User talk:Rosiestep/Archive 44
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
April 2018 at Women in Red
| ||
|
To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list or
Women in Red/international list. To unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list. Follow us on Twitter: |
Hello! Sorry for writing in English. The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.
Thank you!
--WMF Surveys (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Interwiki Witch map
project page: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Les_sans_pagEs/Carte_des_sorcières_notoires french wikipedia article https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_victimes_de_chasses_aux_sorcières
wikidata list: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Les_sans_pagEs/Carte_des_sorcières_notoires/carte/wikidata_list
map updating: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Les_sans_pagEs/Carte_des_sorcières_notoires/carte --Nattes à chat (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Eliza A. Pittsinger
More reference material here, if you're interested :
-
- Z75SG61Ilunqpdb (talk) 08:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Z75SG61Ilunqpdb. Awesome research! Would you consider copying it over to the Eliza A. Pittsinger talkpage so that others have access to it? --Rosiestep (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Sister project links
Hello Rosiestep! I was thinking further about this edit. When in mobile mode, you can not see the sister links in the left hand column. Mobile readers will not be made aware of them. Is this only a concern of mine? :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Interesting point, Londonjackbooks, but I don't know why that's the case. The tech people might have the answer. I'll ask around today (I'm in Berlin at WMCON) and see what I can learn. --Rosiestep (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, have fun :) And thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Londonjackbooks. Thanks for bringing this up. I am aware of these constraints which need to be taken more seriously than they have been until now. Mobile internet access in the United States is now at 41% while worldwide it is 52% (see here). According to MediaWiki's stats on Wikipedia audiences, there are now substantially more mobile page views (8.2 B) than from desktops (7.3 B). There are considerable differences in page displays between standard and mobile access. For example the mobile main page does not display DYKs. Many mobile users probably never go further than the article lead. I think we need to look into this more closely for WiR developments.--Ipigott (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Ipigott: Thanks for the reply. Wikisource places sister project links in the header area, and they are visible in mobile mode (see). Perhaps this is one solution. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see them here.--Ipigott (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Ipigott: No... WikiSOURCE :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- People don't use Wikisource. They use Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 05:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Ipigott: Continued at your Talk page. Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- People don't use Wikisource. They use Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 05:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Ipigott: No... WikiSOURCE :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see them here.--Ipigott (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Ipigott: Thanks for the reply. Wikisource places sister project links in the header area, and they are visible in mobile mode (see). Perhaps this is one solution. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- Londonjackbooks. Thanks for bringing this up. I am aware of these constraints which need to be taken more seriously than they have been until now. Mobile internet access in the United States is now at 41% while worldwide it is 52% (see here). According to MediaWiki's stats on Wikipedia audiences, there are now substantially more mobile page views (8.2 B) than from desktops (7.3 B). There are considerable differences in page displays between standard and mobile access. For example the mobile main page does not display DYKs. Many mobile users probably never go further than the article lead. I think we need to look into this more closely for WiR developments.--Ipigott (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, have fun :) And thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Help request for mapping section titles
Hi. We (the Research Team at Wikimedia Foundation) are building an algorithm that will align Wikipedia article sections across languages. For improving this algorithm we need the help of multilingual Wikipedia editors to provide true statements to the algorithm. You are contacted because based on your Babel template and/or content translation tool usage you know at least two of the following languages: ar (Arabic), fr (French), ja (Japanese), en (English), es (Spanish), ru (Russian).
(Note: by clicking the links in the following paragraph, you will be taken to Google spreadsheet.) If you'd like to help us with translating a subset of the section titles on or before 2018-05-06, please read and follow the instructions. If you see instructions in another language, please scroll down to find your preferred language. If you have questions about this message, you can contact us via Diego. Thank you! :) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
May 2018 at Women in Red
  
| ||
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
Rosie, you may wish to coordinate your mass message with us in the the Signpost newsroom, or let us have the info in advance so that we can include it. You just missed the May issue by two days. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Wiki Loves Food
Hello! After the successful pilot program by Wikimedia India in 2015, Wiki Loves Food (WLF) is happening again in 2018 and this year, it's going International. To make this event a grand success, your direction is key. Please sign up here as a volunteer to bring all the world's food to Wikimedia. Danidamiobi (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
April 2018 MILHIST Backlog Drive
|
Military history service award | |
| On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded this stripe for your efforts during the April 2018 MILHIST Backlog Drive. Thank you for your contributions. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC) |
- Thank you very much, AustralianRupert. It's been several years since I last participated in the MILHIST Backlog Drive; I had forgotten how much I enjoyed it. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Bo (surname) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bo (surname) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bo (surname) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Zehra Say
Hello, could you take a look at my page Zehra Say. Perhaps you could suggest some improvements as it has been nominated for deletion.--GlobalSecretary (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hi GlobalSecretary. Thank you for connecting with me and for your contributions to Wikipedia! I'm reviewing this article now. Some immediate things I would suggest are below. Maybe my pagestalkers have other thoughts? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- We cannot include social media references in English Wikipedia articles, so remove the Facebook reference and anything you added to the article associated with what's in the Facebook reference. If any other social media is incorporated in the article, remove it, too. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- For every reference that is in Turkish language, add this at the end of the reference: (in Turkish).
- Thanks for taking a look!, I have implemented your suggestions to the article. --GlobalSecretary (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Clarifications on the speedy deletion of the article Sussanne Khan
As a member of the Women in Red project I apologise for the inconvenience but since you are one of the main members of the WIR, I wanted to clarify that whether the women biographies are targeted to be deleted so often especially in English Wikipedia unlike the biographies about men. Today I created the controversial article on the fashion designer, Sussanne Khan who is also popularly known as the ex-wife of Hrithik Roshan. But I also mentioned her career on fashion interior designing briefly with sources. As an experienced editor, I would wish to have your assistance on my issues in creating such an article.Abishe (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Abishe. Thank you for creating the article! Looks like the speedy deletion issue has been resolved. Generally, I don't work on BLPs so I'm probably not the best person to ask for assistance, but I have a lot of pagestalkers, and some of them might consider working on this article with you. Hope you enjoy the Women in Red project. Your voice is very welcome there! Best, --Rosiestep (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Find the cat (easy version)
You might enjoy [1]
Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Smallbones, adoreable! Keep 'em coming! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Helen M. Winslow wrote Spinster Farm (1908) about two women who decided to live together and renovate an old farm. The same Winslow never married. Elisa.rolle (talk) 06:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)Elisa.rolle (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, Elisa.rolle. Please feel free to expand the article with this and/or other information. Would really enjoy the collaboration. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Rosiestep I retired but Im still doing research for my personal culture and when I saw you wrote the article I thought to let you know. Elisa.rolle (talk) 06:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, ok; though I hope some day you decide to return as I miss your presence, Elisa.rolle, and the wonderful articles you create. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Rosiestep I retired but Im still doing research for my personal culture and when I saw you wrote the article I thought to let you know. Elisa.rolle (talk) 06:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Aliza Shvarts / Yale Student Abortion Art Controversy
Hi! Given your interest in countering systemic bias on Wikipedia, I thought an ongoing discussion on the Yale Student Abortion Art Controversy page might be of interest to you. As you know, women who emerge onto the public sphere as "scandalous" (especially in relation to issues around sexual harassment, gender-based abuse, or reproductive issues) are oftentimes forever defined by the scandals surrounding them. At present, this Wikipedia page conflates the controversy, artist, and artwork, with a bias toward the controversy's notability over the artist and artwork's. I would appreciate your thoughts on how to improve or change the page to better reflect the artist and project. Thank you! —Vera Syuzhet (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Re: Knight of Saint Sava Pacificism
Wow, you are amazing!! Congratulations. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, Another Believer! :) --Rosiestep (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Women in Red June Editathons
| ||
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Discrimination issues in notability
Due to a deletion proposal I got into a discussion with someone about the way Wikipedia citations discriminate against women, LGBT and POC in part because of the fact that they get referenced on news articles etc less often than others. A subsequent issue may come from the increase in paywalls between editors and the information needed to write the Wikipedia articles. We have been discussing ways to increase the representation of women - or more accurately how to do our bit to increase the representation of women and other minorities. So we were also wondering if this increasing difficulty of proving the notability of these biographies has come up in any discussions and possibly what we can do to improve the situation?? I thought you would be a good person to ask as I wasn't sure where in Wikipedia to go to ask this....Antiqueight (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Antiqueight. The sad fact is that, historically, there are fewer sources about notable women than about men. What constitutes a reliable source, and how much information is available within a source are additional factors Wikipedians work on articles about women and other minority representations. I think WP:N and WP:RS need to be re-addressed in light of what we know today vs. our views when the policies were originally created. More later... I'm on international travel... but I'm pinging @Megalibrarygirl and SusunW: who might have some additional observations to share in the meantime. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Antiqueight we wrote a whole essay on the problem: Primer. As Rosie says, there just aren't always resources on women or minorities. One way you can add women back in is to add them into articles on their spouses, brothers, fathers, etc. Often the critical women in men's lives are completely left out of men's biographies. You can also add women's and minorities' documented contributions into world events. For example, there was no mention of women in the League of Nations article until I added it. There was no mention in the article on brewing about women at all, so Sue and I wrote an article about the participation of women world wide and included a link to the main article.
