Please could those posting to the 'Wikimedia Blog' share the drafts of the blog posts on-wiki prior to publication wherever possible, so that the Wikimedia community has the ability to make reasonable changes directly to the draft posts, or at least so that they can provide comments and suggestions that can be taken account prior to the publication of the blog posts (and the high level of media publicity that this typically results in)? Of course some of the blog posts need to be kept confidential prior to publication, but it strikes me as a real shame that the opportunity to provide input to those that aren't confidential isn't available at the moment. I've requested this before via closed mailing lists, and it has been taken up by some contributors to the blog, but sadly this approach seems to currently be the exception rather than the norm... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Mike, do you know the page Wikimedia Blog/Drafts? It's linked from the header of the page that you are commenting on. It shows that since the start of this public drafting option on May 10 (triggered in part by your suggestion to share drafts on the private ComCom list - thanks again for that!), drafts for over 30 blog posts have been started here on Meta, so I'm puzzled about the description of this approach as "exception". Having said that, it's true that we introduced this as an experiment, not as a mandatory process for WMF staff (also because it involves a certain overhead for transferring the content to Wordpress once the draft is ready). Note that despite having asked for examples on ComCom, I am not aware of any chapters or other organizations in the movement (or elsewhere, for that matter) which use such a transparent public production approach for their blog. But I understand and appreciate your expectation that the Foundation should lead the movement in that regard. Also, you are welcome to help drawing more community attention to the drafts. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Tilman. I think I need to apologise for my earlier comment, which I wrote in a rush at a time when I was rather stressed. :-( So, please accept my apologies here.
- What triggered my comment was that most of the upcoming posts listed in this calendar don't link to drafts or outlines, which (when I was in a rush) made me think that after the initial few attempts things had stalled. I hadn't spotted the long list of posts on the drafts page - that's really great to see. :-) I know that there is an overhead here (although, there are potential technical solutions that could reduce these overheads), so I really appreciate the effort that those writing the blog posts are making here. I'll see what I can do to draw more attention from the community towards the drafts.
- I'm going to be in San Francisco and visiting the WMF offices at the end of this month (w/c 30 July) - it would be really good to talk to you in person about the blog, and wider communication topics, then if possible? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Sexism in Wiki BlogEdit
Please see articles written by press intern Zoe Bernard https://blog.wikimedia.org/author/zbernard/ Notice for women, the subject is given by first name "Rosie", for males featured in articles, the journalism standard of last name is given. It's hard enough for women in Wiki to get any cred - now even your own interns (female) think it's cute to identify woman by first name, men by last. In 2015 - in an organization which claims to be dedicated to including women, this is appalling. Incidentally I was unable to find contact info for Zoe Bernard through the blog, or I would have written her directly. This past week has been a serious demonstration to me that we have not gotten very far - even with our own sex - in gaining dignity through the project. This is only the tip of the iceberg, what caused me to even look was a proposal for Wikimania Mexico City for "how to pick up more women." I am really sorry sexist behavior continues even under the umbrella of the foundation which claims to wish to include us. Sincerely yours, Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Ellin Beltz. Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your viewpoint and I agree. Bernard has not been contributing for over two years at this point. I am looking for the Wikimania proposal you mention and I'm not sure which one that is, if you'd like to point that out. We are trying to pay close attention to gender issues that may have been overlooked in the past. I expect that Fabrice, the current editor of the blog will have more comments. Thank you again, heather walls (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Heather, the proposal is here, they changed the title and edited out the controversial material, but the problem remains. It remains that women are seen as an object to be pursued, not as editors to be cherished. I realize that Fabrice and others are committed to "increasing women's participation" but as a woman, I would prefer to know why the focus isn't on creating a safe working environment for the women we already have. I have about a dozen friends who have edited for Wiki, of which over half are female. None of the females are still regularly involved due to nasty interactions with male editors. You need only look at my en:Wiki talk page to see the sort of thing ... use history and see the edit which User:INeverCry wiped out before I even saw it. I'm glad he did that, I don't really need that sort of energy. This isn't the first problem with male editors. I pretty much try to forget all but the most noticeable, for example I received a death threat from a user who blanked my talk page and replaced it with a death threat. He lives within 30 miles of my house; my husband is a public figure - I wouldn't be hard to find. He wasn't banned for that... months later he made a joke edit on 'Barney the Purple Dinosaur' page and was banned for the joke. Threatening to kill a woman doesn't count, a joke on a stuffed animal's page does. I'm sure you can see the issue here. It's irrelevant to attract users if the existing user base trashes them. They won't stay and they'll badmouth Wiki because they were treated poorly. It's embarrassing to me, because I think highly of the project, to have so much sexism and racism considered "humorous". Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)