in edit summaries. Sadads (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@SSTflyer, Sadads, and Gamaliel: Thank you so much for your thoughtful comments. I do completely agree that my American bias is showing - it's what I have access to and what's written about in my native language - and I've been struggling with how to fix this. My initial thought is to highlight DYKs that have been written about non-American women - I see a lot of Nvvchar's work at DYK especially - and go from there. Sadads - your idea about having people track with a hashtag is also useful and if that brings more diversity to this column, I'd be really excited! I'll be checking and using the hashtag and hope it catches on. If you have more suggestions for how to make this column less America-centric, please let me know! Thank you all again. Best, Keilana (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@Keilana: I would suggest drafting a short message, and sharing it amongst the WikiProjects which have a history of working on Systemic bias giving instructions on how to use the hashtag. Hashtags are relatively new tools, and many editors still don't know you can track them. Sadads (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@Sadads: Yeah, that seems like a great idea and what I'll do! To be honest I didn't even know about hashtags and I consider myself pretty up on these things. :) I'll ping people & projects and hopefully we can get a really nice variety next time! Keilana (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@Keilana: Yeah, I only know about it because I follow Hatnote pretty obsessively, and we experimented with the hashtags for #1lib1ref. We are trying to make them more useful, so that they aren't just opt in during editing -- but you can join a campaign in the hashtag in the edit summary is automatically generated (see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T123529 ). Sadads (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Your point is accurate, but "whining" doesn't seem an appropriate way to characterize the situation. Multiple grievances regarding representation can be accurate even if in some cases the lack of representation is greater. It's not a zero-sum game. We should be fighting to increase representation for everyone instead of attempting to establish that some claims regarding lack of representation are accurate and some are "whining". Gamaliel (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Frankly if "solve the most morally problematic thing, everything else can wait" is the philosophy we should shut Wikipedia down and go solve for global hunger before coming back to it. I do quite like Sadad's idea, though. Ironholds (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for highlighting the overwhelming narcissism of this column. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
We should be fighting to increase representation for everyone Absolutely. Remember, this includes people and topics you may not necessarily like or agree with. sst✈ 15:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I...don't think anyone has suggested people don't "like" or "agree" with non-Americans? The objection was to your statement that fighting for representation was pointless without starting with those weakest-represented. If you want to be productive I'd suggest waiting until Emily has a chance to respond to (say) Sadads' suggestion. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps a pissing match about whose article topics are most marginalized isn't productive? Writing about Zimbabwean lesbian lepers? Great. Writing about Peruvian migratory birds? Also great. Everyone writing good content is doing something good. Rhoark (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Drawing attention to people or areas that are often pushed to the side and forgotten is worthwhile. If it draws cries of "what about ____?," then that is a good thing because it brings more interesting people and topics to general attention, and that enriches us all. Frankly, Rhoark's comment makes a good point: Homosexuals are often targeted with death threats in Zimbawe, and some of the more prominent people in that community are most certainly brave and notable enough to meet WP:GNG. So perhaps the solution here is yet more content creation. Montanabw(talk) 04:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the hatnote
It means I can skip this article completely and will continue to do so in future. Please keep up the good work on that front. WaggersTALK 09:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to make one for the comments section as well next time. Gamaliel (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Annoyed
Really annoyed by the complaints about the profanity. Wikipedia is not censored. Abyssal (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Just because Wikipedia is not censored does not mean the use of profanity should be encouraged. See WP:GRATUITOUS. Especially since Wikipedia has been said to have a hostile environment nowadays. sst✈ 05:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Arrogant and cliquish
Juvenile trash talk from someone who is being paid to do this professionally. The posts are an opportunity to encourage new writers interested in working collegiately to improve the topic. This rubbish pushes good editors away by making Wikipedia look like a 4Chan clique giving high-fives to anyone who can shout "fuck" the loudest. --Fæ (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Given how many insults your comment about the op-ed contains, you're perhaps not someone who should be in the business of dictating what is and is not polite.
Now, you might come back with: my description was accurate and the only reason I was so rude about things is that I'm pretty frustrated to see content that doesn't meet my standards for what I want Wikipedia to look like, or do an adequate job of representing my viewpoint. To which I'd say: yes! Exactly. Ironholds (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
What insults? I didn't see any in the comment above. Compare your comment, which judges a person multiple times ("you're perhaps not someone", "was so rude", "I'm pretty frustrated") rather than focus on content. Please desist from your continued personal attacks to Wikimedia volunteers. Nemo 15:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
So saying a comment was rude is a personal attack, but saying an entry was "juvenile trash talk" isn't? I note you haven't contributed to this discussion before, rarely contribute to enwiki, and that pretty much every interaction I've seen you have is you coming after me. Nemo, your personal problem with me is just that - your problem. Please take it elsewhere, and please take your laughable attempt at division with "Wikimedia volunteers" with it given that I quit the Foundation three weeks ago. Ironholds (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
A reminder: "Ironholds, I have successfully avoided any contact with you for what is a period of years now. Considering your unacceptable behaviour at that time in the eyes of your employer, I am surprised that I would need to explain why it is unwise for you to be interjecting here. Go away and keep away. --Fæ (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)"diff. Ironholds' interjections creep me out. If anyone can advise on how to ensure Ironholds will take seriously a personal request to "go away and keep away", I'd appreciate an email rather than public discussion. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
My apologies; I'm afraid I'd forgotten the request. I'll try to keep it more in mind in the future: thank you for reminding me of it and my apologies for my forgetfulness. Ironholds (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Questionable notability
Not all, but a few of these are really only marginally notable, and in one case, probably not even that. In a way this makes me take the issue of systemic bias less seriously. If so many of the "previously missing" articles turn out to be about middle-of-the-road scientists with routine careers, it does rather suggest that maybe they were previously absent not because of an insidious bias against female scientists, but rather because of an insidious bias against non-notable topics.