- We are also trying to come up with a way to create a library on sources for women that members of WiR can access. Not there yet, but we are trying. Bottom line is that we cannot reinvent the past. If there aren't sources we cannot verify the information, so often, I choose people to write about who are dead, as there seem to be more readily available sources. SusunW (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- I tend towards the historical because the detail is often easier to get hold of than for modern women and there is less fear of saying something that causes an issue today for the person. But when a notable woman you know gets identified as having no notability in a cursory search, it reminds everyone that women of slightly lesser notability would be even harder to prove... That this is a way that discrimination in coverage in papers and media leads to a compounded discrimination within Wikipedia. going forward with current biographies may become more and more difficult if increasing numbers of paywalls put the few articles we need out of reach. I don't know how to solve it but I'm sure you are the people thinking about it. I want to be part of the solution. But right now I don't know what it will look like or what has already been suggested and is being worked on or can't be done.. Thank you for your responses. I will take time to read the essays and discuss offline..Antiqueight (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- You bring up good points, Antiqueight. All of this is compounded with the fact that some people/peoples are only known through oral history and, for the time being, our WP:RS doesn't do justice with the time-honored concept of oral history. I am thinking, too, of peoples/societies in non-Western countries who cannot afford .org websites and resort to Wordpress, which, again, is problematic from the current WP:RS perspective. I'll be attending the Decolonizing the Internet conference in July and hope to return to my wiki work with new perspectives. Unfortunately, I think the wiki movement is slow to adapt to change; *sigh*... it's not 2001 anymore. --Rosiestep (talk) 08:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Totally agree Antiqueight. I've done analysis before on media bias and for example on world-renowned, living attorneys one can find a single article giving a complete bio on a male subject. On a female subject it takes between 4 and 5 articles to develop even a partial biography. Part of that is I think due to safety issues, women are more prone to be stalking victims, but the other part of it is that women's press tends to be more frivolous, talking about what they are wearing, who they are in relationships with, etc. rather than focusing on career/education. It isn't just the media, it's a systemic problem. The biases in say academia about promoting women which are reflected in their lack of tenure promotions and publishing grants, trickles into the lack of press, and ultimately into the coverage we can give them on WP. We can't really fix the problems, we can only hope to improve the visibility of women who meet our guidelines and press for our guidelines to be as fair as possible. SusunW (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @Rosiestep:, @Antiqueight:, @SusunW:. I came onto Rosiestep's talk page to pick her brain, and saw this wonderful and very helpful discussion. First, thank you all for your insights, and for all you're doing to fight the gender imbalance on Wikipedia. Second, I would greatly appreciate your input on an issue I experienced just today. I had posted a number of photos on Commons of Civil War nurses for the April 2018 Women in Red military drive and tagged them with the category of "American Civil War Medicine." When I signed on to Commons earlier today, I noticed that one particular user went through and changed a number of those tags to "American Civil War Nurses," which seemed a bit unnecessary, and possibly indicating a sign of unintentional/intentional gender bias. I immediatelty found myself muttering, "Why the category change? Weren't nurses practicing medicine during the Civil War?" (As a bit of background on my training, I managed postgrad medical education programs for a major American medical university so I have a pretty solid idea of what doctors and nurses do now - and did back then. In addition, I've been actively engaged in Civil War research for roughly the past decade, and I have family members and friends who were/are members of the nursing profession.) I started to revert the changes to the nurses' photos because it felt to me as if the user was diminishing the accomplishments of these women, but then found myself wondering if I was being oversensitive, and decided not to revert the edits until I had the chance to pick the brain of more experienced Women in Red members. Do you think there may have been some degree of bias behind these category changes (possibly unintentional)? Do you think the category changes should be reverted back to what I had originally used? Among the women whose photo categories were changed were: Emily E. Woodley and Clarissa F. Dye, both past presidents of the Civil War nurses' association. Thank you in advance for your response(s). 47thPennVols (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- 47thPennVols I am no expert, but my 2 cents...On English WP—I'm not sure how commons works—they would go in the most specific category available. Since nursing is a subbranch of medicine it is more specific than simply medicine. But that being said, both were more than "just nurses". On Woodley, she was a nurse but she was commissioned as an officer[2] thus the category Officers of the Civil War would apply. On Dye (née Jones) she was a nursing trainer, a nurse and the only woman to receive a medal of honor during the war[3] thus the category Recipients of the Medal of Honor would apply. SusunW (talk) 05:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, 47thPennVols, and thanks for uploading those images. I believe that Commons categorization is similar to EN-WP practice: use the most specific. However, Wikidata does it differently, e.g. occupation=writer, instance of=novelist. Jane023 is a specialist in categories so hoping she can drop by and share her expertise. --Rosiestep (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, Rosiestep, Hi, SusunW. Thank you both for your thoughtful responses. I'm glad now that I didn't revert the category edits, but am even more pleased that there are ways to raise the profile of these women by adding the officer/medal categories. (Thank you, SusunW!) Looking forward to any insights Jane023 may have as well. P.S. Not sure if this will help with the research being done on gender bias, but while posting bios for the April 2018 WIR/Milhist backlog drive, I received pushback from several Milhist members who questioned the "notability" of redlinked women I'd turned blue, including Dutch and French Resistance women who had been deported to Auschwitz or Ravensbrück. I had to defend those bios far more than any of the bios for men I've written, and I still have to watch the articles closely for inapropriate/unnecessary edits, tagging, redirects, etc. even though most were independently reviewed as B-Class bios. I found myself wondering if it would have been even worse if my user profile identified my gender (female), and suspect these April experiences may have contributed somewhat to my discomfort at the category changes with these photos. 47thPennVols (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, 47thPennVols, and thanks for uploading those images. I believe that Commons categorization is similar to EN-WP practice: use the most specific. However, Wikidata does it differently, e.g. occupation=writer, instance of=novelist. Jane023 is a specialist in categories so hoping she can drop by and share her expertise. --Rosiestep (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- 47thPennVols I am no expert, but my 2 cents...On English WP—I'm not sure how commons works—they would go in the most specific category available. Since nursing is a subbranch of medicine it is more specific than simply medicine. But that being said, both were more than "just nurses". On Woodley, she was a nurse but she was commissioned as an officer[2] thus the category Officers of the Civil War would apply. On Dye (née Jones) she was a nursing trainer, a nurse and the only woman to receive a medal of honor during the war[3] thus the category Recipients of the Medal of Honor would apply. SusunW (talk) 05:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @Rosiestep:, @Antiqueight:, @SusunW:. I came onto Rosiestep's talk page to pick her brain, and saw this wonderful and very helpful discussion. First, thank you all for your insights, and for all you're doing to fight the gender imbalance on Wikipedia. Second, I would greatly appreciate your input on an issue I experienced just today. I had posted a number of photos on Commons of Civil War nurses for the April 2018 Women in Red military drive and tagged them with the category of "American Civil War Medicine." When I signed on to Commons earlier today, I noticed that one particular user went through and changed a number of those tags to "American Civil War Nurses," which seemed a bit unnecessary, and possibly indicating a sign of unintentional/intentional gender bias. I immediatelty found myself muttering, "Why the category change? Weren't nurses practicing medicine during the Civil War?" (As a bit of background on my training, I managed postgrad medical education programs for a major American medical university so I have a pretty solid idea of what doctors and nurses do now - and did back then. In addition, I've been actively engaged in Civil War research for roughly the past decade, and I have family members