Categories
Diversity Social Media

Ladies, Wikipedia is ours

Rogers Cadenhead wrote on Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales edits of his own biography. During the discussion, Rogers mentioned his own Wikipedia entry. I checked, and sure enough: Rogers has an entry. That’s odd, I thought. Many of the male webloggers I know have an entry in Wikipedia, but most of the women I know, don’t. I brought this up with Rogers and he noticed the same.

Why are there significantly fewer women? I think one reason is that we women are taught not to put ourselves forward. Men are complimented for tooting their own horn; making known their wishes; noting their own accomplishments. Women, however, are expected to be sweet, demure, and most of all, stay ever so slightly in the shadow. Well, unless we’re eye candy, in which case not only should we be in the light, we should be wearing as little as possible so that our ‘assets’ can be fully explored.

Besides, who are we to say we deserve an entry? After all, it’s up to those around us who are required by laws of nature to perceive our goodness and give us the reassurance we need–without our asking (because if we have to ask, it’s not the same). After all, we can’t be expected to have enough confidence in our own abilities and accomplishments that we don’t need external validation. A needy woman is a sexy woman.

Something else to consider: how many women would not want articles up at Wikipedia anyway? It is a rough and tumble world, where people will say nasty things about us. We are, after all, delicate by nature, and easily offended and it’s just oh so distasteful to have to brawl with those nasty people who are so mean.

We have bought into such a bill of goods. We think that change for women must come at the ballot box or on the job but it has to begin within ourselves. We have to, first of all, acknowledge that we are worthy people: not as employees, not as wives, and, especially, not as mothers. We, the persons we are independent of our relationship with others, are worthy.

The concept behind women and visibility isn’t limited to a one hour session at a conference in Texas. It pervades our environment; it exists everywhere we look. We can choose to talk about it, or we can choose to do something about it. A place to start is recognizing that we deserve recognition.

Ladies, ask yourself this question: If you feel that you’re as much of a public figure as Rogers, Danny Ayers, Kevin Drum, Kevin Marks, Dave Sifry, Andrew Orlowski, Dave Winer, Robert Scoble, Ben Hammersley, Marc Canter, Seth Finkelstein, and numerous other gentlemen of our weblogging acquaintance, leave a comment or send me and email and I’ll start you a Wikipedia page. You’ll need to give me some basic biographical information to start.

(I also hope that one of you will do me the courtesy and create a page for me, since it’s not the done thing to create one for ourselves. And if inaccurate information is added, or a non-nuetral POV is expressed, I will edit the entry. Oh, and it’s ShellEy Powers. I’m attached to that second ‘e’.)

If you do decide you’ve earned a right to a Wikipedia entry, you’ll have to accept the fact that people can and will add ’stuff’ into your page. However, contrary to myth, if someone puts something inaccurate about yourself in your bio page, you can correct it. This doesn’t mean, though, that you’ll be allowed to dump the butter boat over yourself and make yourself into the next Princess Diane.

The Wikipedia editors are pretty ruthless: you’ll have to defend your page. They’re going to question whether you deserve the page; it will be up to you, then, to say, damn right, I do.

Ken Camp and Scott Reynman were both kind enough to add an entry for me (at almost the same time). It was immediately added to the articles to delete queue for discussion. People will add Keep/Delete votes with associated reasons, and in the end, it will be deleted or saved. This is how Wikipedia works. Now, we’ll see if it gets defended and remains, or ends up on the cutting room floor.

update

You can see the old discussion about deleting Rogers Cadenhead article.

update

follow up post that discusses the ends and outs of deleting a wikipedia entry, including comments from Wikipedia authors.

Categories
Diversity

Women and visibility panel canceled

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

The Sunday, March 12 panel on Women and Visibility at SxSW has been canceled.

update

Point of clarification: I was given responsibility for this panel, unexpectedly, late Monday afternoon. Because of the number of panel members who had dropped out, I made a call to cancel. The SxSW organizers did not make this decision.

However, some interest has been expressed about still having this, but with new panel members. If you’re interested in being a part of this, or being panel leader, contact the SxSW organizers.

Categories
Diversity

Margarita Dissent

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I haven’t heard anything from Dori Smith, the panel leader, whether the panel on women and visibility is going forward or not. That will most likely be between her and the SxSW folks.

If it does go forward, I have to decide whether to appear on it or not. Kathy Sierra’s participation was important to me, primarily because hers is a strong, articulate voice in dissent. Too many panels–especially ones having to do with women and technology, or women and online visibility–tend to be a group of like minded people who basically end up saying some variation of the same thing. The very concept of dissent seems to be discouraged, or even stigmatized as ‘trolling’, ‘flaming’, or some variation.

When dissent is carefully introduced into the discussion, it’s so bloodless as to de-emphasize the differences; all in the interest of presenting a common front. How many times have you attended a panel where the moderator ends up saying, “…though we have our differences, we all agree…” at the end, as if the one and only goal of the panel is agreement.

Based on my reading of posts, participating in the official backchannel, reading the liveblogged sessions, and listening to podcasts, though the participants at BlogHer, were engaging, intelligent, and diverse, there seemed to be a commonality that ran through this conference that left as many questions unanswered as answered. What was missing, in my opinion, were those who not only disagreed, but could express their disagreement with thoughtful, articulate passion.

That’s why I was looking forward to Kathy’s participation–not only is she an articulate and passionate speaker, she didn’t even agree with the panel title. The issue of women’s invisibility online and in technology would have been explored deeply, as well as broadly.

I have debated Kathy many times in online communications, either her and I alone or with other participants, (instances of which, found via a quick search, are herehereherehereherehere , hereour first comment discussion back in March in David Weinberger’s comments, and so on). I was looking forward to doing so in person — not the least of which (she selfishly and sheepishly admits) because Kathy has five times the readership and ten times the presentation experience than I do, and I wouldn’t be accused of ‘kicking the baby squirrels’ if I do disagree with her. And I doubt that anyone would accuse Kathy of kicking the baby squirrels for her disagreeing with me.

Women disagreeing. Too often, this ends up being categorized a ‘cat’ fight, an absolutely appalling term used by those who seek to denigrate any arguments made by women. Or the participants are looked at with disdain by the prim and proper among us–all of whom look as if they’ve been sucking a lifetime of lemons. We only have to consider the recent altercation between Mena Trott and Ben Metcalf at Les Blogs to realize that there was a strong hint of disapproval of Mena’s outburst, less because of the outburst than because of who she was : Mena. