



Project idea [ edit ]

What is the problem you're trying to solve? [ edit ]

There is currently no space on Wikipedia where a woman can go and be sure that she'll be able to participate in discussions without being dominated by men's voices. Wikipedia needs a place where women can feel safer and not always overwhelmed by male advice, criticism, and explanations.

What is your solution? [ edit ]

Using the user preferences "Internationalisation" setting for those who prefer to be described as "she" (or the "Female Wikipedians" category), plus a project-moderator process where editors pledge that they are women and have read and agreed to the project's rules, registered women editors may join the project and discuss Wikipedia related matters. It would probably be more focused on community, policies, and guidelines than on content, but content discussion would not be off limits.

Women editors would not be required to join the project, of course, and all editors, regardless of gender, would be able to read the project's pages. The project is not meant to replace any existing project. The project will not be against the WMF Non discrimination policy because it will not prohibit any editor from contributing to any Wikimedia project.

The pledge process would be similar to the subscription process that the Anita Borg Institute "Systers" forum has been using successfully for over 20 years.

Considering the feedback I've received (examples: [1][2][3]) to shut-down a women-only Wikipedia project, I am seriously considering the scope of the project to be a meta space. Bonus: It will be able to support women across Wikimedia projects and not just women Wikipedians. Lightbreather (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Goals [ edit ]

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.

Group members agree to abide by the Wikipedia Civility policy. In addition, project space may not be used to speak negatively about non-members (WP editors who are not members of the group) by name, initials, or other identifying characteristics.

Get Involved [ edit ]

Participants [ edit ]

Volunteer I can spread the word, contribute in any way possible to make this success. ParulThakur (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I can spread the word, contribute in any way possible to make this success. ParulThakur (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Volunteer I've been trying to run more events in Ireland about increasing content relating to women in Ireland since we've started a Wikimedia Community Ireland, so I'd love to be able to tie that work in with the larger community. I'm happy to do anything I can to raise awareness etc Smirkybec (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been trying to run more events in Ireland about increasing content relating to women in Ireland since we've started a Wikimedia Community Ireland, so I'd love to be able to tie that work in with the larger community. I'm happy to do anything I can to raise awareness etc Smirkybec (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Volunteer I can spread the word and I'll keep an eye on this project... I'm confident we can become a strong community of women, it's about time we organize :) Luxxxbella (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I can spread the word and I'll keep an eye on this project... I'm confident we can become a strong community of women, it's about time we organize :) Luxxxbella (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Volunteer Can help support + will keep an eye on project. Hmlarson (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Can help support + will keep an eye on project. Hmlarson (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Volunteer I can spread the word. I am connected in the music tech / audio community and have been encouraging others to edit. Chloe.stamper (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I can spread the word. I am connected in the music tech / audio community and have been encouraging others to edit. Chloe.stamper (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Volunteer I'd like to help with design. Dianakc (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to help with design. Dianakc (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Volunteer I can help in whatever way I am told I should do. FeralOink (talk) 05:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Endorsements [ edit ]

Want to endorse this as a good idea? Add your name by clicking the button in the infobox, or edit this section directly. Other forms of feedback (including comments and opposition) are welcome on the discussion page. The opposition thread is at Grants_talk:IdeaLab/WikiProject_Women#Opposition.

we can use a multiplicity of friendly spaces. Slowking4 (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

yes indeed. as per this post from Planet Wikimedia, we are discovering as we grow our community that not all plants need the same amount of water, light, or temperature. -- Djembayz (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I think this could make a big difference to the gender-gap problem. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

05:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Good idea; I could see it strongly benefitting some women. A space like this might benefit from having a community manager, as well. Fhocutt (talk) 07:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Great idea!! WikiWomen's Collaborative is at your disposal :) Missvain (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes please - there have been discussions amongst female-identified volunteers and editors in the UK community and while we want to continue to collaborate across all spaces and projects, we feel that a female identified specific space would be a useful source of advice and support! Leela0808 (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

There are numerous spaces where men and women can discuss women's concerns and collaborations, and they quickly become spaces where mostly men are discussing women's concerns and collaborations. The WikiProject needs a community that prioritizes women's voices, due to women being such a slim minority. Will spread the word, and hope to contribute when I have time. Ongepotchket (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