If you think any of them aren't notable, put them up for deletion. Until you choose to put your money where your mouth is, stop insulting your colleagues. Ironholds (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm struggling to see an insult to colleagues Ironholds. I know you're trying to defend against a number of different complaints here, but inventing a criticism were there isn't one is unlikely to help matters, or keep people posting civilly in response. – SchroCat (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey SchroCat. In the context of Wikipedia, claiming that someone's articles or the topics they're on are non-notable is to call that person's judgment and competence as a Wikipedian into question: a long-term editor, and an admin to boot, should be well-versed in notability (as Keilana is) and suggesting different is pretty rude. Now, that doesn't necessarily make it wrong - sometimes peoples' work isn't up to expected standards, and is sub-par! - and so it can be justified. But when you can't point to a specific article and are certain enough in your criticism to make it as a generalisation but not certain enough to actually nominate things for deletion, well, that doesn't suggest that it is justified. It's akin to a coworker telling you your work is sub-par, without actually being able to point to any examples or make explicit recommendations to improvement. Hence my suggestion that you follow through and nominate things for deletion. It's worth noting this was done with one of the last round of articles and that the AfD failed (the user who opened it handled things very well and withdrew it themselves when it became clear their concerns were unwarranted, and my props to them for that).
I'd disagree that the notability or not-notability of these articles has implications for systemic bias around science, to be honest; I strongly suspect that articles on less-notable individuals who are men are far more likely to be present. But at the moment that's just hypothesising informed by a long while editing, not science (there's an NSF grant proposal in to study it but the NSF is a slow-moving entity). Ironholds (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Ironholds, your belief that discussing or questioning the notability of a topic is "insulting" is flatly wrong, and not deserving of further response.
As far as deletion goes, I expect that an AfD nomination for any of these articles would turn into a political drama-fest of the type that I generally try to avoid. It's also possible that if I researched the topics I would find that they are actually notable despite the lack of notability evidence in the articles as presently-written.
With that caveat in mind, here are two examples of topics highlighted in the article above which in my opinion, are not notable:
Janice Douglas, who has third-party press coverage only as a result of her fraud conviction, and who otherwise had a routine career.
Elizabeth Ofili - essentially the resume of a successful but unexceptional career.
Please consider my actual point here though. Most of the highlighted topics are of low or marginal notability. Yet they are being highlighted as important - as articles that we should be "fucking angry" about their not previously having been written.
What message does it send to an intelligent neutral reader to be drawn to these "vital" articles and find that they are actually weakly-notable, about unexceptional careers, and ultimately rather boring? Does this strengthen or weaken people's degree of sympathy for the objectives of the Women Scientists wikiproject?
I've got no problem with discussing or questioning notability when there's actually discussion or questioning. "some of these are barely notable and one of them probably isn't notable at all" is neither of those; it's entirely unsupported. Your comment, on the other hand, is a great example of how one should approach these issues.
Again, none of these are Nobel winners, but I suspect you'd find articles on similarly-notable white men probably do exist. And speaking as a scientist (albeit an early career one) I disagree that characterising these articles as about "unexceptional careers" is accurate; Ofili, one of the people you identify as such, has a string of awards from both academia and industry. Her career is certainly not unexceptional. Ironholds (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, the awards listed for Ofili do not demonstrate notability. They are all pretty minor. I think she fails WP:ACADEMIC and I certainly don't see any other avenue for arguing that she is notable. But this isn't a deletion debate... Thparkth (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Indeed! Which cycles back round nicely to "nominate for deletion if you have a problem". Ironholds (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Ironholds, and respectfully request the restoration of Sarah Stierch. :P generic_hipster 14:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Once with the puerile nonsense may have been to make a point, but a second time? It's not big and it's not clever, and it's lost its impact, its rationale and is largely going to have people rolling their eyes and not bothering to read the article. It may be fair enough to sing the praises of the new articles, but to do so in such a childish way is self-defeating and detracts utterly from the achievements of the writers, the quality of the articles and the view many people have of Wikipedia. Please stop doing it! – – SchroCat (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I would be interested to see some evidence that "the view many people have of Wikipedia" has changed because of this post that will be read - I expect - almost exclusively by Wikipedia editors. As for detracting from the achievements of the writers, I enjoyed seeing an article I wrote here; reading Keilana's take on the subject's achievements entertained me and as far as I'm concerned did precisely the opposite of detracting from my work. Sam Walton (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
So it's OK to piss Wikipedia editors off and make sure we look at the project in a less favourable light? It's certainly changed my view of WP, as well as that of a few others who have contacted me (and that also includes a few non-editors too). You may have your view on it, but it has coloured my view of the articles, and downgrades the efforts (in my eyes) of many others. – SchroCat (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Of all the things that happen on Wikipedia - sockpuppetry, harassment, undisclosed PR editing, rampant incivility, noticeboard drama, hoax articles lasting for years - this is what makes you "look at the project in a less favourable light"? Gamaliel (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes. This is by good editors who should (and do) know better. – SchroCat (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
"Better" meaning your personal standards. Lots of people have responded positively to these columns, including a former chair of the WMF board of trustees. Should they all "know better"? I knew that some people would dislike this feature, but I was not expecting so many to react as if it had violated some sacred taboos. Gamaliel (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad you acknowledge that "so many" have reacted negatively to the method of disseminating the message. Perhaps that should be a red flag to indicate that doing it once was all it should have run to? Again, the message has been lost because of the choice of language of delivery. – SchroCat (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
We are taking the negative comments into account, but we are not willing to discount the positive ones and listen only to the negative ones. Gamaliel (talk) 12:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
