Grants:IdeaLab/WikiProject Women

Inspire campaign

WikiProject Women

An on-wiki area for women only (those who identify as women) to recruit, encourage, and support other women editors.

idea creator• Lightbreather

volunteer• ParulThakur• Smirkybec• Luxxxbella• Chloe.stamper• Hmlarson• FeralOink

this project needs...

volunteer

created on23:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Project idea

What is the problem you're trying to solve?

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.

• Lam, S.; Uduwage, A.; Dong, Z.; Sen, S.; Musicant, D.; Terveen, L.; Reidl, J.; et al. (October 2011). "WP:Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia’s Gender Imbalance" (PDF). WikiSym '11 (ACM).  CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. (link)
• Gordon, Stacey (May 2, 2012). "Why Women Need Women-Only Networks". Forbes (Forbes.com). 
• Sandberg, Sheryl, and Adam Grant; Grant, Adam (January 12, 2015). "Speaking While Female". New York Times. 
• Simonite, Tom (October 22, 2013). "The Decline of Wikipedia". MIT Technology Review. 
• Thompson, Derek (August 21, 2014). "Why Women Prefer Working Together (and Why Men Prefer Working Alone)". The Atlantic (The Atlantic Monthly Group). 

What is your solution?

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.

Update: 11 February 2015

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

• 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

Participants

• Volunteer 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)
• 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)
• Volunteer 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)
• Volunteer 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

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)
• 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)

• Good idea. In my experience too many discussions get overwhelmed by men - some are aware of the risk of taking over discussions but inadvertently do it; some aren't; some (few, but a few with a significant impact) deliberately seek to disrupt discussion about gender. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

  @The Land: Could you please provide examples of such discussions? I think it would be helpful for better understanding of the problem — NickK (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

  @NickK: a recent and prominent example is the recent Wikimedia-l thread entitled (inaccurately) "WMF is shutting down grantmaking for good projects for 3 months for no reason". Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support, if women want it FYI, the concept was also discussed on Eng Wiki last summer. For some reason my link only opens the archive. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Conditional Support - I see no harm in doing this and condemn the remarks calling this discrimination. The project would be one of many on Wikipedia and any major proposals that come out of this all womens wikiproject would have be approved by the whole Wikipedia community anyways. The same rules apply there would be no talking nonsense about men per no personal attacks policies if that is also a concern for some here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

  NE has a point about the WMF non discrimination policy and encourage light to allow all editors to participate here. [4]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

  After thinking it over per the non discrimination policy I withdraw my support. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support (my earlier skeptical comments were based on my own misunderstanding; sorry about that - basically I should have realized that trying to do it Off-Wiki would presumably be less effective because it wouldn't have grant-support, etc; as such those comments seem irrelevant unless the grant application gets turned down).Tlhslobus (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support Fact is we have fewer women editors. Though some female editors (e.g. Tutelary below) may find this proposal unnecessary, if others would be more likely to contribute because of it, so much the better. As a male editor, I don't think we need to feel threatened or discriminated against by this - assume good faith! Audacity (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Montana's and Laura's comments resonated with me, so I've taken that into account before responding, and I think the new project will have to work through those issues before opening its doors. That said, the Teahouse has helped newbies in spades. If WikiProject Women (it'll need another name) is basically set up like it -- a kind, patient, helpful lounge for newbies -- then I support having a kind, patient, helpful lounge for women. I think about Asimov's Foundation encyclopedists, wondering how would Hari Seldon respond -- he always took the long view, you know. I think he'd say, "go for it". --Rosiestep (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support I think this is a splendid idea, but why stop there? We need all sorts of safe spaces. How about a safe space for our editors of Black African heritage? We can call it WikiProject Crow because, you know, crows are black. Then another good one would be a safe space for our gay editors. We can call it WikiProject Aid since it will be about aiding homosexual editors. Perhaps a safe space for our many Jewish editors would also be a good idea and we can even give them nifty badges, like, in the shape of the Star of David or something. I envision no negative consequences arising from any of these proposals!--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:26, 11 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.
• 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.
  
