background preloader

Wikipedia

Facebook Twitter

WVU Libraries partners with Wikimedia foundation to create first Wikipedian-in-Residence to focus on gender gap. West Virginia University Libraries is working with Wikipedia to address the gender gap in its encyclopedia articles through a new grant-funded position.

WVU Libraries partners with Wikimedia foundation to create first Wikipedian-in-Residence to focus on gender gap

The Wikimedia Foundation has awarded the WVU Libraries a $27,100 grant to support a Wikipedian in Residence for Gender Equity. A Wikipedian in residence is an editor placed at an institution to facilitate the creation and improvement of Wikipedia articles related to that institution’s mission. “We’re excited to partner with WVU to create the first gender-focused Wikipedian in Residence. This role will help us get significantly closer to Wikimedia’s vision of sharing the sum of all human knowledge,” said Siko Bouterse, director of Community Resources for the Wikimedia Foundation.

“We are immensely honored for the WVU Libraries to be selected to join the Wikimedia Foundation in this extensive effort to enhance Wikipedia’s content and reliability,” said Jon C. An institution-based Wikipedian is a relatively new role. Fighting the Wikipedia boys’ club. MetaFilter. WikiChix - Home. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. Purpose of the workshop: The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop

Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Talk:Chelsea Manning: Difference between revisions. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Case opened on 20:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Case closed on 01:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Case amended by motion on 22:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Do not edit this page unless you are an arbitrator or clerk, or you are adding yourself as a party to this case.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute

Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original request to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; therefore, they may not be edited or removed. (However, lengthy statements may be truncated – in which case the full statement will be copied to the talk page. Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. Wikipedia bans five editors from gender-related articles. Wikipedia’s arbitration committee, the highest user-run body on on the site, has banned five editors from making corrections to articles about feminism, in an attempt to stop a long-running edit war over the entry on the “Gamergate controversy”.

Wikipedia bans five editors from gender-related articles

The editors, who were all actively attempting to prevent the article from being rewritten with a pro-gamergate slant, were sanctioned by “arbcom” in its preliminary decision. While that may change as it is finalised, the body, known as Wikipedia’s supreme court, rarely reverses its decisions. The sanction bars the five editors from having anything to do with any articles covering Gamergate, but also from any other article about “gender or sexuality, broadly construed”. Editors who had been pushing for the Wikipedia article to be fairer to gamergate have also been sanctioned by the committee, but one observer warns that those sanctions have only hit “throwaway” accounts.

There’s a crossover between the two conflicts. Chelsea Manning name row: Wikipedia editors banned from trans pages. A long-running argument over whether the Wikileaks source should be called Bradley or Chelsea Manning in Wikipedia has caused a split among some of its most senior editors.

Chelsea Manning name row: Wikipedia editors banned from trans pages

The arbitration committee – in effect the site’s supreme court – has banned a number of editors from working on articles related to transgender topics or individuals. But while some of those editors were banned for making transphobic comments about Manning, others were given the same punishment for pointing out the bigotry in the first place. As a result, the site been criticised by Trans Media Watch for implying that accusations of transphobia are as bad as actual incidents of transphobia. Reckless. Supplemental to: Infamous ❧ Thoughtless ❧ Careless I’ve been blocked at Wikipedia — ostensibly for posting the following comment, but obviously for writing Infamous, Thoughtless, and Careless – and for the further offense of having these become so widely read.

Reckless

(The Guardian ❧ Gawker ❧ PandoDaily ❧ The Mary Sue ❧ Wil Wheaton ❧ Der Standard ❧ de Volkskrant ❧ Dr. Clare Hooper ❧ P. Z. Myers ❧ FayerWayer ❧ Think Progress ❧ Stacey Mason ) Thank you to the tens of thousands of new visitors here; your interest is very welcome. Here’s the passage that drove Wikipedia nuts. Mark Bernstein’s weblog post… (many comments from various people)…That the proposed decision of which I wrote is infamous, is an opinion widely shared. Yesterday on Wikipedia, a new Arbcom case was filed. Of course, the point was simply to call this developer a prostitute somewhere on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Proposed decision. After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Proposed decision

Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after his or her time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page. For this case there are 14 active arbitrators, not counting 5 who are inactive, so 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Proposed motions Template 1) {text of proposed motion}