and friends who were/are members of the nursing profession.) I started to revert the changes to the nurses' photos because it felt to me as if the user was diminishing the accomplishments of these women, but then found myself wondering if I was being oversensitive, and decided not to revert the edits until I had the chance to pick the brain of more experienced Women in Red members. Do you think there may have been some degree of bias behind these category changes (possibly unintentional)? Do you think the category changes should be reverted back to what I had originally used? Among the women whose photo categories were changed were: Emily E. Woodley and Clarissa F. Dye, both past presidents of the Civil War nurses' association. Thank you in advance for your response(s). 47thPennVols (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Totally agree Antiqueight. I've done analysis before on media bias and for example on world-renowned, living attorneys one can find a single article giving a complete bio on a male subject. On a female subject it takes between 4 and 5 articles to develop even a partial biography. Part of that is I think due to safety issues, women are more prone to be stalking victims, but the other part of it is that women's press tends to be more frivolous, talking about what they are wearing, who they are in relationships with, etc. rather than focusing on career/education. It isn't just the media, it's a systemic problem. The biases in say academia about promoting women which are reflected in their lack of tenure promotions and publishing grants, trickles into the lack of press, and ultimately into the coverage we can give them on WP. We can't really fix the problems, we can only hope to improve the visibility of women who meet our guidelines and press for our guidelines to be as fair as possible. SusunW (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- You bring up good points, Antiqueight. All of this is compounded with the fact that some people/peoples are only known through oral history and, for the time being, our WP:RS doesn't do justice with the time-honored concept of oral history. I am thinking, too, of peoples/societies in non-Western countries who cannot afford .org websites and resort to Wordpress, which, again, is problematic from the current WP:RS perspective. I'll be attending the Decolonizing the Internet conference in July and hope to return to my wiki work with new perspectives. Unfortunately, I think the wiki movement is slow to adapt to change; *sigh*... it's not 2001 anymore. --Rosiestep (talk) 08:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- I tend towards the historical because the detail is often easier to get hold of than for modern women and there is less fear of saying something that causes an issue today for the person. But when a notable woman you know gets identified as having no notability in a cursory search, it reminds everyone that women of slightly lesser notability would be even harder to prove... That this is a way that discrimination in coverage in papers and media leads to a compounded discrimination within Wikipedia. going forward with current biographies may become more and more difficult if increasing numbers of paywalls put the few articles we need out of reach. I don't know how to solve it but I'm sure you are the people thinking about it. I want to be part of the solution. But right now I don't know what it will look like or what has already been suggested and is being worked on or can't be done.. Thank you for your responses. I will take time to read the essays and discuss offline..Antiqueight (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
47thPennVols It's a mystery to me, I can only confirm that it happens. I believe that it is a systemic problem of linear hierarchical thinking which ranks things in opposites and degrees, i.e. bad > good, low > high, rather than evaluating the comprehensive contributions of all to understand complex topics. As I don't think in hierarchies, it is difficult for me to understand. SusunW (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- This! ☕ Antiqueight chatter 18:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in study
Hello,
I am E. Whittaker, an intern at Wikimedia with the Scoring Team to create a labeled dataset, and potentially a tool, to help editors deal with incivility when they encounter it on talk pages. A full write-up of the study can be found here: m:Research:Civil_Behavior_Interviews. We are currently recruiting editors to be interviewed about their experiences with incivility on talk pages. Would you be interested in being interviewed? I am contacting you because of your involvement in Wikipedia’s Women in Red project. The interviews should take ~1 hour, and will be conducted over BlueJeans (which does allow interviews to be recorded). If, so, please email me at ewhit@umich.edu in order to schedule an interview.