• (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)

• Support Great idea !!! It is a problem that we have a very low participation of women on the project. I have been involved with the GGTF initiative on en.wp for some time now, and the project is trying to achieve sorely needed goals. From first-hand experience, I find that any attempt to do anything at this project is being persistently railroaded and it is impossible to do anything without getting bogged down by shameless jackassery. No, the community is unable to stop this jackassery, and it is clear that efforts to address the gender gap in open space are not viable / practicable. We have to have a way of addressing the gender gap properly, and also to address the problems women face at the hands of trolls. It is my perception that the community and community systems there are unfit for purpose of protecting women from being trolled. That women are at high risk of trolling can be seen from stastitical studies. Three-fourths of trolling victims on the net are women. Please see "Lena Dunham Captures a Big Problem for Women on the Internet at the Golden Globes". It is useless to say that Wikipedia is an exception to this. Ours is a respectable project, and we cannot let it go into disrepute like twitter and other websites. To live in denial is no use. Wishful thinking will not save our reputation, or the project. People do not lose their nasty tendencies just because they have logged onto wikipedia. We have a serious problem, and we have to make a choice. Either have a way to deal with it, or go down in disrepute for living in denial. Serious issues like this do not get solved on their own, or through half-measures. Best.OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• I endorse the continued refining of this idea. This idea is a bold option and should be refined with a narrow focus that can be evaluated for success. This project as one of several ideas that should continue to be refined to make it viable (its not quite there, yet.) In general I support the idea of a time limited pilot project of a friendly space on wiki for all women who want to join it. The question is who if any one else should be permitted to participate, too, and in what ways. And it will need to have a set of goals that clearly separate it from the Teahouse. One possible scope could be for developing alternative ideas about contributing and policy that is moderated so that the comments of women members of the group are prominent and the comments of others are initially separated out. This friendly space would make it possible to brainstorm on wiki without having to deal with a hostile editing environment. I could support another scope as long as it is narrow enough to be successful and clearly time limited. Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I was initially reluctant, but after reading some of the comments left here by MRAs, hilarious accusations of "sexism against men" and "misandry" and the utter anger said men expressed at women for daring to create a space apart from them, I hope this works out. Bridenh (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Reluctant support, with the caveat that the women's space be part of a strategy with a more diverse base, including an "allies" program and a moderated forum open to anyone who supports reducing the gender gap. For reference, I would also mention parallel projects Grants:IdeaLab/Fund a community human resources staffperson for an HR level staff person who can deal with gender issues and Grants:IdeaLab/Gender-gap admin training, an educational initiative for gender issues, initially proposed in partnership with Ada Institute. What convinced me of the need for a separate women's forum was first, the obvious influx of sockpuppets/meatpuppets to this discussion, and second, re-reading the OP's statement on the mailing list that "Because even though I believe we may share interests and POVs with men, I think (and the evidence shows) that women in general (that is, far more women than men) prefer a different communication style than has developed here under 85% to 90% male participation." —Neotarf (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• I feel it's very necessary. Some reasons? OK, the gender gap; the sometimes rough atmosphere in this bar-room; the ridiculous lack of coverage of notable women; the value that women bring to discussions and the development of articles. Everything we can do to help is worth it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I'd rather see an off-wiki forum-cum-blog devoted to the Wikipedia gender gap, but those things are not mutually exclusive. What is clear (you only need to look at the GGTF discussions in the en:WP) is that there should be a space where women can hear themselves talk and think about the gender gap without constantly having men take potshots at them, or otherwise undermining their efforts. Andreas JN466 14:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support!(!!!) WikiProject Women is a great way of testing new forms of safe sociality on Wikipedia, and will be an incredible model for organizing future projects around supportive (not destructive) communities. Thebrycepeake (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. It sounds like a grand experiment and I would love to see what would come out of it. In theory, it wouldn't be too difficult to write an extension to limit editing of certain pages based on the gender pref, although I do worry about people gaming the system to be disruptive. It may also be worth looking at off-wiki alternatives if this project doesn't work out. Kaldari (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support the original proposal by Lightbreather, seems quite rational and beneficial to the community. -- Cirt (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support Having tried to participate in mixed-gender discussions of the gender gap and constantly meeting hostility I think it is best to officially sanction a women only space. This ends the game that goes on in mixed-gender discussions. I don't endorse restricting editing of content pages, but that, if I understand it, is not the proposal. Fred Bauder (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support as one component of a larger push to address the contributor gender gap. Recent incidents on the English Wikipedia have demonstrated that there is a need for such safe spaces. gobonobo ^{+ c} 17:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I would like to see the effects of this experiment. I tire of reading "women are not interested" or "women don't care for the tech" as excuses to do nothing and maintain the status quo, in which we barely have women contributing to our projects. Time to try new things. Women-only spaces have worked in other fields, I would like to know if they can work here too. Raystorm (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support as a MetaWiki page. Tharthan (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Support, so long as it doesn't fall into the usual WikiProject trap of becoming isolated from the rest of Wiki-space (had similar problems with WikiProject Video Games and Anime). --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