"... violated some sacred taboos" - But, literally, that's exactly what it's done. There's a reason for the euphemistic term "F-bomb". Because it's a taboo. And still a very strong one in certain quarters. This is what I find fascinating about this controversy - which taboos get respected? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
@Seth Finkelstein: Thank you, your comment has provided some food for thought. Which taboos prompt such a reaction and why? In a community where large and vocal parts of it pride themselves on their rough-edged commitment to uninhibited commentary and deride others of getting upset about certain comments or behaviors much worse than anything exhibited in this column, I am baffled by the response and I'm genuinely struggling to unpack the reaction. Gamaliel (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Because there is a difference between the 'cut and thrust' of debate and what purports to be reportage. This misses the mark and comes across as crass nonsense. Still. Given your comment below, I'll not be back:it's easier not to bother reading Signpost to avoid this in future. – SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
So, the uncivil and belittling behaviour our discussions as a project regularly contain is acceptable, but only if it's in the context of a discussion? Fascinating. Ironholds (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Please don't misquote me. Comments made in the heat of discussion are often inappropriate, but they happen. Cool, calm rationed reportage is a very different style, which is why conversations are normally more informal than newspapers. This seems to have been forgotten for this column, which is a sham as once again, the method of delivery has overshadowed the message, to everyone's detriment. – SchroCat (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Because hey, it's heated and it's something people care about and frustrations come out as peoples buffers run thin, or? Because if that, well, I imagine people are pretty worn down with dealing with the gender gap, too. It's not an identical situation but it has a lot of overlaps. Ironholds (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
No it's not identical, or even one that has overlaps: it's a terrible comparision! And it's one that demeans the arguement and the situation, to boot. Still, you have your opinion on this approach and I have mine. Even so, if you're happy that this approach will (and has) divide people and alienate them, then there is nothing that I can say that you will make you see my point of view. – SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm happy that "divisiveness" is not an argument for not doing something, merely a cost to doing it, and that by definition everything that challenges the status quo is, implicitly or explicitly, divisive. This doesn't make divisive things inherently justified; it's not "divisiveness is good". But it does mean "it's divisive" is not a good argument for not doing something. this is a pretty good read on how "civility" is applied unevenly and the implications of treating rudeness or divisiveness as the be-all and end-all of assessing a situation's merits. Ironholds (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I do not agree with the viewpoint that a newspaper should take the same tone throughout. I think there is room for neutral reporting and opinion, seriousness and humor, satire and experimentation. If our News and Notes story on Treitkov's departure was written like this column, that would be clearly inappropriate, but I think we can carve out a space for a more lighthearted or experimental tone in other sections. Gamaliel (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Why do you think I would take your view into account if you are just going to stamp your feet and leave if you don't get your way? Your message has been lost because of your choice of language of delivery. Gamaliel (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure who is stamping their feet here, but your response says all I need to know – SchroCat (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
@Gamaliel:, I'm glad this is helpful. You say: "In a community ..." - Ah, but the Wikipedia community is not a monolith. In fact, it's international and has different subcultures. By analogy, you might just as well ask "In a country where large and vocal parts of it pride themselves on sexual licentiousness, why was there such a fuss over Janet Jackson's breast?". Because it's a big (community, country), and those are different parts of it. Moreover, these articles aren't a case of not knowing or caring about the taboo, but are deliberately violating that taboo as part of the message conveyed. To the people who regard that taboo highly (which again, are basically different people than the "rough-edged commitment" faction you mention), that's highly offensive to them. I should disclaim that visceral disgust of the "F-bomb" is not my personal view. But in terms of culture conflict, that is what's going on. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Of course this community is not a monolith, but any community in general has its own particular tones and viewpoints, and this was not one I expected from this particular community. Different people will object to different things, but based on some of the people who have voiced their objections, in some cases the same people are supporting one and not the other. That's a very good point about taboo violation; since we deliberately set out to violate expectations perhaps we should not have been so surprised about the backlash. Gamaliel (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Gamaliel, I'm not sure "the same people are supporting one and not the other.". Looking over the previous comments, consider the difference between criticisms of 1) This taboo-violation should not ever be done, versus 1) This taboo-violation was done poorly and badly. They may seem similar, but there's a distinction between something like 1) Never use salt, it's a toxic additive 2) The cook has added much too much salt to this meal, so it tastes horrible. That is, between "no salt, ever" and "way too salty" (pun intended). Despite superficial similarity, those two criticisms can come from opposing perspectives. Or, people who value playing a wide range of linguistic music, including at times harsh tones, may still criticize a piece harping on one grating note. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 07:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
This does not mean that any of the people who dislike the style are themselves being consciously sexist, but I am nevertheless 100% confident we would be having a very different conversation about similar text whose author was a man in at least his mid-thirties. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I did not look at who wrote this, and had no idea on their sex or age. My comments would have been made just the same: it is juvenile, puerile nonsense, no matter who wrote it. – SchroCat (talk) 06:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
You've made 11 edits to this talk page, and you made 28 to last week's, where you went out of your way to restore a trollish comment calling the author a "privileged white woman". If you nevertheless truly do not know who wrote the article, or what her gender is, or what she hopes to accomplish with the pieces, why are you qualified to comment on what does or doesn't engage the audience she's aiming for? Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I didn't know it was the same writer as last week, I just saw it was another poorly written article, which was the rationale for my comment. Feel free to have another knee-jerk, closed-minded defence of it again, if you wish, but it won't stop the fact this is is an ill-advised and crap way to approach things. I'm bemused by the fact that I must know the age and gender of a writer to fully understand what they are saying: if that needs to be explained first, then it's even more badly put together than I thought! I've never had to know a writer's biography before I can understand their article! – SchroCat (talk) 06:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Gamaliel, will this column be running again in the same juvenile and puerile way? – SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
That would be boring. I hope the next installment will be in a very different juvenile and puerile way. Gamaliel (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps a theme? Trying to work in as many references to the Hamilton musical as possible? That'd be a nice way of doing a one-shot. I'd be happy to help incorporate a few. Ironholds (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Nice! I was hoping when I wrote that post that it would be a blue link, but I didn't think to check the history :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't particularly care about using "fuck", but then again I wasn't offended by the use of the word "cunt" either. It's about the same level of juvenile shock value. Either word (and a slew of others) is just a good place to recognize where to stop reading as the expressed thought's value must be significantly less important if such a puerile pull is required. No offense, but if it's important and interesting it doesn't need the pull. --DHeyward (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
BTW, Here's an old boss of mine you can add to the list needing a bio/BLP article (she swears like a sailor in private used expressly for shock value often to compare her assessment of work product - she has her strengths and weaknesses like everyone but unrealted to language). She replaced my previous boss (also female, btw, but not notable) when she was terminated for cause. [2]. My current boss is on Forbes and she has has an article for awhile (hard to miss). --DHeyward (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
'Previous' and 'Next' links
Is there a way to adjust and edit the noincluded transclusions of Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-article-comments-end to link to the previous column at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed? This is complicated by the previous column being an Op-ed and this column having its own name. In general, a lot of the 'previous' and 'next' links don't seem to be working. Does the Signpost still try and make those work or not? Carcharoth (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Since it all works on templates I'm not sure how to address these issues, but perhaps Resident Mario or Kharkiv07 might have an idea. Gamaliel (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Did you see my offer above in the first section of this page? Carcharoth (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Improving existing articles
Another thought: the Google Doodle today was Caroline Herschel. The talk page of that article says: "Caroline Herschel has been listed as a level-4 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class." Improving articles is often harder work than creating new articles that get read by very few people. Improving an article like Caroline Herschel may make more of an impact (because more people will read it) than creating lots of new articles. Taking another tangent, there is only one redlink at List of women in the Heritage Floor, namely Philipe Auguste which is marked 'unknown'. Now have a look at this: "The Dinner Party Wiki researchers were unable to confirm the information about Phillipe Auguste provided in previous descriptions by Judy Chicago.". That's a bit mysterious - which wiki was that? Doesn't seem to be Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
@Carcharoth: I was so glad to see this comment because in a very happy coincidence, the Oxford University Press has released a whole lot of resources about women in science from now through June, including several substantial resources about Caroline Herschel. Would you like to collaborate? I'd love to work with you on this one - she could easily become an FA, which would be awesome! :) Keilana (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
That would be good, Keilana. Maybe post to the article talk page and see if any of the editors who have worked on it in the past are active and also interested in this? That would be the best place to make a start. We could discuss there, though I won't have much time over the next week or so unfortunately. Carcharoth (talk) 01:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder, I've replied above. In our Gallery feature we occasionally point to articles that could use improvement, but I think if anyone was interested in doing something like that more systematically it would be valuable. And now I'm curious about this Dinner Party mystery.... Gamaliel (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Ooh, that could be really fun. I wonder if we could automate it? Grab high-importance articles below B-class, say, and randomly select a few. Ironholds (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
(*)I agree with others here - it is important and laudable that the authoress wrote this article about addressing wikipedias gender bias and adding more women. However she does herself and her cause a disservice with the juvenile presentation ("super awesome", bad ass) and profanity. We have enough challenges as it is being taken seriously by the academic establishment.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
..."authoress"? Although this term used to be more common when women held a much lower place in society, it has been "regarded as old-fashioned, sexist, and patronizing" since the late 20th century (says the NOAD). Your use of it here just comes off as incredibly patronizing... I'd call it a microaggression, but the "micro" would understate it. GorillaWarfare(talk) 03:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
You do have the option of assuming good faith. I seem to remember reading somewhere about that being a good idea. Thparkth (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm totally willing to believe that Bellerophon5685 didn't realize how "authoress" comes off. But given the options to (a) ignore the comment or (b) point out how patronizing it sounds, which do you think is more likely to make the commenter aware of the issue? GorillaWarfare(talk) 04:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
People regard "authoress" as sexist? News to me. I just thought it sounded poetic.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
There sure are a lot of men on this talk page speaking confidently about how their own personal opinions on the subject are clearly representative of the entire audience. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
