Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/8

Main page: Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/8

Facebook event

I was wondering if this had a facebook event page? Would like to share it... Jooojay (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Hi @Jooojay:. We don't have one... yet. Do you want to create it?  :) I'm not very good with Facebook. We could sure use more of a social media presence. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rosiestep! I added the event on facebook & to the main Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism page too - https://www.facebook.com/events/114528998937621/ Hope it helps to get more new participants. Jooojay (talk) 05:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, @Jooojay! --Rosiestep (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow! This is really cool. Thanks Jooojay SusunW (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

For anyone wanting to see if there's a local event, please definitely check out the main Art+Feminism page -- I've been trying to add Facebook events and Eventbrite sighup links to events that have this info. It helps a lot of folks to be able to add it to their calendars that way.

I've also set up a Google calendar if people want to subscribe. It's not 100% complete as new satellite events are being added all the time, but closer to March I should have all the local events there.
(Calendar ID: [email protected]) -- Best, Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

BrillLyle OOOh such a good idea! Thank you Jooojay (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Jooojay This Facebook link is great for the current month. As not many of us are expert in the social networks, I was wondering if you could provide a basic link for Women in Red as well as updates for our future events. It might all help to promote women on Wikipedia. And while we're at it, hashtags for Tweeter would also help.--Ipigott (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ipigott, This is only a event listing for this meetup, it will no longer show after the end of this month. I am happy to add a link to the ongoing Women in Red project, but I don't know what the Tweeter hashtag is or what that means? Do you mean a Twitter hashtag? If so, I don't know what the hash tag is... maybe you could provide me with that? Thanks, Jooojay (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it just #WomenInRed? I added links to the project and twitter. Please let me know if there is more I should add. Thank you. Jooojay (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Jooojay Re twitter: @wikiwomeninred and #WomenInRed. Thanks for the FB support! --Rosiestep (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Other lists of women you might consider

All craters on Venus are named after women; many are just first names but some are rooted in historical , mythical and fictional women. The left most column I think should be reserved for links to articles on the Venusian geographical feature, but the right most 'named after' column has many red link to the women who inspired the naming, or even no link at all.

• List_of_craters_on_Venus

Likewise the list of mountains and coronae (circular features which are not craters)

• List_of_montes_on_Venus
• List_of_coronae_on_Venus

Best wishes for March. Lumos3 (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Clever idea. Rosekelleher (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I see that a lot of the namesakes are goddesses. Has there been a "Women in Red" edit-a-thon with that theme yet? I bet it would attract a lot of new editors. Writing about goddesses is a bit more fun, I think, than writing about suffragists from Wisconsin (with all due respect). Rosekelleher (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

#artandfeminism hash tag

Hi. Should we continue to use the #artandfeminism hash tag in our edit summaries? Ping me back. Cheers! :{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Even if everyone else isn't, I would highly recommend doing so. Its a great idea to experiment with the tool: http://tools.wmflabs.org/hashtags/search/artandfeminism . Next year, and in future campaigns, I would love to see these pushed even further! Sadads (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: Sherry Millner

Hi All, I would like to suggest/request the creation of an article for Sherry Millner. She definitly passes notability. I would write it, but I have a COI, as I am on faculty in the same department with her. Here are some data points (I have added them below, as much of this info does not show up in a cursory Google search):

