Randy from Boise wrote: don't have even remotely the same view as Eric of Women in Red, but I do think GW goes too far with her question.
First off, WiR. This is 100% precisely, exactly how those concerned about a gender-related "content gap" at Wikipedia should have responded rather than what did take place in Phase 1 — that being political organization (Gender Gap Task Force/Gendergap-l mailing list) and an effort to blame cultural characteristics at Wikipedia (verbal vulgarity and occasional aggressive interactions between content people) and the political structure of the site (boys on Arbcom behaving badly) for the problem at hand (content).
The solution to a content deficit is to focus effort to repair the content deficit, not to advance an unproven, almost religiously mystical belief that Genitalia Determines Consciousness — that only introduction of a new crop of female editors and removal of a section of the existing crop of male editors could possibly fix the gender-related distortion of content at Wikipedia.
So, after the political battle was fought to the inevitable stalemate in 2014-16, rough dates, a move was made to a true content-focused approach at repairing WP's content deficit. I think that any reasonable person looking at the WIR project must conclude that steps forward have been made. Indeed, one wishes that there were similar projects to address other content deficits, such as, as one example, coverage of Africa and the African diaspora.
That very positive assessment aside, does it logically follow that a negative view of WIR as an institution implies an attack on women? This goes too far. There is room for criticism of all bureaucratic deformations, and in an era when Wikipedia raises and spends about $100 million a year, there are going to be bureaucratic deformations aplenty. WIR's leadership and their spending of donor dollars are worthy of as much scrutiny as any other aspect of WP, and such scrutiny should be able to be made without fear of baseless charges of "misogyny."
Nor is the content actually produced by WIR exempt from the criticism that is levied about any other project. I particularly have no problem whatsoever with the WIR content I've seen, which is a tiny proportion of that which has been produced, but one's mileage may vary there. If a person is convinced that a wave of shit is being produced, assuming there is validity to the assertion, one should be able to make the argument without any ulterior motive necessarily being implied.
So GW goes too far, even if I think that Eric is more or less completely wrong about both the strategy of WIR and the content being produced itself.
I am afraid you are telling here a lot of horse shit, Timmy. Wikipedia is no solution women and minorities. Or for the problems in Africa. WMF is not even able to understand Europe, how for the hell they can understand Africa? The only thing I read here is one piece of American imperialism Timmy. We all have to adopt your American superiority and way of thinking. How for the hell you think you are Timmy? Or GW?
In Holland we have good results with the progress of woman emancipation and the position of minorities. The income of woman is rising, the moroccan youth is doing very well at school, and there is less discrimination of gay people. That was all in the newspapers here last week Timmy. So we don't need your fucking foundation at all here in Europe who is breaking the European and national legalisation.
And who told you the Africans want and need your wiki imperialism? Because I have read something else in the village pump of the African wiki during Wikimania, what was a fiasco by the way. Did you ask them? The Africans? Because you are thinking they want you in the rest of the world, but that is absolute not clear!
Why should madam GorillaWarfare be the moral compass for America and the rest of the world about woman matters, Timmy? She came in when she was a kid, and now she is around 25. It is complet follish what you are writing Timmy, it is one piece of Timmy POV to be more exacte.
