| Revision as of 06:00, 12 February 2021 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,307,174 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/Archive 13) (bot← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:42, 17 March 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,307,174 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/Archive 13) (bot | ||
| (39 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) | |||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| == Good Article Editathon event in October 2022 == | |||
| == Age visibility for articles about women == | |||
| <div style="border: 6px solid #2bbf08; background: #FFF; background-color:#FFFFFF; padding: 1ex 1ex 1ex 1.5ex; margin: 0px 0px 1em 1em; font-size: 99%"> | |||
| Hi everyone I wondered if the insertion of DOB for women may present a form of gender imbalance in that women are more likely than men to be the victims of ageism and accompanying discrimination, and may prefer not to have their ages registered on wikipedia? Is there any option for the subjects of articles to request that their age is occluded, for this reason? | |||
| ] | |||
| My apologies if this has already been debated. Many thanks and cheers, ] (]) 19:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Hello WikiProject Countering systemic bias: | |||
| :{{re|Miles Quest}} ] has some info on standard practice for when BLP subjects request their DOB be omitted from their article. ] <small>]</small> 19:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ''']''' is holding a ''' month-long ]'''!<br /><br /> | |||
| Many thanks for your reply GorillaWarfare - will take a look - cheers ] (]) 19:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Running from October 1 to 31, 2022, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event – Wildcard Edition! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to '''any and all''' women and women's works during the event period. Want to improve an article about a Bollywood actress? Go for it. A pioneering female scientist? Absolutely. An award-winning autobiography by a woman? Yes! GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a special WiG barnstar for their efforts. | |||
| We hope to see you there! | |||
| ==Greta Thunberg== | |||
| ] (]) 01:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)</div> | |||
| ==Discussion re: the E. Jean Carroll verdict at ]== | |||
| Greta Thunberg's article starts with the Mental Health section. There is a discussion about whether it is appropriate, as the typical WP pattern for health disclosure is at the end of the article under the Health Section. Many prominent male figures had mental conditions that began to appear in childhood, but their articles do not start with the section titled Mental Health. I am yet to see another article on a well-known person (not a mental health advocate) that begins with the section titled Mental Health. However, if it exists, it doesn't appear objective. Please provide your inputs if you are interested to discuss this in her "talk" page. | |||
| ] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 15:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)<!-- ] --> | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/Greta_Thunberg <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)</span> | |||
| : Thanks for the note. I can see both sides here - it's an important part of her early life, which is naturally the first section of the article, and it does naturally flow into the discussion of the activism, yet, yes, it does tend to throw shade at it. I think your suggestion of removing the subsection heading is a good compromise, it's otherwise a 2 paragraph section, we can live without it. --] (]) 18:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Pan IBJJF Jiu-Jitsu No-Gi Championship == | |||
| →Thank you!!] (]) 20:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree that it's better without the heading. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| If this project is active, then any interested parties can see ], my recent , and the edit I made to the talk page there. I haven't the time to fix this example of gender bias at the moment, but if someone else wants to counter it, then feel free. What better way to subliminally tell women they don't matter than not listing their accomplishments when we do list the males? Many thanks. ] (]) 16:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| →Please discuss your thoughts on Thunberg's Talk page if you have any comments. ] (]) 23:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :: {{re|SlimVirgin}} Thank you so much Sarah, looks like your comment and itemizing the options opened the support floodgates. When I grow up, I want to be just like you! {{smiley}} --] (]) 16:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| The talk page here is fairly moribund (at least when compared to something like ]). This despite . It didn't take long to scroll down to reach the deceased ] in the . May God rest her soul. Maybe someone can cross post this to gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org ? What explains the inactivity here? Any thoughts ]? I'm not a cultural expert, but I wonder if there's any waning of ] playing a role. Years ago, there seemed to be such buzz around the topic of "closing the gender gap." Is actually closing the gap just thankless, unpleasant, and never-ending work? Have "]" and/or ] leadership ideologically meandered elsewhere? Or am I just posting at the wrong spot?! ] (]) 16:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you all for the supoort in restoring neutrality! ] (]) 17:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :I updated the list. Two-thirds of the editors have been on wiki some time during the last year or so. I think this page might have reached the end of its natural usefulness, due to the creation of ]. | |||
| == Pop culture articles related to domestic abuse and gender bias == | |||