As a member of the academic establishment, I assure you that we will not be scared off from the world's most widely used information source because somebody used a swear on it. We're not all fuddy duddies or prudes. For example, one of my grad school professors was an "authoress" who wrote an entire book about farting published by a major academic publisher. This column won't even cause most academics to raise an eyebrow. Gamaliel (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The irony of course being that the entire notion of professionalism is a product of societal power structures. I just can't.93.109.163.69 (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Can't tell if trolling or SJW. We should strive toward a level of professionalism.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Did you just seriously ask if I'm an SJW while trying to make a point about professionalism? 62.228.107.188 (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Eh, boy. I thought contributing my thoughts to Signpost would help me integrate with the larger Wikipedia community, but so far it appears to be a wiki version of tumblr. Everyone is more concerned with how words like "authoress" or "professionalism" or "SJW" fit into the structures of oppression, rather than concerned with actually improving Wikipedia. I guess next they'll be angry about the use of "eh, boy" in the opening of this very post. Eyes roll. I'm outta here.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, because 'actually improving Wikipedia' and fostering a welcoming and inclusive editing environment are unconnected. Traditional power structures have absolutely nothing to do with who's welcome to edit, how Wikipedia functions or how and which Wikipedia articles get written. You are right. Do you have any other wisdom to share, or would that be all? 62.228.107.188 (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
You posted here to criticize the language used by the author of this column, as is your right and which is an appropriate use of this space. Should others not have the right to criticize your language as well? Gamaliel (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I tried to post criticism in a mature and constructive manner. Wouldn't it have been more civil if GorillaWarfare had said "Thank you for your input, but your use of the word authoress is problematic. As you may or may not know this word is considered patronizing and sexists in some circles. Please refrain from doing that in the future." As for "professionalism is a product of societal power structures"...well that may well be true, but I still think we should strive for a level of professionalism (even though we are volunteers) because this is one of the most widely used information sources in the world and we owe our readers quality and maturely written material. It is our lack of professionalism that hurts our reputation in some circles and I wish to help fight the stereotype that we are unreliable, in much the same way as the original author of the column wished to include quality material about women figures to help improve Wikipedia. (It was title "I can’t believe we didn’t have an article on ..." after all.)--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
What hurts Wikipedia is its kyriarchal laws and edicts and the ceaseless harassment of minority contributors. Lack of professionalism? Nah. Lack of empathy and understanding? For sures. When a woman tells you you said something sexist, say 'sorry' and remember it for next time. We know both men and women have x many years of internalised misogyny to overcome; it's not personal. 62.228.107.188 (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Gamaliel, as a sort of extension to my previous comment, I think there's some confusion over an equivocation on the word "right". As a civil-libertarian, I often see a mix-up regarding "right" in the sense of legal, on-topic, applicable, with the sense of fair, honest, reasonable. Like free as in beer versus free as in speech, there's right to your own opinion versus no right to your own facts. If someone contends a criticism was unfair, it's not a refutation to respond that the criticism was not illegal (or not off-topic). Though in specific, I've got to say this the first time in my life I've ever seen "authoress" used sincerely by a live person. Multiculturalism is complicated. Perhaps the Arbcom members participating in the current discussion will take this as a lesson to be kept in mind during future heated culture-war disputes. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Sure, but I obviously wasn't using it in the legal sense. No one has a legal right to edit a Wikipedia talk page. But I think it's perfectly fair to equate one critique of wording with another critique of wording. Gamaliel (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Just for future reference - is poetess also offensive now?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I reply with great trepidation, since I fear that if I succeed in convincing you, it'll then be held up as an example that what a women says is ignored but what a man says is taken seriously, so there's no winning (where I think the key difference is addressing the point directly). But, yes, as a rule, gender-specific suffixes to occupations are strongly disfavored these days, offensiveness being in proportion to their infrequency. For example, "waitress" is not offensive since it's a frequently-seen word, but, really, I'd never seen "authoress" before today being used, say post-WWII - it's extraordinarily rare. Similar, "actress" is not a problem, but if you call a female pilot an "aviatrix", it's likely to get you some grief. If you're sincerely interested, there are professional styles guides which deal with these questions [3][4] . -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, Seth's comment about professional style guides is quite apt. I find it interesting that some kind of language it's perfectly acceptable to point out its lack of professionalism, but when you call other kinds of language out on its lack of professionalism, that draws hoots and derision from the same people complaining about professionalism. Gamaliel (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
It stands to reason. Poor language invites poor language. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
That's not what Gamaliel was commenting on; they were pointing out the double standard of deriding both an opponent's use of language and the opponent's objection to their own use of language. And how might using expletives for emphasis invite sexist language? 'It stands to reason', my fat arse. 62.228.200.32 (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Your comment looks like performance art in the use of poor language. As for deriding use of language, that's not possible, if there are no expected standards for the use of language - it's all just comedy or farce. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
There exist expected standards; it simply is the case that, for many of us, they do not derive from professionalism. 62.228.200.32 (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
They can't be expected standards, where they are unknown. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
See, there's pithy and there's cryptic. Do you maybe wanna expound on that? 62.228.200.32 (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