• Proposed variant Right now, we have an "Administrator Noticeboard" where people go to get an admin's attention. When someone replies to that thread, admin rights can easily be verified. Non-admins talk there as well, but only when it's on-topic... therefore less often. The same approach can work with a page called "Women Helping Women". A certain group can be identified as female mentors and this status can be verified. Then there is no need to ban anyone. Not arguing is something men are bad at. But following pedantic Internet rules of being on-topic is something men are good at. I think this can accomplish the same goal without forcing males to change their settings to reply to the occasional personal attack which slips by the moderators. Connor Behan (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support. It is extremely difficult (especially at NL wikipedia) to start as a newby. A safe area could help newby women. A lot of female subjects are missing, for instance because they are considerd "Not encyclopedic" especially by the dominant male sysops (I do not intend to insult the many exceptions, but the hard persons with their strict rules, "laws" and "requirements" dominate the discussions and the negative atmosphere a lot). Other subjects have errors, because males just do not know the facts. Especially where its common female knowledge and internet sources are missing. Ellywa (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• Weak support, but with rename. I like Connor Behan's idea about calling the page "Women helping Women" rather than label it specifically a WikiProject for women seeking help because traditionally WikiProjects are there to organize editing pages about a specific subject. If we label this WikiProject:Women and say "no men allowed" then that gives off the impression that men cannot edit articles about women, even if that is far from the intention. I do have to say that I would also prefer that it not completely exclude male editors and that they be allowed to comment on the page but I'd prefer that the main organizers be women. Let's face it- this is a boy's club and I've come up against it several times. Luckily most of the people I deal with are lovely, but I have dealt with a bit of condescension and sometimes I get the impression that if my name was "TokyoBOY79" that my words would be taken more seriously. It doesn't happen all the time, but it usually happens at least a few times a year. And I know how to brush that off. Imagine how that might feel to newbie female editors. Now imagine how it would feel to newbie female editors if they were told that a female dominated wikigroup did exist, but they had to go to another website to access it. I wouldn't go there- not only would it be inconvenient but in my experience separate pages like that tend to get ignored because they're mostly just ways to scoot things under the rug. Wikipedia needs a place for women to feel safe while they edit and ask questions, mostly because this place is prone to sexism without even realizing it. Look at the controversy over female writers- we had a well-meaning editor create that category without making one for men because they didn't think about what that implied. That female only category existed for the good part of a year before someone caught on to this and it wasn't until after this caught media flack that the male novelist category was created. I don't think it should be labeled a WikiProject per se, but I do think that we need a female friendly editing area. However in support of the opposes I do have to say that this will need to be developed far more before it is launched and it will need to be phrased very carefully. We need to go about figuring out how we choose people to represent the project and how we would deal with people coming on to the page to ask questions (since as others have said, not everyone is comfortable saying that they identify as a woman), but overall I do think that this is something worth exploring. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I identify as a woman, I wrote my first article this month, and I want to get more involved. I'm sure I'll feel more comfortable eventually, but a women's forum would speed up the process significantly. When you're trying to hear women's voices, creating a women-only space is simply good practice. Chrissy.nesbitt (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• I think this is a great project, because it seems as if women would not be pressurised by men, something which still happen nowadays. They can develop their skills in a woman wikiProject. Perfect! Nyse Vicente (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support, though I agree that the name WP:Women Helping Women is much better than WP:Women, since that name implies that it's a project devoted to editing articles about women. Luthien22 (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support, and please see my comments on talk page for some thoughts on implementation. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 04:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support It would be friendly and not get overwhelmed by contrarian voices. Also, as I told them on reddit, many other things have been tried to encourage more women to edit Wikipedia yet have not worked. Unlike User Devil's Advocate, I am not concerned about being perceived as a "cisprivileged sh|tlord" by endorsing this. FeralOink (talk) 05:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
• This project is needed to counteract the evil effects of another proposal on IdeaLab: "WikiProject Men" (probably satirical, to which this is an overreaction). Clearly women would benefit from "an on-wiki area for women only..." without the oppressive influence of men, and NOT the other way around. Shankarsivarajan (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Note

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)