• She is part of the first generation of feminist video artists (note the way the NYT reviews speak about the newness of what she and her peers are doing)
  • She frequently works with her partner Ernest Larsen
  • Her work explores motherhood, the family, and its relationship to the militarized State
  • Her primary medium is video, though she has worked in photography and installation
• Recently she and Larsen have been doing curatorial work:
  • She and Larsen just released the first of a three discs DVD set that forms a curated history the films of political resistance. [1]
    • This was based off their work as curators of the "Border-Crossers and Trouble-Makers" programm at the important Oberhausen Film Festival in 2008 [2]
  • They programmed the 2013 Flaherty Film Seminar [3]
• Her work is distributed by Video Data Bank (one of the two major video distribution organizations) [4]
  • Each of the videos has a short synopsis on the video description page.
  • These are the main video works that she has made
• She has been included in numerous exhibitions at major museums
  • 1987 and 1989 Whitney Biennials (it is very unusual to be included in two back to back) [5] [6]
  • Three additional exhibitions/screenings at the Whitney (I can't find URLs on Whitney.org but likely referenced in the Jstor: "Re-Mapping Cultures" 1992, "Image World" 1990, NEW AMERICAN FILMMAKERS Series; "Social Engagement: Women's Video in the 80's," 1989
  • MoMA screening: [7] [8]
    • Another 1990 MoMA screening [9]
    • Another 1998 MoMA screening in “New Documentary Film & Video” though I can't find a URL
  • Retrospective at The Kitchen (1989, referenced in one of the NYT reviews)
  • The New Museum [10]
  • Renaissance Society [11]
  • ICA Philadelphia [12]
• Her work has been reviewed widely, especially in the 80's and 90's
  • Her work has been eviewed numerous times in the NYT. The four best are [13][14] [15] [16]
  • LA Times review which discusses her Unruly Fan/Unruly Star video about rosanne [17]
  • 143 results in Jstor [18]
• Grants and Awards
  • 1993 Jerome Foundation link to google search. the site itself seems borked right now
  • New York Foundation for the Arts Fellowship, 1990 [19]
  • Several NYSCA and Jerome Foundation grants, but I can't find documentation online / URLs

Thanks to whomever can take this up! And feel free to ping me with questions. Theredproject (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Theredproject: If no one else is already working on this (or wants to), I'll be happy to do it. Rosekelleher (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Theredproject: Sorry, all I had time for was a stub (or lame start-class article). She's an interesting artist and I hope someone will expand it. I will be away from Wikipedia for a long while. Rosekelleher (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Rosekelleher: Thanks! The stub is great. Be well in your wiki-break.--Theredproject (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Systemic bias

Yesterday I happened to open the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 article and was startled to find that no form of the word "misogyny" appeared anywhere in its 210K+ of text. Now, whether or not you believe that Trump is a misogynist, it is certainly an issue that's been raised and has generated a lot of comment during his campaign. Google Trump and misogynist and see what I mean. So I added one sentence about that, followed by several citations. Soon after I did so, users began expressing concern on the talk page that the article was getting too long and that there was "too much emphasis" placed on the controversies surrounding Trump's campaign and not enough on "his status as front-runner".

Another thing I noticed was that the lead section referred to Trump's abstention from political correctness, without quotes, as though that were the objective, universal way of putting it. "Political correctness" is a politically charged phrase. It has a negative connotation. It conjures up images of uptight people screaming "How dare you!" in response to trivial, innocent faux pas. So I edited that sentence to read, his abstention from what he calls "political correctness". No one has challenged me on that particular edit so far, but I shouldn't have had to make it in the first place. That article has been around for quite some time and has had hundreds of edits made to it. Why was there a glaring error in the lead section?

It's great that we're adding articles about women artists, but the underrepresentation of women artists is definitely not the only symptom of systemic bias around here. I think if we really want Wikipedia to be more representative, we also need to edit existing articles. It's scary for me, making an edit to a high-traffic article that gets thousands of views per day, especially knowing that I'm probably going to be challenged by someone who thinks "neutrality" means protecting Donald Trump from himself. It's much more relaxing to write a new article on some topic that the other editors obviously don't care about (because if they did, there would already be an article about it). To be honest, editing Wikipedia is therapeutic for me; I do it precisely because there's no deadline and no commitment. I'm only willing to do so much wrangling with other editors. But Wikipedia is influential. Google something, and the Wikipedia article about it shows up near the top of the list. Countless other websites mindlessly parrot whatever Wikipedia says.

A while back I noticed that in the article on Henry Cabot Lodge, someone had actually written, "It should be remembered, however, that Lodge was no rampant xenophobe." That sentence had been there since 2008! The word "nativism" did not appear anywhere in the article (until I added it), which is odd, because he was famous for that. Page stats show an average of 612 views per day of that article - probably high school kids doing their homework. That's 612 high school kids per day being lied to about American history by a bunch of extremely self-confident white male retirees who don't know how to use the word "rampant".

In short (I was going to apologize for being longwinded, like I usually do, but I won't, because that kind of girly timidity about speaking out is sort of the issue here) I wonder if the whitewashing that goes on in existing articles is a more urgent problem than the lack of female biographies. What if we achieve a perfect 50/50 balance of male and female biographies, what then? We'll still have a bunch of old articles hanging around that say things like "Henry Cabot Lodge was a great guy who didn't hate Italians and Jews at all, and Trump is wildly popular with absolutely everyone because he doesn't like persnickety political correctness" etc. Rosekelleher (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey Rosekelleher -- you're not alone in what you describe, and I read everything you wrote here, agree wholeheartedly. Please don't let lack of response get you down. I hope you know that there are loads of us out there trying to make a difference and call this stuff out -- if not actively address problems like this. I find myself re-watching the Adrianne Wadewitz video here for strength, inspiration, and regeneration. -- Best, Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Rosekelleher: I also think you're right about this, and it's something I bring up regularly in workshops. I've worked on this a bit myself, but I appreciate your reminder that so much more needs to be done.Alafarge (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Rosekelleher: ditto. Addressing POV in existing articles is huge. I don't have the fortitude to go to AfD often. It is disheartening, to say the least, but its another area we must address. Simply expanding articles by adding the women back in to male biographies also helps. Amazing how often sons are mentioned in father's articles but daughters, even if they are notable in their own right, are not. Know that the whitewashing occurs in minority populations as well, where plastic shamans are touted as notable, but actual indigenous reaction to stealing their heritage is eliminated. So much to do, so little time. SusunW (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@SusunW: You're so right about the daughters issue, and I've noticed that it extends to sisters and wives as well (no surprise there) not to mention collaborators and students. I try to ensure that that the links go both ways when any of these cases apply to pages I work on. This also helps prevent 'orphan' tagging of women's pages.Alafarge (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Low Hanging Fruit: Drafts

(This has been moved here from the main WiR-8 page) See comments below:

I just added a list of about 80 drafts that were created at Art+Feminism events. This is an imperfect list: some of them are userspace drafts, others are article space drafts. Some may have already been successfully published. Many/most of them were published, and turned around at AfC. Some of them do have issues (sources, tone, and notabiity) but much/most of the time the AfC comments are spurious. Take a look at Draft:Laurie Jo Reynolds for example: how does a Blade of Grass, Creative Capital and Soros fellowship not establish notability, and why do these reviewers continue to insist that the institutional press release announcing a prize/fellowship is 'non-independent'? So in many cases these just need a separate voice to come in and cite Notablity Artist (4) etc. We are working on these as well, but your help is very welcome here, and furthermore we think it is better if it isn't coming directly from the A+F organizers. TX --Theredproject (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I notice that some of these are in user sandboxes. What is the etiquette for going into a user space and finishing a draft page? I certainly wouldn't want to jump in and preemptively publish something someone was still working on.Alafarge (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Alafarge. @Theredproject: If we are really expected to go in and edit these, then we need to know for each draft why it was not accepted at AfC and whether the creator intends to work on it further. I consistently try to save AfD articles on the main space but drafts are another matter. I see dozens of them each day on AlexBot but I don't bother to work on them. Moreover, I don't think the main WiR-8 editathon page is the right place to list unsuccessful drafts. I have looked at many of the items on your list and see a wide range of problems. Some of them have now been moved into the main space anyway, some of them are hardly more than one-liners and some are certainly not notable and really do not deserve our attention. If you really want us to help with them, then you should pick out the near misses rather than listing them all. I would guess that if you pick out the ten most deserving drafts, with the creator's agreement we could possibly work on them. I would also suggest you and your team should provide more help too. As far as I can see, you have only edited two or three of them and have only promoted one to the main space. (By the way, I always thought the A+F people came from Canada but I see you are in New York.) That said, we really do appreciate all you are doing to encourage more women to edit on Wikipedia. From what I have seen during the month, several newbies not only succeeded in writing great articles during the editathon but have continued editing since. Thanks also for your faith in Women in Red. We too consider ourselves to be part of A+F!--Ipigott (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @Alafarge and Ipigott: for this constructive feedback. This is the first year we are dealing with mainspace drafts, and we are trying to figure out how to handle them. I agree that the userspace/sandbox drafts should be left alone. You are right that there is a range of quality in this work. We are struggling to account for the massive amount of work everyone has created, so as to make and share lists of work (and high-fives). BTW I have edited dozens of other Drafts, Speedy Deletions, and AfDs, which I have not included in this list. Each article that has been rejected states its supposed reason for rejection; I will see if I can sort them and identify the key ones. Honestly, we are working hard just to to try to synthesize what happened. And we thank you for the kick ass work you all are doing with WiR. We note how energetic this month's Reditathon has been, and hope that some of our new editors have joined you. --Theredproject (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

As suggested, here are a selected list of Drafts, with some categorization/commentary on each. All of these needs sources and are likely strong cases for notability. In many cases they have already been submitted and rejected. In some cases these are valid and helpful rejections. In others, they are overzealous.

1. Draft:Jenny Marketou, @Theredproject:, added sources and moved to mainspace. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
2. Draft:Daria Dorosh-- moved to mainspace, Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
3. Draft:Umme Imam
4. Draft:Ghitta_Caiserman-Roth moved to mainspace, Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
5. Draft:Diana Burgoyne
6. Draft:Nina Chanel Abney - in 30 Americans, major show. Rubell collection
7. Draft:Jessica Lagunas -- Adriobi (talk) (many biennial exhibitions) moved to mainspace. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
8. Draft:Mary Patten -- CaptainJae (talk) There is already a Mary Patten. I added the research from CaptainJae and requested the draft be deleted since there's no need for it any longer. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
9. Draft:Gertrude Fisk - needs CE for WP style -- Moved to mainspace, Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
10. Draft:Batia Kolton -- Haworthk92 (talk)
11. Draft:Cynthia Bond -- Abnerflan (talk) - slam dunk for notability, all sources are non-independent, moved to mainspace Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
12. Draft:Jane Livingston -- Rhinegraves2K (talk) - also needs nonindepent, but should be notability slam dunk

OK, I worked on this, @Rhinegraves2K and Theredproject:. Should I resubmit it or just move out of draft space? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Megalibrarygirl:! That's your call. I've been resubmitting, but maybe it is better protocol to just move them? I have been finding that several of the patrollers have been rather egregiously overzealous in their dismissal of our work. But this one seems really quite solid. ThanksTheredproject (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, Theredproject, I've moved the article into mainspace. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

1. Draft:Tina Williams Brewer -- Rhinegraves2K (talk) Start research here @Rhinegraves2K and Theredproject:, this should never have been rejected: the biggest reason for rejection seemed to be that the article lacked non-local sources which is not necessary to establish GNG. I added a few other sources from databases and moved to mainspace. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
2. Draft:Sylvia Wald -- Kduncw (talk) - notability slam dunk. just needs citations formatted correctly moved to mainspace Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
3. Draft:Deborah Grant (artist) - needs list of exhibitions. clear notability already in mainspace Deborah Grant (artist) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
4. Draft:Alisa Wells -- Gkuriger (talk), Cmyok (talk) -- all coming from one source. @Gkuriger and Cmyok:, I formatted your article and added a couple more sources. It's in mainspace now. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
5. Draft:Lucy Kim - needs some better sources to establish clear notability. start here. Artforum review Artnews Review

Again, submitted as an FYI. All are welcome to work on these.Theredproject (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

What merits inclusion in the list?

On March 14 I started the Sarah Nash Gates biography, but I did not start it based on seeing a red link, nor did I start it as part of this meetup. Yet on March 17, Gerda added Sarah Nash Gates to the list of women who are part of this meetup.