If I italicized expected, perhaps that helps, as in general expectation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeesh. Saying that a woman using profanity (not directed at anyone, but as a stylistic choice) is inviting sexist comments is a bit too reminiscent of people who say women who wear short skirts are inviting street harassment, and that sort of thing. GorillaWarfare(talk) 23:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Gamaliel, isn't this just going back to the point about groups with different taboos and the conflicts of multicultural society? And which taboos get respected? Bluntly - "Ooh, look, group X got upset when group Y violated group X's taboo, but group X didn't care about violating group Y's taboo!". OK, now what? There was a difference in specific incidents here because the writer of the article deliberately and knowingly set out to violate the swearing taboo, but the commentator was apparently unaware about the gender-suffix taboo. But still, the point remains, there are different groups with different ideas about what a professional person shouldn't say. And further, many members of both groups don't care about what the other group thinks, or are even downright hostile to them. How is this going to be resolved? If it's a case of just picking one, why shouldn't all groups go all-out to be the victor - especially if there will be harsh social penalties for everyone else? (this is how societies get torn apart, which is why I believe in civil-liberties ideas). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, no, it isn't. Swearing is taboo. Using language that is insulting to women is oppressive. You fail to account for relationships of power. Moreover, the taboos that truly matter are the taboos the majority hold dear. This is something civil-libertarians and egalitarians often struggle with. 62.228.200.32 (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
You forget to realize some people are not aware of taboos. I had no idea that "authoress" was offensive. So when I got that reaction I was surprised and a little defensive. If someone had just calmly stated that that word is not appropriate, that would have been different. Instead of actually talking about the substance of what I wrote we instead get distracted by a debate on a three letter suffix.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
However, I'd say that subsequent debate was far more interesting, in terms of illustrating the problem of differing taboos, and showing how even the slightest subcultural difference can be a flashpoint. The characterization "I'd call it a microaggression, but the "micro" would understate it." is directly parallel to how some people feel about F-bombs and similar. Far from a distraction, I think it all put things into much better focus. Though sadly, I doubt anyone is going to take to heart any lesson about cultural relativism. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
But you can't just blandly equate those taboos as if it's a tomato/tomahto variation of no particular significance. One "taboo" is about the way that marked language can be interpreted as singling out and implicitly belittling the contributions of people from a particular, disadvantaged group. The other is about words that are taboo because they're taboo. (Notice the absence from Keilana's piece of gendered curse words like "bitch" and, you know, the other one you'll all fall into a pearl-clutching faint from reading.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Pearl cluther: gendered microagression. Can this really get better? Or will it just descend and descend? It seems not that complicated that to elevate is to elevate, but continue on. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I feel it'd more productive to make a point about not assuming the worst (because people may have no knowledge of such and such), rather than advocate cultural relativism, which few are likely to agree with fully. But then again. 62.228.200.32 (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Consider the following similar statement "But you can't just blandly equate those gods - OUR god is about the essence of humanity and how the infidels are demons from hell. THEIR god is some crazy story made-up by corrupt rulers and followed by a bunch of fools.". Have you ever put to a religious evangelist the simple question that given so many people say they believe in the One True God, logically, most of them must be wrong? And depressingly, how many will reply along the lines of "Yes, they are indeed all wrong - my god is the One True God". This thread is a bit like that. If you contend "Gnder" is the One True God, against which to blaspheme is a terrible sin, unlike "Prfessnal" who is a false god whose worshipers may be treated with utter disrespect, it's circular to justify it because sins against Gnder are sins against Gnder. The worshipers of Prfessnal also have clever people who can go into elaborate detail about the terrors of sins against Prfessnal, and you don't believe them. And they don't believe you. Now what? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Yep you hit the nail on the head. The worshipers of Prfessnal take offense when you use swear words and don't care about "authoress"; the worshipers of Gender don't care much about the swear words but are angry about "authoress".--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 03:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
That's why the call is wide not particularist. Care should be taken across the board. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
.... Cultural relativists do not agree that the same standards of civility should apply to everyone. Do you even try to comprehend the things you reply to? 62.228.200.32 (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes. That's a silly question, though, given my response. Do you know where you are? A place that asserts a standard for all participants, in part because of culture clash.Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
No, it's not a silly question. Cultural relativists do not believe that the same human rights should hold for everyone, for instance. There's no middle ground where a few rights apply to all people because at that point it stops being relativism. Does anybody here think that female infanticide is an acceptable practice anywhere, ever? As for WP:CIVIL embodying principles of diversity: lol. 62.228.200.32 (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
It remains silly, because your comments merely demonstrate misunderstanding of where you are. Or perhaps you just do not know what is being discussed: the use of language for group communication. Sure, transgressive is a good shtick but it's not actually workable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
No, what is being discussed is systemic bias, which you, Bellerophon and Seth refuse to acknowledge even exists: all three of you have equated 'transgression' with sexist language; and you, specifically, have done it in a very provocative way. Why are you even here? 62.228.200.32 (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
What am I doing here? That should be obvious (perhaps again you should know where you are): commenting on an column on Wikipedia. Sexist language is transgressive - that's not an equation, that is a description. Finally, as for me, your first sentence is plainly false, so it does not convince me your earlier question was anything other than silly. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Sexist language is not necessarily transgressive. Sexism can be and often is accepted in society as the norm. I can't believe I even have to say this. 62.228.200.32 (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Finally, comedy! One comes to a "f*cking" column and an "authoress" dispute breaks out. (f* . . . in honor of #HOPEJAHRENSURECANWRITE). BTW, it was a better register choice this month, overall, but let's hope it continues to improve beyond stunt or poor communication and that the editor is no longer surprised by their own editorial decisions. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Kyriarchy, Something about Arbcom
Also learned a new word Kyriarchal. Thanks anonymous poster who has only ever edited this talk page and the new page about a plane crash!--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Good word for the Super Mario and arbitrary power structure with IP editors at the bottom, ArbCom at the top. ArbCom determining Signpost content is, well, ...let's just "you know who else controlled both conduct and expression." They'll claim they aren't a patriarchy as they all do. I'm just wondering who's playing the role of Goebels. Oh wait, it's obvious: EiC. --DHeyward (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest I don't entirely understand what you're trying to say, but it reads quite a lot like you just compared ArbCom to the Nazis. Or The Signpost to the Nazis. Either way, that seems tremendously inappropriate. But if obscenity only exists as a "pull", well, what's the purpose of violating Godwin's Law? Ironholds (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
