Read 'em and weep:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Flying monkeys
Translate
Spellbooks
-
▼
2009
(125)
-
▼
May
(13)
- The maturity test
- Wikipedia's longest arbitration case
- The dead trees standard
- Wikipedia's longest 'Did you know?' submission
- Useless self-disclosures
- Power and cluelessness
- Citation needed
- Fred the great
- Proof positive that not enough women edit Wikipedia
- The POV pusher's lexicon, continued
- The POV pusher's lexicon
- Legitimate street gangs
- Swine flew
-
▼
May
(13)
Ruby slippers
Posts
Cauldron
- Book spines and scanner distortion
- Chromolithography and clone stamping
- Color bars: whether to trust them?
- Correcting deficient fixative in old photographs
- Correcting distortion on old posters with perspective cropping
- Correcting for directional scanner lighting
- Crop margins
- Fixing smudged captions
- Histogram management with the curves tool
- Patch repair for complex damage
- Patching a missing corner in a glass plate photograph
- Patching background data to achieve a good crop
- Previewing histogram adjustments
- Recovering facial detail with the shadow/highlight tool
- Removing fingerprints
- Repairing damaged skies
- Rotation and wide angle distortion
- Scratch removal
- Scratches and glass plate photography
- Selecting a restoration project: book illustrations
- Selecting a restoration project: photography
- Stain removal: advanced
- Stain removal: basic
- Stitching old panorama photography
- Vertical banding
- Working on small flaws first
7 comments:
So I've been wondering about this. Why do you think the demographics of WP editors are so lop-sided? Why are there so few of us females relative to males on WP? I don't think lots of women have been run off by pictures of our anatomy... but maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe because Cary Bass, who is volunteer coordinator to the Wikimedia Foundation, posted today that the most recent study found 32% of Wikipedia's contributors were women.
I don't think it's the pictures of women's anatomy themselves that run people off. It's the environment that encourages. The end result is offsite harassment and police reports, which does convince females it's just not worth it. As one of the site's better known female contributors I'm one of the people who gets contacted privately for advice.
Sad situation.
I wonder how much of the harassment has anything to do with our sex... or is it more a matter of how we react to the harassment? I have been on the receiving end of harassment which caused me to change my username, and easily could have run someone off. It had nothing to do with the fact that I'm female, however.
Am wary of reasoning that treads close to blaming the victim.
Let me clarify. I am most definitely not blaming victims of harassment for it. I am wondering about how much of the harassment is sexual versus something else in nature. (No doubt, at least some of it is based on sexism, some on homophobia, some on unclassifiable jerkery of the perpetrator. I do not have a good handle on what the ratios would be of the various subtypes.) I am also speculating that perhaps women tend to leave at a higher rate than men as a result. However, I do not condone harassment at all or blame the victim for it or for any reaction to it.
32%? What study is that? Is that something different to this? http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/04/16/first-preliminary-results-from-unu-merit-survey-of-wikipedia-readers-and-contributors-available/ Because I get 13% from that.
Cary was citing it in a site discussion.
Post a Comment