women need support for a stronger voice in wikipedia 2602:306:8B12:6970:1CD3:3441:4DFC:9D6D 13:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Strongly endorse. Would encourage women. We are losing ground. we should be 50-50. it's time to do something different.Kmccook (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Weak endorse. I wholeheartedly want to support women editors, but I don't like the feeling that we need a ghetto or the short bus to participate. We need to toughen up a bit. I know a lot of men who have also been run off WP due to many of the same issues. That said, women do face unique challenges, and contrary to the oppose votes below, it isn't "discriminatory" to acknowledge the reality of harassment and the need for a safer place. When editors who I know to be men posing as women start to troll places like this thread, (note the oppose votes below then go read wikipediocracy to find out which one I'm talking about) I must throw my lot in with the supporters as I don't want to make the perfect the enemy of the good. Montanabw (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I may not join but if there are female editors who feel that they need a place like this then one ought to be available. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Weak support. At this point, I'm pretty much of the mind that women don't encourage women to edit Wikipedia. The potential for harassment is real, and is a threat to their employment and work in academia. The support infrastructure is... well, not there. Unless there is a way to address the underlying cultural issues that make Wikipedia such a hostile environment for women, this feels like trying to find a bandaid solution to a gunshot wound. :( Look at what happened with the GenderGap Task Force. Something needs to be done though, and if a bandaid is it, then a bandaid it shall be. --LauraHale (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea for encouragement and support for women contributors. Hmlarson (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Although I understand the concerns below, this may be a needed alternative to the GGTF. Miniapolis (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Somewhat endorse. I would really like to be a "she" here. Yes, I am female and a "she" IRL. The internationalization idea is great. It is my own damn fault for choosing the user name that I did (I love javelinas), but as a result, I am often perceived as a teen-aged male. I realize that this is more than pronouns, although that is important. However, I agree with what Montanabw said, and have similar concerns as expressed by LauraHale. Also, there will be genuine not-cis people and a variety of trolls who will pitch a fit that this is exclusionary. Trolls should never be a reason for not doing something though. Whatever form this takes, you/we really will need to lay down the law so that you/we are not undermined, ridiculed and eventually defeated as in the past. I'm referring to the obstacles that Laura mentioned. It becomes overwhelming to fight these people, then one questions "why even bother?" and that ends a female Wikipedia editor's participation. --FeralOink (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Tlhslobus, struck by Tlhslobus. Comment/Suggestion: First, my apologies for being a foolish and uninvited male offering unsolicited advice which quite likely is either already been followed by some of you, or has already been considered and rejected as inadequate for some other reasons. But I feel kind-of-obliged to make this suggestion just on the off-chance that it turns out to be actually useful. As I coincidentally already more-or-less said on LB's English Wikipedia Talk Page before I even knew about this proposal, it seems to me that the best solution, for those of you who want such a solution, is quite likely to be to form a discussion group off Wikipedia, by invitation only, either on Facebook, or on Yahoo Discussion Groups, or on some other forum with which I'm unfamiliar. As it's off-Wiki, you don't have to worry about males (or others) complaining about discrimination (any Wikipedian objecting is trying to violate your right of free association, etc), you don't have to worry about opposes, you don't have to get consensus. One or more of you can just go ahead and set up a discussion group with 'closed' (by-invitation-only) membership, then invite Wiki-women and/or Wikifeminists and/or female WikiFeminists to join, perhaps using Wikipedia's private message system to send them invitations (don't send me an invitation as I'm neither a women not a feminist, as distinct from an occasional sympathiser on a case-by-case basis). You can always start up a group right away, and then consider moving somewhere else later on if there turns out to be better forums available elsewhere.

Having made this hopefully just possibly helpful suggestion, I now propose to withdraw from the discussion, as I don't feel I belong here (and quite likely my suggestion is actually unhelpful, in which case I don't want my foolish male ego pushing me to argue that it is helpful when it isn't). If somebody needs clarification of some point, please feel free to ask me on my English Wikipedia Talk Page (or on my Meta Talk Page, but you might then want to leave a short message on my English Wikipedia Talk Page to let me know it's there). But I probably won't know the answer to your question (I haven't explored much of Facebook's potential and I was last active on Yahoo Discussion Groups back in 2002). My apologies if I've been foolishly wasting your time. Good luck to you all, and I hope it all works out well for you. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC) (I've now switched to support, see below)Tlhslobus (talk) 05:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, please! Stop that "foolish male ego" stuff, Tlhslobus. I like males, and I read nchan. I do NOT want to use Facebook. I don't trust or like its data mining scruples or lack thereof. Yahoo! User Groups were better back in 2002 than they are now. Both they and the Google Usenet archive are of uncertain longevity. Going off site to do what might be discriminatory is analogous to "security by obscurity" but worse. There are significant resources provided by WMF using the Wikimedia platform, e.g. an excellent edit log and persistent URLs. Why should we not avail ourselves of them, instead of providing marketing data as fodder to Facebook or risking data loss because Yahoo! carelessly maintains Groups or suddenly closes them altogether?--FeralOink (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Additional comment This is what I wrote earlier, then deleted because it wasn't the time. I will add it now. If you're going to initiate this, start small in scope and do not capitulate e.g. to the "this is discriminatory" folks in the "oppose" section below. Ask a Wikimedia attorney if it is discriminatory, get a supportive answer (if not, fini), then be able to stand on firm ground when you fire back at naysayers. This is what I mean (and perhaps Laura does too?) by lack of support. If we can't get what we need within the WMF as an organization, then this will be fodder for another article for the Daily Dot to politely write-up, then later, describe its demise. Other online voices will be much less polite.--FeralOink (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I think at the very least, for an endorsement, there needs to be a similar scheme for men set up. Otherwise it is sexual discrimination. I believe this would be otherwise illegal under UK law, although US law may be different. Also why have all the opposing views been moved to the talk page? To give the impression that there is only support for this idea? --Mrjulesd (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

