Some coping strategies from Valerie Aurora, and yes I AM tired of it. This is what Valerie Aurora calls the “unicorn” problem — when instead of someone asking you about your field of expertise, they want to talk about your identity.
Example: “How does it feel to be the only woman at this conference?”
I am please to see on this list the answer I came up with all on my own: “NO.”
With a little planning and foresight you too can have some socially acceptable rejoinders on hand. Here’s two, the article has more:
.Make a list of other people to pass requests on to….and tell people that while you don’t know much about career advice for women in tech, you’ve heard that “What Works for Women at Work” has some good tips.
Point out your lack of expertise. …There’s nothing about being a woman in tech that necessarily makes you an expert on how to support women in tech in general. People will often ask women in tech to do things or make statements in areas they don’t have expertise in; get used to saying “I don’t know about that,” or “I haven’t studied that.”
Of course some people may want to give “unicorn talks” or become activists. She talks about this too; here is just one of many points:
Women are punished for advocating for women in tech. … the research shows that the careers of women and other members of marginalized groups are actually harmed if they appear to be advocating for members of their own group. Feel free to decline to do work that will harm your career. (And if you do it anyway: thank you!!!)
And no, white men do not have to spend time thinking about this shit.
It’s official. The admins believe they can speak for the community. Lead by TonyBallioni, a group of rogue admins has voted on an obscure talk page that a blocked user who is caught socking is now “community banned”. “L’etat c’est moi”, says Tony, echoing Louis XIV in establishing the French absolute monarchy. Anyone caught by checkuser — and we all know how accurate that is — will be “considered de facto banned by the Wikipedia community.”
The reasons for this, says Tony “de facto” Bannioni, is because NewYorkBrad and because too many ban requests at AN. No links of course. A quick scan of AN shows not even one such request in the contents, so no way to evaluate this. New York Brad did not show up for the vote. Maybe he didn’t get the memo–the discussion was on Village Pump (policy), not the talk page of the policy itself, and the only notification I can find was on the talk page of Wikipedia:Banning policy. It would not be unlike Ira to lead from behind though, these days, so it’s entirely possible. But again, how can we evaluate this without a link? It’s a power play from beginning to end.
Mystery admin zzuuzz:, also BU Rob13, a current arbitrator and an actual checkuser, had some interesting and fact-based observation, and stood his ground when he was jumped on by Kudpung, Tony Bannioni, and Dirk Beetstra
There was a bit of drama when a non-admin had the gall to disagree with an admin.
Oppose Users like Slowking4 who have only evaded their block on good faith should not be considered “banned”, and a block is a preventative measure, if an evading editor doesn’t repeat the behaviour that lead to the block this is a punitive measure that doesn’t help improve the encyclopedia. This entire proposal is punitive and only serves as instruction creep. –Donald Trung (No fake news (Articles Respect mobile users. 00:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
A “naming violation” was immediately discovered, the poor user indefinitely blocked, but not before Tony Bannioni got in this charming and sophisticated f-bomb.
It is impossible to block evade in good faith, as this is explicitly against one of the strongest community consensuses, and ignoring it is essentially saying “Fuck you” to the community. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
No, Tony, it is not saying “fuck you” to “the community”, as interpreted by power-hungry admins, it is saying “fuck you” to that idiot control freak Dirk Beetstra who “de facto-ed” him in order to enforce his own personal interpretation of “fair use” without so much as a talk page discussion.
You only have to go down the page a little further to see this Beetstra once again ignoring the fair use section of the policy he cites, and the obvious frustration of the user who has to deal with him.
But if you think Beetstra goes all anal in the above discussion, check out the way he has been obsessing over these SPI investigations since at least 2011. Heaven forbid some guy is still writing articles and even about to win an editing contest, must block, block, block and use syssop tools to win this petty fair-use argument.
“Edits (also of possible missed accounts) need to be rigorously flushed down the drain”
“previous socks were editing to participate in competitions”
“Starts to quack loud. I am considering to pull the trigger.”
“nuke everything they have done on en.wikipedia – their edits are their trophies.”
“@Bbb23: Thanks, I’ve nuked/reverted as much as possible per WP:DENY. Guess it is waiting now for new socks.”
Obvious sock. Blocked, tagged and contributions wiped where possible per WP:DENY.
“They have access to a couple of ranges. The underlying IPs have an own filter (639) set to block I am quite aware of where the master is. It has a few false positives, but some characteristics are too telling). On new accounts it is more difficult (filter 643).”
“Behaviour starts to quack. Unfortunately ACTRIAL is conflicting, but I think ACTRIAL is more important.”
“It is clear from the tupe of edits and his style of writing on talkpages. See also edit filters 639 and 643. “
Ha ha, two abuse filters? Kumioko only rated one.