No, actually, kyriarchy isn't a euphemism for fascism. And if you can't bring yourself to say the people here are fascist, 'cause you know how ridiculous that's gonna sound, don't imply it either. 62.228.200.32 (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Never said it was a euphemism for fascism. The class system in WP, though, isn't patriarchal, even with a gender gap in editors or articles. There are many power classes with various battles over which is dominant (i.e. the battles regarding Eric Corbett). But it's pretty clear that a healthy social system would not have the most dominant class (i.e. ArbCom) having editorial control over the most dominant outlet of expresion. Goebels was only one person as well. One very connected person and part of the dominant class. If dissidence and opposition seek a voice, it shouldn't be subject to editorial control of the dominant class. Kyriarchy isn't a euphemism for fascism which is also economic, but it is used to describe class relationships that have classes with non-classical boundaries. Gamaliel and GorillaWarfare's gender has nothing to do with the class they represent or the influence they wield. It is not a patriarchy. EC's latest wheel war battle was about the kyriarchy created by those that wield power, not gender. Arguing whether an admin can overturn arbcom discretionary sanctions would be a classic clash of kyriarchal structure (settled by who?) and gender is merely a sideshow. It's simply a bad idea to vest overseer power to members of a small, elite class and that includes editorial control of the Signpost. --DHeyward (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
So, a Signpost op-ed on new articles from underrepresented demographics is now the subject of...a discussion of wheel-warring by some editor who is not mentioned in the op-ed, has nothing to do with the op-ed, and hasn't participated in any of the discussions on the op-ed? And another Nazi reference to boot. I'm still not quite sure what your point here but I'd strongly suggest taking it elsewhere - and dropping the references to Nazis entirely. Ironholds (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
No, a Signpost article controlled by the ArbCom EiC and written by an ArbCom member is not a healthy system of balance. Your failure to understand why this is a problem is the exact reason why there are problems. ArbCom members are not underrepresented. Why would you think so? Neither are admins. The social system of Wikipedia is not drawn on classic social structures in society. Example: 30/500 rule seems to be the new favorite among admins. Who does it help? Admins that don't wish to patrol IP editors. That's a class rule created by those with a class power. It fails to even care that IP editors mayb female that don't wish to be marked by gender and are the fastest growing segment of mobile users. Would it surprise anyone if the fastest growing segment of IP editors are female seeking anonymity? Cell phone manufacturers (and my COI prevents adding it to articles) realizes that the integration of cameras and phones along with messaging is designed to attract women buyers - but the side effect is that social interaction including mobile wiki is more women. Semi-protecton is another class rule. Arb Com Discretionary Sanction are yet another. As in all class based structures, the justification is for "the good of the community." You seem unable to grasp the fundamental concept of power. When a patriarchal society says women should stay home and raise children "for the good of society," you'd rightly challenge such beliefs. If the only way to challenge it was an op-ed in a paper that's edited by the "for the good of society" folks, I'm sure your obtuse view would vanish and you'd understand the hurdle. Wikipedia has a social structure and it doesn't inhibit arbcom or admins. They are the top. Non-admin users and IP editors are at the bottom. Go ask WMF to plot IP editor gender vs. Time. It's probably the same as graph as Female smartphone owners vs. Time and it's growing faster than any other segment. But keep on pretending the barrier to participation is not set from the top of the kyriarchy. --DHeyward (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Funny story; I was (until Friday, when I quit) the WMF's expert on IP geolocation and systemic bias, so I can tell you that not only is there absolutely no data to back up your final assertion, the data we do have suggests it's completely wrong. So yes, I would be surprised if mobile phones had magically solved for gender bias and marginalisation, because such an assertion would disagree with every piece of evidence on the subject in regards to Wikipedia and much of the literature around ICTD.
Never said it solved anything nor did I say women are the largest mobile group. Merely they are the fastest growing group. It's a derivative and it's what marketing people target. No one selling Wikipedia editing seeks to diminish current contributors, they seek to find the fastest growing segment and enable them. The fastest growing segment in mobile is China and Female. How long it takes to be equal is not as important as which piece of hardware closes the gap the fastest and dominates the market. Blackberry is a case in failure. So is Palm Pilot and Treo. iPod followed by iPhone accelerated female participation and continues to do so. It dominates not because it grew corporate or male users, rather it includes features that attract the fastest growing segment: women. Blackberry, Nokia and a host of others wished they attacked the growing market rather than the established market. --DHeyward (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding my point, which is that the article subjects, not arbcom, are underrepresented. Everything proceeding from that is...well, honestly, highly confusing and pretty unstructured, but it seems to be soapboxing and unrelated to the subject of the signpost entry. I'm not getting any value from your comments so I'm going to drop it here; I'd suggest you do so too, since neither the concept of power nor arbcom discretionary sanctions nor ICTD have any relation to "hey here are some articles we wrote on women this week". But, at least you dropped inserting references to Nazis, so: progress! Ironholds (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
DHeyward, this thread is exceeding the tolerance on my irony meter, but you know there's nothing stopping you from starting the Wikipedian Workers' Weekly if you think the masses aren't well served by the Signpost. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't disagree. I would rather see a change in control, though. Just as there are alternatives to Pravda but it would be better if Pravda was given autonomy. --DHeyward (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
