User talk:Lightbreather

Kaffeeklatsch discussions

Kaffeeklatsch request to close

Nice idea, but not at Wikipedia. Things are going reasonably well at the moment, so why erect a target to inflame the situation? Please close it down before the inevitable WP:MFD because those pages cannot be reconciled with standard procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I disagree. Lightbreather (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Kaffeklatsch is a good idea, too. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 01:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the idea of the Kaffeeklatsch. --Thnidu (♂) (talk) 07:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaffeeklatsch pledge

Hi Lightbreather, I left this comment on the Kaffeeklatsch page, but I haven't signed the pledge yet, so I've moved it here. Sorry about that.

I noticed that the Systers email list asks subscribers to confirm "that you are a woman". Perhaps it's best to leave it there, and people will identify with that statement or not. I wouldn't include the issue of user preferences being set to she, sexual orientation, or whether someone has joined a certain category. I can't see that those matter for this. Just my opinion. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 03:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, I hope that my "Response" below explains my thinking better. For a group in my user space, the pledge seems reasonable. If the proposed WikiProject Women group gets going, with WMF resources and guidance, maybe a better way to do this will be devised. Lightbreather (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I was concerned with the pledge, especially parts 2 and 3, but had trouble finding the words for it. Here are my thoughts now that I have had some time to gather them.

Line 1: I am a woman (cisgender or trans-woman, of any sexual orientation) is a big improvement from its previous form, but isn't totally inclusive of intersex persons or female-sexed persons with non-binary gender (agender, intergender, genderfluid, etc.).
Line 2 requires that participants out themselves as females by being in the Category:Female Wikipedians. Why is this a requirement? Is not participation in the Kaffeeklatsch outing enough?

I understand that the project wants to encourage women to come out of invisibility and make their presence more, well, visible, but revealing any degree of personal information, including age, sex, gender, location, name, etc, and the method of revealing it, should always remain the choice of the person themselves, and not be requirement to join any group, especially when that group is the only women-only on-wiki space available.

Line 3 requires that participants set their Internationisation user preference to "She edits wiki pages." Again, why? To alter some number to make female presence more visible in statistics? Again, this should be a suggestion only. I fail to understand why this is relevant to participation in the Kaffeeklatsch. As said, there probably are more women than just me who have left it at "prefer not to say" for reasons other than fear of sexism or harassment. For myself, it's because of my native tongue and culture. --Pitke (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pitke, see my "Response" below. But I have a question for you: Are your native tongue and culture genderless? If so, cool! Lightbreather (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would sign the pledge, as I am a woman editor who greatly appreciates this effort, but I do not want to identify myself as a woman via preferences or categories. Ongepotchket (talk) 10:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Ongepotchket. Maybe if the WikiProject Women proposal gets off the ground, with WMF resources and guidance, a better way to do this will be devised. Lightbreather (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No and also Hell no. I'm one of the "they" sorts and that won't change. It's a safety issue. Montanabw^(talk) 00:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw, do you believe an editor who sets their user preference to "She edits," or who joins the "Female Wikipedians" category, is less safe than other editors? If so, in what way do you mean? For instance, on Wikipedia, or in real life, or what? Lightbreather (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just removed myself from the group. I joined with concerns about the pledge - concerns others share - but your response makes it clear you do not agree. I can not therefore remain. LadyofShalott 17:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish, LadyofShalott, and no hard feelings on my part. While hosting this test group in my space, these requirements feel safer to me. As I said, perhaps if WikiProject Women gets off the ground a better way to do this will be agreed upon. Perhaps someone should start a test group in their space with different requirements? Lightbreather (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Why ask those who would like to join the Kaffeeklatsch to change their user preference to "She edits wiki pages," and add their username to the category "Female Wikipedians"?