These guys also seem to come from the patroller community and really invested in transferring the patroller workload onto Articles for Creation–work they do not intend to do themselves, but to get someone else to do. What a novel idea — take editors who are good at writing articles and instead of having them, you know, write more articles, get them to waste their time reviewing articles submitted by users who are not good at writing articles.
I’m just going to put this out there even though this tempest in a teapot is pretty much over, without having hit the Wikimedia mailing list at all. Everything was played out over social media, and I have to say that our ED came out looking more professional and more well-prepared than theirs.
Besides, it gives me a chance to use this Ides of March Caesar stabbing image.
“Pointing to slides that displayed YouTube videos purveying conspiracies about the moon landing and chemtrails, Wojcicki said the company will begin displaying “information cues” drawn from Wikipedia alongside such clips. The cues come in the form of little blocks of text directly below the video. To determine which videos require such a counterweight, Wojcicki said, YouTube will draw on Wikipedia’s own list of well-known conspiracy theories. She noted that YouTube could expand on that list over time.
“This was all news to the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that administers the volunteer-edited Wikipedia. “We were not given advance notice of this announcement,” the foundation said in a statement Wednesday, adding that there is no formal partnership between it and YouTube. While it did not explicitly object to YouTube using its content in this way, the nonprofit stressed that it relies on donors and unpaid editors, and that it “does not control content or make editorial decisions about information that is included on Wikipedia….”
“In other words, an $800 billion company—arguably the world’s most important information source—is outsourcing the job of combatting (sic) misinformation on its platform to a nonprofit built on free labor. And it didn’t bother to tell them.”
Wikipediocracy weighed in with the common observation that this could lead to a whole lot of new vandalism.
And here are a few more random threads about Wojcicki’s further YouTube remarks, especially one that YouTube had discovered its identity as a library.
+ are curated for quality.
+ aren’t filled with rubbish.
+ aren’t based upon advertising.
+ don’t track what you browse.
+ aren’t part of a mega-corporation.
+ don’t capture and collate personal data.
The Bloomberg headline “YouTube to Work With Wikipedia to Curb Conspiracy Theories” proved inaccurate as Katherine Maher did not seem too thrilled when she found out about it.
While we are thrilled to see people recognize the value of @Wikipedia’s non-commercial, volunteer model, we know the community’s work is already monetized without the commensurate or in-kind support that is critical to our sustainability. https://t.co/d8TdTTPdgp
“The Autoconfirmed article creation trial (also known as ‘ACTRIAL’) is a six-month trial that ran on the English Wikipedia from September 14, 2017 to March 14, 2018. During the trial, article creation was limited to users with autoconfirmed status (at least ten edits and at least four days since registration).”
For existing users, there is no change, but when new users and sockpuppets attempt to create a new article, they are directed to an article creation “wizard”, which will step them through a bazillion questions before spitting them out into the failing Articles for Creation project. Some wizard.
There was a decrease in new junk articles to be deleted.
New articles were shifted from Wikipedia itself to draft space, shifting the backlog from new page patrol to the already overworked AfC. The current AfC backlog is 2,404 total.
No word on whether there is a corresponding decrease in good articles created. Maybe writing new articles is not a priority.
“This shift of content creation from the article to the Draft namespace is worrisome. Previous research has shown that the AfC process is not as collaborative as creating content in the article namespace. It’s problematic if Wikipedia derails contributions by new users into a space where collaboration does not happen, leaving the newcomer to figure everything out on their own.”
Funding for a new 2018 UnCommon Women Colouring Book is being crowdsourced here, at Indiegogo. The funds are basically to pay the artist, the same cartoonist who did the 2017 series, who goes by the name “Rori!”.
I don’t know about anyone else but this doesn’t seem quite right to me. I donate my time to open source, so why are these people suddenly asking for money. On the other hand artists should be paid for their work, and it does look like the project will be funded. No word on which women will be included in the new book, but it will have an open source license.
Actually, since it’s Pi Day (3.14), how about a nice free Historical Women in STEM coloring book from energy.gov.
The result were due March 1, but where were they? The survey was included in the annual plan, “Objective 1:…survey the participants at the Administrator’s Noticeboard for Incidents on their experience”, and there was even a signup page; …ah, there it is, a list of links intuitively placed on the talk page of the signup page. And the results are here:
Everyone knows Wikipedia is blocked in China, and the Chinese Wikipedia is written by expats and Taiwanese, maybe a few from Hong Kong — not sure how that works with Hong Kong part of China now.
China has just shut down the group “Feminist Voices”, and on the day after International Women’s Day. According to this Twitter thread, the #MeToo hashtag is censored as well, and this has something to do with China’s strongman Xi Jinping.
“At the time of suspension, Feminist Voices had over 172,000 views and over 180,000 followers.”
Yes, the leading feminist Weibo account, Feminist Voices, has been deleted THE SECOND YEAR IN A ROW.