Pipe down wimmin! (2018 edition)
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:04 pm
So, the Wikipedia Foundation has been busy trying to fix their gender issues. Not news really.
What is news, is what they have produced in their latest effort.
Rosiestep has scoured the globe talking to Wikimedians. She has produced a report summarising her findings.......
Advancing Gender Equity - Conversations with movement leaders
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_ ... eport_2018
The Wikimedia Foundation has of course blogged about it......
Wikimedia Foundation releases gender equity report
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2018/09 ... t-leaders/
Taken together, these make for a depressing reading. They paint a picture, after all this time, of women and minorities still having to hide away, self-motivating and doing their work away from the male dominated projects, seeking partnerships with outsiders and trying to recruit new editors, and focusing on changing the content, not cultural or policy change.
Even though, unsurprisingly (were they really surprised?) they found the three main barriers to people trying to fix this problem (by changing the content), were systemic bias in the policies, an ignorant or uncaring community, and trolling.
If there is any indication here that they want the cultural or policy change to happen, the advice seems to be to just wait and hope it does as a result of changing the content and doing the best practice, which is all focused on precisely that, or as a second and obviously less pleasurable alternative, be inspired by this supposed good news of some good work being done by small groups kept out of the way, to try to do it yourself as a volunteer, or even a highly motivated group of volunteers. The report's findings making it clear this is a pretty pointless and thoroughly depressing experience, having been tried numerous times before.
But don't worry, the Foundation is working in making slides the volunteers can use to show the men, because apparently that will help.
Oh, and Inspiration. Apparently that helps. I don't know about you, but a report which merely confirms they know the barriers and have no intention of proactively removing them, is not very inspiring.
All told, I wonder why there are so many women still willing to put up with this shit? Updated statistics and fresh evidence aside, this is very much same shit, different day. The media will lap it up as proof something is being done, not caring to look too closely at what. But they must see it.
Haven't there been enough examples already out in the real world and in other internet companies about what is the actual best practice? You don't sit down and shut up, you don't stay out to the way and just hope and pray. You don't quietly concentrate on changing the product, in the hopes that changes the culture or policy. You have to take control, you have to kick ass and take names.
This seems like a good opportunity to remind the Wikimedia Foundation that there is nothing in Section 230 that prevents you from actively banning or muting the voices of people who are getting in the way of change, nor does it bar you from directly changing policies that are similarly getting in the way of change. Neither exposes you to legal liability for the actual content, you would still be a mere conduit. Think of it as AT&T keeping rats out of the internet pipes.
The reason they don't do that? There would be a riot. Complete societal collapse. Probable not an extinction event, but a massive blow nonetheless.
This is just more evidence that for all their claims, Wikipedia is not an enlightened place. In the same way their overall governance has the air of the Middle Ages about it, their approach to gender reform is more Saudi Arabia than Scandinavia.
My advice to anyone looking to be inspired? By not getting involved, by exposing their truth from outside the cult, change will happen faster by virtue of the thing collapsing and being replaced by something comply different, than you will ever achieve by getting involved. There is nothing in this report to inspire anyone. There is only the grim reality of what Wikipedia is, and where it (isn't) going, no matter how much they insist it is their destination.
What is news, is what they have produced in their latest effort.
Rosiestep has scoured the globe talking to Wikimedians. She has produced a report summarising her findings.......
Advancing Gender Equity - Conversations with movement leaders
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_ ... eport_2018
The Wikimedia Foundation has of course blogged about it......
Wikimedia Foundation releases gender equity report
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2018/09 ... t-leaders/
Taken together, these make for a depressing reading. They paint a picture, after all this time, of women and minorities still having to hide away, self-motivating and doing their work away from the male dominated projects, seeking partnerships with outsiders and trying to recruit new editors, and focusing on changing the content, not cultural or policy change.
Even though, unsurprisingly (were they really surprised?) they found the three main barriers to people trying to fix this problem (by changing the content), were systemic bias in the policies, an ignorant or uncaring community, and trolling.
If there is any indication here that they want the cultural or policy change to happen, the advice seems to be to just wait and hope it does as a result of changing the content and doing the best practice, which is all focused on precisely that, or as a second and obviously less pleasurable alternative, be inspired by this supposed good news of some good work being done by small groups kept out of the way, to try to do it yourself as a volunteer, or even a highly motivated group of volunteers. The report's findings making it clear this is a pretty pointless and thoroughly depressing experience, having been tried numerous times before.
But don't worry, the Foundation is working in making slides the volunteers can use to show the men, because apparently that will help.
Oh, and Inspiration. Apparently that helps. I don't know about you, but a report which merely confirms they know the barriers and have no intention of proactively removing them, is not very inspiring.
All told, I wonder why there are so many women still willing to put up with this shit? Updated statistics and fresh evidence aside, this is very much same shit, different day. The media will lap it up as proof something is being done, not caring to look too closely at what. But they must see it.
Haven't there been enough examples already out in the real world and in other internet companies about what is the actual best practice? You don't sit down and shut up, you don't stay out to the way and just hope and pray. You don't quietly concentrate on changing the product, in the hopes that changes the culture or policy. You have to take control, you have to kick ass and take names.
This seems like a good opportunity to remind the Wikimedia Foundation that there is nothing in Section 230 that prevents you from actively banning or muting the voices of people who are getting in the way of change, nor does it bar you from directly changing policies that are similarly getting in the way of change. Neither exposes you to legal liability for the actual content, you would still be a mere conduit. Think of it as AT&T keeping rats out of the internet pipes.
The reason they don't do that? There would be a riot. Complete societal collapse. Probable not an extinction event, but a massive blow nonetheless.
This is just more evidence that for all their claims, Wikipedia is not an enlightened place. In the same way their overall governance has the air of the Middle Ages about it, their approach to gender reform is more Saudi Arabia than Scandinavia.
My advice to anyone looking to be inspired? By not getting involved, by exposing their truth from outside the cult, change will happen faster by virtue of the thing collapsing and being replaced by something comply different, than you will ever achieve by getting involved. There is nothing in this report to inspire anyone. There is only the grim reality of what Wikipedia is, and where it (isn't) going, no matter how much they insist it is their destination.