The objective is to have a women-only space on Wikipedia as a place first and foremost for women to feel safe - a refuge. I have based the idea on the Anita Borg Institute's Systers list. Although the groups would be similar in their goals - a safe place for women to talk about tech (Systers) and Wikipedia (Kaffeeklatsch) - their framework is different. The Systers group has been active for over 20 years. The Kaffeeklatsch is a test group while the WikiProject Women proposal is under consideration at the IdeaLab.

When a person registers an account on Wikipedia, they have to give a username, which does not have to be their real name, and... that's it. You don't have to give your real name. You don't have to give an email address. You don't have to state your gender. However, as we all know, gender does end up being divulged, intentionally or otherwise. The editing environment is hostile, which feels unsafe to a lot of women, and little is done about it, nor is little likely to be done about it in the near future.

When a person subscribes to the Systers list, they must be approved by a moderator. They give their email address and their name, and they have to 1) tell their involvement in tech (1-2 sentences suffice), 2) say that they are a woman, and 3) say that they have read and agree to the list's rules (a lengthy set). Then the person's request is evaluated by a moderator, and the email address is confirmed. This process goes a long way toward assuring the list members that they're safe. This process has been successful in making and keeping Systers a valued place for women in tech for a long time.

I don't think those who want to join this group should have to share their real names and email addresses. However, I do think that asking them to make a small sacrifice for the peace of mind of other group members is reasonable. If it is more important to a woman Wikipedian to keep her user preference set to something other than "She edits wiki pages," or not to join the category "Female Wikipedians," than it is to be a part of the group, there is still the Teahouse to reach out to for support. But for women who are members of the group, there is some comfort in knowing that other members of the group are "out" as women on all of Wikipedia, and not just for access to the group.

At any rate, as I said, this is only a test group for now, and it is to be hoped that the IdeaLab proposal may get off the ground, and then perhaps there will be better ways of managing membership. Lightbreather (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the model you're trying to emulate but I don't see it working here on Wikipedia for a couple of reasons.

First, the Anita Borg Systers group is completely private: non-members are unable to read the list and message are not publicly archived. A completely private area isn't possible on Wikipedia and so you cannot apply the same membership standards. You're asking people to give up their privacy and to expose themselves for not much in the way of a return. If you want to offer privacy you'll have to take this off-wiki.

Second, you say that women need a safe space but you are excluding some of the women who need it - ones who might not want to specify both their gender and the internationalization. You say above that they can go to the Teahouse but you say elsewhere that the Teahouse isn't well-run because men run it. The overall message is that if women aren't willing to be out and proud as women, they can't join your group. If your goal is to provide a place free from disruption, you'd be better off with some kind of moderation that allows disruptive people to be banned from the page rather than focusing on requiring that prospective members specify both gender and internationalization (which doesn't actually prevent disruption because people can lie - and some women contributors can be at least as disruptive as men contributors).

As an aside, you're basically proposing that a social space be set up on Wikipedia. Some will see as unnecessary because people are supposed to be here to build an encyclopaedia and discussions on wiki are supposed to be focused on ways to improve articles. If you want this proposal to succeed then you'll need to address that aspect. Ca2james (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote above, to participate in the Systers group one must give their name and their email address. That would be asking too much here in this public group. However, asking a woman to give something here isn't unreasonable when the something they're asked to give is a token compared to what the private Systers group asks. In other words, both Systers and this Kaffeeklatsch ask women to say, "I am a woman," but the Systers group (smartly) asks additionally for two substantive pieces of information, to give some peace of mind to the group. Since it would be too much to ask women here to share their names and email addresses, asking for these other assurances is reasonable.

As for taking the group off-wiki, I am in the middle of collaborating with the Systers-keeper to set up a Wikipedia Systers space, which will be a private space to complement to this Klatsch (and, it is to be hoped, a future WikiProject Women space).

As for the Teahouse, yes, I don't think it feels as safe for women as a women-only space would feel. (I was once told by a Teahouse host that I was being too sensitive. This is a common way to belittle women.)

