FANDOM


Original proposalEdit

I'd like to propose that we have some kind of "Featured article" on the front page, and that we aim to make it (when possible) an article about a geek woman or group of geek women doing awesome stuff. I say this because there's a perception out there that this wiki is predominantly negative -- perhaps because Timeline of incidents gets linked so widely while things like List of women in FLOSS, List of women in Science Fiction, List of women keynote presenters at technical conferences etc get linked less often -- so that might help counteract it.

Anyway, just thinking about it, we probably need to:

  1. come up with a list of candidates
  2. make sure their pages are well filled out and high quality
  3. design some kind of template that will work well on the front page

Anything else?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Skud (talkcontribs)

Quarterly scheduleEdit

The LinuxChix miniconf has been our featured article for nearly 2 years! I'm just going to arbitarily put Grace Hopper Celebration up and probably rotate them every so often just to keep them moving. If people have actual suggestions for which should be the next one, put them here. Thayvian 01:26, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

  • or rather, actual opinions. Thayvian 01:54, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

OK, I am doing a JFDI kind of thing here. Let's have 4 featured articles a year. Switch dates are 1 March, 1 June, 1 September and 1 December. Features for specific events should ideally be close to the actual event (eg, if Ada Lovelace Day says on 7 October, it would make a good candidate for the 1 September changeover). I'll put up a schedule for a few years, just put an article in there if you want it in! Thayvian 03:15, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Current status of featured articles Edit

Hi everyone. I volunteered to take on managing FAs, along with Cofiem, as they had been unmaintained for a while.

I've started by making some new categories, all under Category:Feature articles. Specifically we now have Category:Qualified feature articles which are articles which are up to standard and could be made an FA on very short notice, and also the following categories for proposed FAs that still need work:

If anyone would like to help bring articles up to scratch, so we can feature them on the front page, those are some good places to start.

--Skud (talk) 09:09, February 9, 2015 (UTC)

Proposed change to the "positivity" guideline Edit

When we first started this wiki, and in its early days, we were often seen as being relentlessly negative. The Timeline of incidents was the most-linked page, and Category:Issues were some of the pages that were filled out first and most completely. There were lots of accusations of Harming the community and similar.

The original proposal for featured articles (above) was an attempt to balance that perception, by featuring "positive" articles on the front page and making it clear that this wiki wasn't just about negativity.

These days, things have moved on and there's a wider acceptance of GF ideas in the geek community. Also, some of the resource pages here like Conference anti-harassment and T-shirts have become standard references, which means we're not always seen through the lens of Timeline of incidents.

I'd like to propose that we modify our approach to Featured Articles to allow a broader range of topics.

Let me just lay out a sort of taxonomy for the purposes of discussion.

  1. "Positive" articles
    1. women in geekdom
    2. women's and feminist orgs/programs/projects/events/awards
    3. pro-feminist incidents eg. CoC Pledge
  2. "Neutral" articles (note: NOT intended in the Wikipedia sense)
    1. resources, eg. Conference anti-harassment, Resources for therapists -- these typically describe a problem and then talk about how to approach it
    2. concepts, eg. Intersectionality, Pipeline, Gender binary
    3. articles about communities eg. Cosplay, Hacker culture which may include discussion of both positive and negative aspects of those communities
    4. articles based on statistics, lists, etc, eg. List of women in Science Fiction, Geek feminist contributions to open source
  3. "Negative" articles
    1. sexist incidents, eg. Gamergate coordinated harassment campaign, CouchDB talk
    2. issues/problems, eg. Sexualized environment, Doxxing
    3. sexist/anti-feminist/badly-behaving organisations or individuals, eg. Jason Calacanis, 4chan

I'd like to propose that we open up Featured Articles to at least include:

  • women in geekdom ("positive")
  • women's/feminist orgs etc ("positive")
  • pro-feminist incidents ("positive")
  • resources ("neutral")
  • concepts ("neutral")
  • articles about communities ("neutral")

And maybe, or maybe later, sparingly include the following if the articles are up to scratch:

  • issues/problems ("negative")
  • incidents ("negative")

What do you think?

--Skud (talk) 22:34, February 9, 2015 (UTC)

+1 to the general idea. Our best articles generally are the neutral or negative ones in your sense.
On the issue of incidents specifically: I'd want some kind of fleshed out policy around when to highlight victims and what was done to them in a way that is not non-consensual or detrimental to them before +1ing that. (The wiki as a whole arguably has this problem, but no need to make it worse.) Thayvian (talk) 22:43, February 9, 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree entirely re: incidents. I was also thinking that there might be a need for some sort of guideline re: "importance" of an incident, which is really hard to define but eg. I would consider the Linux kernel civility discussion or École Polytechnique massacre to be contenders. But that's really hard to define -- as is the stuff about victim visibility -- and so my tendency is to say "not yet" at the very least. --Skud (talk) 22:47, February 9, 2015 (UTC)
+1 to the proposal as well, and I agree that (for whatever reason) the non-positive articles tend to be stronger. I agree with Thayvian's comment about the policy around highlighting the victims. And I think that a certain amount of time has to pass before an incident's importance can be assessed. Monadic (talk) 22:59, February 9, 2015 (UTC)
+1 to the overall suggestion. Also +1 to a clear policy around highlighting victims. I'd also second Monadic's comment about some time needing to pass before the importance / potential negative impact can be assessed. Cofiem (talk) 05:09, February 11, 2015 (UTC)

Time to start work on our next featured article Edit

Is it time to start work on our next featured article? Some things to look at:

  • -- could be turned into a front page feature pretty easily
  • -- needs work (see subcategories)

I'd really like us to feature a woman of color or organisation that focuses on women of color, for the next feature article. What do you think? --Skud (talk) 07:05, March 30, 2015 (UTC)