For I think this is a pretty interesting idea. Many times on the internet, women are harassed and threatened for having a different idea. If you disagree with some figurehead of some movement, people immediately will attack you, for no reason other than "crimethink". Truly awful behavior I've seen over these recent months. Just for disagreement with the mob, you're targeted. People will spread the most vicious rumors, and try to ruin your life. Women should have a safe space to be on the internet. Wikipedia is no exception. Women should be able to voice their opinions without getting talked down. --DungeonSiegeAddict510 (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Changed my mind. -- DSA510 Pls No AndN 01:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Endorse idea with couple tweaks: For a lot of reasons may not be possible in Wikimedia context to specify only women, but it should be possible to specify two things that will answer the discrimination critics questions:

only those who support the purposes of the project may participate. After all as we've seen at En.Wikipedia Gender Gap task force (and its Arbitration), a number of individuals claiming to be women were the most obnoxiously opposed to the project and some of its participants.

After all as we've seen at En.Wikipedia Gender Gap task force (and its Arbitration), a number of individuals claiming to be women were the most obnoxiously opposed to the project and some of its participants. those who feel that their failure to comply with strict sex and/or gender roles/behavior makes their editing or themselves a target . This would apply to guys known to be gay, bi, crossdressers, transgender, etc. - as well as those who just reject/refuse to act out a macho male role in their editing behavior; those who feel their article topics or they themselves have been targeted for attack and need some support. Of course, that does not mean the project should be overwhelmed with issues that are better addressed at LGBT wikiprojects or guys who just want sympathy when losing some edit war. It would be a judgement call, obviously, as to whether they do belong, i.,e. do they support the need for a womens project first and foremost, but are bringing a specific editorial or behavioral problem they are dealing with because they believe it is shared by many women.



. This would apply to guys known to be gay, bi, crossdressers, transgender, etc. - as well as those who just reject/refuse to act out a macho male role in their editing behavior; those who feel their article topics or they themselves have been targeted for attack and need some support. Of course, It would be a judgement call, obviously, as to whether they do belong, i.,e. do they support the need for a womens project first and foremost, but are bringing a specific editorial or behavioral problem they are dealing with because they believe it is shared by many women. (Added later): Since the issue of males pretending to be women - or even a guy with gender issues - is obvious, add phone call verification that someone is what they say the are. So a slight tweaking of the language could make these points clear and inviting to participants with relevant issues and firmly dissuading to those really just here to criticize, disrupt or glom off the project. {added later) Or maybe just make the moderation so strong that any criticism of the central purpose results in banning. Carolmooredc (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Carol, I have responded to your suggestion on the discussion page. Lightbreather (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Carolmooredc, re: your added suggestion for phone verification: In my view, any project like this should actively welcome both cisgender and transgender women (who are not "guys with gender issues"), and gatekeeping around who's enough of a woman should be avoided. Fhocutt (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Some form of verification would still be kind of important. In a text-only online environment it would be relatively easy for a guy to just be like, "Greetings, fellow vagina-havers! I too am in possession of a vagina. Can I join your secret club now?" and you wouldn't be able to prove them wrong because that would require revealing personal information and outing is bad. Questioning them based solely on what they say only makes you look like a cisprivileged shitlord to boot.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Um, The Devil's Advocate, fear of "looking like a cisprivileged shitlord" doesn't stop anyone else from doing what they want. It shouldn't stop us either. --FeralOink (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment I have one question before supporting. Would you allow genderqueer people to participate in the WikiProject? As a genderqueer person, I would like to join this and I think allowing them to be in the group would help make it more inclusive and helpful in terms of serving the needs of all gender minorities on Wikipedia. (Added: Sorry about the username. It's based on my favorite character from Lost. I am not pretending to be genderqueer--I actually am. :) BenLinus1214 (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Endorsements (arbitrary break) [ edit ]

Note [ edit ]

The 'opposition' subsection was moved to the talk page by a WMF editor. This was done because it's out of process to have an opposition subsection. 04:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tutelary (talk contribs) 04:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)