No, I am not proposing a social space, or at least not a mainly social space. I want it to be more focused on community, policies, and guidelines than on content, but content discussion will not be off limits. The space's goals are:

Create a space conducive to women's participation on Wikipedia (No trashing allowed);
Maintain the space for women to seek advice from women peers;
Maintain the space for women to discuss the challenges they share as women Wikipedians;
Increase the number of women editors on Wikipedia.

However, it does not have special rights or privileges, and it cannot make rules (that apply outside the group), nor can it impose its preferences on articles, policies, or guidelines.

I'd like to make two final points. 1. Some have scoffed at the idea that Wikipedia can feel unsafe to women - but turned around elsewhere and suggested that it is unsafe to set your preference to "She edits" or to add your username to the Female Wikipedians category. And 2. Some have suggested that to say that one feels unsafe here makes light of the fears of women who are or have been physically unsafe in the real world. However, many women who suffer real-world abuse suffer it hand-in-hand with electronic abuse. And psychological abuse effects how safe one feels in the real world.

Please read the "Vote stacking" section. You are clearly cherry picking your notifications to areas where you expect support. If you cannot see your bias then I suggest you leave notifying editors about the debate to other people. Chillum 16:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So a good question for someone to ask somewhere (please, please not here): Is it unsafe to do these things? Lightbreather (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's already covered

It's already covered in the 2nd paragraph; by returning the new addition, it's now covered twice in the lede. Why revert? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I have several real-life and wiki projects going at once. As for this, you're right - and I fixed it.[1] Lightbreather (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I also expanded the content again here; it's an important counterpoint to claims that the term was only used by activists or the media before the industry ditched it. Feel free to tweak if need be. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AGF

I've noticed that you preface some of your edit summaries with "AGF". I know that's a reference to WP:AGF, but I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you saying that you are assuming good faith? Or are you asking the other editor to assume good faith? Or do you mean something else? — Mudwater^(Talk) 01:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's the usage I think you're referring to (like "AGF, but...") I usually mean, "I'm assuming good faith here, but here is why this edit can't stay," or something along those lines. Lightbreather (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I suggest that you "assume assuming good faith". That is, since good faith is assumed, it's not necessary to say that you are assuming good faith. In fact, saying that you are assuming good faith might be misconstrued as an innuendo that you are questioning the good faith of the other editor's edits. Know what I mean? — Mudwater^(Talk) 01:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have never used "AGF" in an edit summary to mean anything other than "AGF." Lightbreather (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good. And I hope you will take my suggestion in the spirit in which it's intended. Since good faith is assumed, it can be more collegial not to point out that you are assuming good faith. It will be obvious enough when another editor's actions force you to stop assuming good faith. Anyway, it's not a huge deal either way. Thanks for your replies here. — Mudwater^(Talk) 01:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton speech to Tech

This one I did not dawdle on... http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Hillary-Clinton-Watermark-Speak-at-Silicon-Valley-Womens-Conference-293839411.html ... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 09:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Co-op: Presentation at Wikimania 2015

Hey Lightbreather. I've put in a submission for a presentation at Wikimania 2015 called Is Two the Magic Number?: The Co-op and New Editor Engagement through Mentorship. I'll be talking about the state of finding help spaces on en.wiki and how our new mentorship space, The Co-op, factors into that picture. Reviewing will begin soon and I'll need your help to be able to present our work. Please review our proposal and give us feedback. If you would be interested in seeing this presentation, whether you are attending or not, please add your name to the signup at the bottom of the proposal (you do not need to attend Wikimania to express interest in presentations). I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} on behalf of Wikipedia:Co-op.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sexually Provocative Images on user Talk Page Violating WP:Userpages

There is an ANI discussion which may interest you. It concerns some old user pages that contain BDSM and spreading images that violate userpage guidelines. 172.56.8.170 (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the MFD you mentioned and tagged the F Machine article for speedy delete as well. 172.56.8.170 (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]