You're confusing admins and ArbCom with the kyriarchy that underlie them. Arbitrators are elected and Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine; the opinions that people hold, they bring from other walks of their life. A new upper class is moulded, but that is simply a consequence of applying the democratic process within an inequitable society. I think that admin power play is a topic for another time.... or place. Even if the Signpost were the mouthpiece of ArbCom (defs), you know there's nobody stopping you from starting your own thing, right? I mean, sure, it might lack visibility at first, but you've got imagination. 62.228.200.32 (talk) 03:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't really have anything to say on the Nazi comparison that Ironholds hasn't already said, but I did want to push back on the "ArbCom determining Signpost content" claim. Keilana submitted an article to the Signpost (as any community member is welcome to do), and Gamaliel is one of the editors-in-chief (a position he has held since before joining the Arbitration Committee) but aside from that, I don't believe any of the rest of the Committee is actively involved. GorillaWarfare(talk) 00:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
That is because ArbCom have such a lot to do right now? Sorry, couldn't resist pointing that out. :-) Are things quiet behind the scenes as well, or are you not allowed to say? Maybe ArbCom should guest-edit The Signpost? <runs and hides> Carcharoth (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
It's been quiet all around! I for one am enjoying the calm... GorillaWarfare(talk) 00:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Are people still talking about this? Maybe Keilana and GorillaWarfare (and others) are thankful that arbitrator is a gender-neutral term? Or should 'arbitrator-ess' be coined? Ugh. That isn't even pronounceable. Maybe the discussion could become sensible again, or just stop if nothing sensible is left to say? Carcharoth (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
We could copy Hollywood, the bastion of liberal, genderless, classless and blind to race, creed or color, and have Best Female Administrator/Arbcom awards that are seperate from male categories. Remind me why the have a gender separation for actors, but not, say animation or music? Or why race is an issue? Danny Elfman is brilliant and so is his wife (see how I relegated his spouse to a subordinate position but in actuality Bridget Fonda is one of my favorite actors?). But I like Elfman when he as simply a member of Oingo Boingo because I liked musical groups that incorporated wind and brass instruments as it seemed they had a better command. He has good taste in a choice for spouse as well. --DHeyward (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I've just noticed a comment to the effect that ". In the context of Wikipedia, claiming that someone's articles or the topics they're on are non-notable is to call that person's judgment and competence as a Wikipedian into question" This is confusing "competence" with "perfection" I do not think there is any active administrator who has not made errors, and I do not think there is any editor who works substantially of possibly marginal articles who has not made misjudgments. I know I have done both of these. I know also that some instances of both where I still think I was right have not been supported by the community. Hundreds have questioned individual instances of my work on my talk pages--see their archives--and dozens of instances have been challenged elsewhere. I am grateful indeed for those who have sown me where I misjudged, because they gave me the opportunity to correct it; I am also at least somewhat appreciative of those whose challenges I disagreed with, because they have given me the opportunity to explain further. I think I make relatively few errors considering the volume of work I do and my willingness to work on borderline topics, but I am very sure there are editors or administrators who have a greater record of accuracy; I am equally sure there is not one of them who is perfect. I do not think to suggest that challenging any editor or admin or arb if done properly is the least "rude".
I think the people who have been working on these underrepresented topics have usually been judging right about notability, though I think some instances are borderline, and I shall probably challenge some. The best case is that the result of my challenges will be improved articles; it is also possible that they will lead to more exact judgment in deciding which ones to make. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
@Whatamidoing (WMF), Ed Erhart (WMF): This should be publicized more widely than just in a Signpost article. I would extremely annoyed if I had just worked on an edit for an hour, only for it to be lost during the read-only disruption—the vast majority of editors don't know about the Signpost, and would not have anticipated the need to retain a copy of the edit for the database switchover. Have you considered posting a watchlist notice or activating an interstitial warning during edit mode? I'm thinking something like MediaWiki:Anoneditwarning, but to be shown on the editing interface of all pages in the two hours or so before the lockdown. Notices to WP:AN and WP:ANI would also be helpful (I see Maile has already posted on WP:VPT.) Thanks, Altamel (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I see this has already been discussed at the Village Pump [5]. Altamel (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Why not as the site notice at the top of the page (I've forgotten what it's called)?--Launchballer 21:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
They are hoping that nobody will lose work – at least, not if they wait and try to re-save later – but I fully agree that this needs to be publicized very widely. I'm making a list (and last-minute site banners are on my list), but I would very much like suggestions, and for everyone who reads this to share the news. Many people don't read notices or central announcement pages at all, but all of us read notes from our friends on wiki. :-) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
According to the article, they are already planning on posting watchlist notices. Gamaliel (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Who actually reads the articles in the Signpost? Everyone's just here for the drama in the comments. --PresN 23:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh good. I need to get off. --violetnese 23:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Why isn't this being publicised? Ethanlu121 (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
This is the publicity. Gamaliel (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
This is being publicised widely, Ethanlu121. I'm interested in understanding where you expected to read about this event, but didn't find anything about it. Thank you! --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how you can say a film with with a 76 on Metacritic and a 82% RT was "critically disliked". The Revenant might have had the lowest ratings of those movies nominated for Best Picture but that is different from being disliked. LizRead!Talk! 14:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
most critically disliked. Serendipodous 14:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, I critically disliked it! That's not really true, but man that movie is DARK.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Some excellent writing by Serendipodous. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Our apologies to Ruby2010 : While I did write a blurb for her contributions, it didn't appear in first publication due to me forgetting to add the link to the actual picture, causing her entry to be hidden. Oops! Adam Cuerden(talk) 22:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
No problem! Ruby2010/2013 01:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Most exciting thing on wikipedia. --violetnese 23:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Adam- Very nice work on this and a great idea as well.-Godot13 (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)