On 6/6/2010 9:03 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > Michael Snow wrote: > >> Similarly, we know that the community population skews young and male. >> That has important consequences, and some of those unfortunately >> reinforce our lack of diversity. It's been pointed out what a >> male-centric approach we sometimes have, in the enthusiasm and manner >> with which certain subjects are covered, and the oblivious attitude >> toward potential offensiveness of various images. This comes across to >> all too many women as a hostile culture. Most large online communities >> do not have the kind of gender imbalance we have. This is a serious >> issue we need to address. The foundation could do targeted outreach >> forever to recruit underrepresented groups (whether it's ethnicity, age, >> gender, or other factors), and it would accomplish very little without >> significant improvements in our culture. >> > Well, yes and no. > > Historically the first time the offensiveness of images > on wikipedia first came to a head (so to speak), was > the images on [[Clitoris]]. At least in that instance the > contributors who feigned the images as being offensive > to viewers -- while in many cases claiming *they* personally > weren't at all offended (!!) -- were predominantly male. My > recollection was/is that the defenders of a photographic > image on that page, instead of a schematic drawing, were > mostly female. > There have been a lot of red herrings brought up on all sides of that issue. Use of images in a context that is on-topic and educational is clearly one of those, although I would suggest that we can do better at supporting reader choice, because it's really the reader we should be putting in control of their own quest for information. > I don't deny the general point about the testosterone-laden > atmosphere in some areas of our community, but I do want > to note that even in the latest controversy over images, the > person on the Board of Trustees who came strongest in > defense of a unfettered retention of sensual images of > educational value was its (single?) female member. It > would be a serious mistake to claim that she was doing > so only to "fit in" with the lads. > (I assume you mean Kat, but she is not the only female board member.)
I'm certainly not suggesting that. Sometimes it's easier to strongly argue positions that are counterintuitive to the role people might expect of you, because people are unlikely to suggest your convictions are skewed by your personal characteristics. I also think the focus on simple retention or deletion is almost a red herring sometimes, despite the conduct of another board member which basically framed the debate that way. The board's initial statement about educational images is kind of stuck there too, but we've been working on something a little more nuanced to come soon. In the meantime, I would encourage people to look at the discussion that's been happening on the Commons village pump regarding educational image use more generally. --Michael Snow _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