How do you determine which articles are listed? Does any new biography of a woman merit inclusion, even if this meetup was not involved? To me, it seems like the achievements of the meetup are being padded. Binksternet (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I've seen the same thing occur with my nomination at Sue Austin (I'm guessing the reason is that she is a woman?). While I think it is good to assess the quantity of women articles on DYK, attributing it to a "Meetup" seems to skew any attempt at assessing the success of the Meetup itself. Jolly Ω Janner 19:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it is valuable to track in one place all the new content that is being added about women. I would have suggested WP:WikiProject Women to be that place. Binksternet (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Binksternet and Jolly Janner: An explanation here and there. For women's month, it has been traditional to track all the DYKs submitted about women and try to get them approved and featured on the main page within the Month of March. You will note that we have not included DYKs of this scale in any other month. As for articles, WP Women is a project that deals with any article on women or their works. WP Women in Red deals with adding new articles on women. Thus all new content on women is tracked through this project, regardless of whether they come from red links or editathons. They are usually added to a metrics page, but sometimes editors add them to the article creation list. SusunW (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Binksternet, Jolly Janner, and SusunW: I'm a WiR participant, and I think it's a great project, but I also feel that the way in which the "Outcomes - articles/New or upgraded articles" list is titled could use some tweaking. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists states thst "The list title should not be misleading...If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list." The list's title text, on this WiR project page, which reads "Add the titles of your new or upgraded articles here – most recent at the top" clearly implies that the list is being created by WiR particpants, as does the list title's usage of the word "Outcomes". I suggest changing the list's title to more appropriately describe the list's contents...perhaps "List of all articles on women for which new content has been created during March 2016". What do you guys think? Jscarboro (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I think Rosiestep's input may be helpful as creator of the project. She's usually pretty keen on anyone making additions or changes if they help the project. Me, I don't really want the responsibility of worrying about what anyone else does. I suggested that we have a chart which Gerda kindly created so that we could push through the DYKs this month. I think the color coding makes it pretty clear which ones were part of the articles created for the editathon, but maybe not. As for the outcomes list, I add only my own entries and don't really worry about what is or is not included. SusunW (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks SusunW! Getting Rosiestep's input is a good idea.Jscarboro (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Binksternet and Jolly Janner: Thanks for all these good questions. Also, I hope you consider becoming a member of WiR as we can always use more hands to help coordinate the administrative pieces in hosting virtual editathons.

It is not always clear who is adding an article to the meetup page's Outcomes list. It may be a participant (someone who signed up to participate but has not created or improved any of the articles), it may be a contributor (someone who hasn't signed up to participate, but wrote an article and wants to add it to the list), or it may be someone else. What I can say with certainty is this: we are volunteers, we don't have a grant for any of this, we aren't interested in or have the resources for policing the articles listed on this page, we believe in AGF, and if someone makes a mistake, we use kindness in addressing it. Next month, we move on to other topics, and other meetups pages, and other lists.

Regarding "List of all articles on women for which new content has been created during March 2016"... that is handled on our Metrics pagewhere we aggregate our lists for the month. Maybe we should have a tab for the Metrics page at the top of the meetup page.

Regarding the DYK list on this meetup page... As a group, for the sake of convenience, we decided to aggregate all the women's DYK articles on this meetup page including the ones which don't fall under the prevue of the WiR A+F meetup. It'll be WP:SPLIT out when we're ready to do so. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

March

• Women's History Month
• Confirmed dates: March 1-31
• Confirmed sponsors:

• Art+Feminism
• WikiWomen's History Month

• Confirmed topics and redlists:

• Women Activists
• Women Artists
• Women Social Reformers
• Feminists

Comments

Note the main in-person events for Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism will mostly be around the weekend of March 5 (near International Women's Day), though others will be throughout the month.--Pharos (talk) 03:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

We ran a full 30 days last year to the best of my recollection. SusunW (talk) 05:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense, this one should be the largest international in-person campaign by a fair margin.--Pharos (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this one will be a very large event and will probably garner the largest number of virtual participants. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Since this one will be so big, one thing I was wondering is if a dedicated AFC queue might be possible. It's something I'm looking into, if anyone has technical ideas on how to implement it, that would be great.--Pharos (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• I think we should be going forward on this one too, especially our tie-up with Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism. If our focus is not clear, it will be difficult to coordinate things efficiently.--Ipigott (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)