| :For this particular article, I would ask for help at ]. ] (]) 21:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Many thanks WhatamIdoing! ] (]) 01:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| First of all, I want to apologise if this is not the right forum to write this, but I am hoping to find support and more information. I'm a longtime editor but used to focus more on old (pre-1960s) pop culture/art articles. In the recent years, I've also 'branched out' to more recent pop culture articles, especially related to domestic abuse cases, such as the ]/] case, and now, the ] case. Why I started doing this was because I noticed that whenever there's a woman who goes public with abuse allegations, the related WP articles seem to not represent the cases in a neutral way, but instead are often biased towards the person that is alleged to have been the abusive party. The line "innocent until proven guilty in a criminal court" seems to be often thrown around to prevent anything beyond a cursory mention of allegations, despite the fact that criminal convictions in domestic/intimate partner/child abuse cases are relatively rare due to multiple factors, none of which is that fake allegations would be prevalent. The same commitment to 'the truth' that makes editors block almost any mention of abuse allegations does often not go the other way, with almost any material that casts the accuser in a bad light being ok to add apparently. | |||
| Examples: the main editor of Manson's WP articles adding a section about Wood stating that Kobe Bryant was a rapist and wording it in a way that was misleading and deliberately made Wood look bad; the same user disputing Wood's statement that she was underage in an image and thus deleting this statement, and refusing to allow details of the allegations in the MM article; after Depp lost his libel case in the UK, editors seem to want to add minutiae on anti-Heard online petitions, or blatant attempts of Depp's team to smear her to the article... I can go on and give more details if you are interested. It also appears that quite a few Wikipedians seem to lose their ability to look at the big picture (e.g. the entire case from start to present day) or to have any basic source criticism when it comes to these articles. It also doesn't seem that many Wikipedians have any basic knowledge of domestic/intimate partner violence (e.g. that mutual abuse is rare but the abuser trying to frame self-defense as such is not; that fake allegations are very, very rare; that it's often difficult to take cases to court; that BDSM and abuse are different things entirely; that abusers can seem to be nice people to outsiders...), although of course this applies to the general population as well. Even in a case where there are multiple accusers making very serious allegations and politicians calling for a FBI investigation (e.g. Manson) or where the accusations have been proven in a civil court (Depp), it seems to be difficult to break through this bias. | |||
| Apologies if this is a bit rambling, but I guess I'm here to seek peer support and advice? Is there any type of Manual of Style for these types of cases? It would be great to discuss these issues with others as I often feel like the only editor trying to fight this bias in these articles, but I know I must not be alone. ] (]) 13:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3 | |||
Latest revision as of 13:42, 17 March 2024
| Talk | Members | Media | Gender gap mailing list | WikiWomen's User Group | Related WikiProjects |
- Welcome to the GGTF: the gender gap task force. Please sign up if you'd like to help.
- The talk page is for friendly discussion about anything related to closing Misplaced Pages's gender gap, including asking for help with articles, AfDs, and so on.
- Add new posts to the end or click here to start a new topic.
- Sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~).
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13 |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Good Article Editathon event in October 2022
Hello WikiProject Countering systemic bias:
WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Editathon event in October 2022!
Running from October 1 to 31, 2022, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event – Wildcard Edition! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to any and all women and women's works during the event period. Want to improve an article about a Bollywood actress? Go for it. A pioneering female scientist? Absolutely. An award-winning autobiography by a woman? Yes! GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.
We hope to see you there!
Goldsztajn (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Discussion re: the E. Jean Carroll verdict at Talk:Donald Trump
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Donald Trump § Multi-part proposal for content on E. Jean Carroll v. Trump. — Shibbolethink 15:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Pan IBJJF Jiu-Jitsu No-Gi Championship
If this project is active, then any interested parties can see Pan IBJJF Jiu-Jitsu No-Gi Championship, my recent diff, and the edit I made to the talk page there. I haven't the time to fix this example of gender bias at the moment, but if someone else wants to counter it, then feel free. What better way to subliminally tell women they don't matter than not listing their accomplishments when we do list the males? Many thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
The talk page here is fairly moribund (at least when compared to something like WT:MED). This despite 186 members being listed. It didn't take long to scroll down to reach the deceased User:SlimVirgin in the history. May God rest her soul. Maybe someone can cross post this to gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org ? What explains the inactivity here? Any thoughts User:WhatamIdoing? I'm not a cultural expert, but I wonder if there's any waning of identity politics playing a role. Years ago, there seemed to be such buzz around the topic of "closing the gender gap." Is actually closing the gap just thankless, unpleasant, and never-ending work? Have "thought leaders" and/or WP:WMF leadership ideologically meandered elsewhere? Or am I just posting at the wrong spot?! Biosthmors (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- I updated the list. Two-thirds of the editors have been on wiki some time during the last year or so. I think this page might have reached the end of its natural usefulness, due to the creation of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Women in Red.
- For this particular article, I would ask for help at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Martial arts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks WhatamIdoing! Biosthmors (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)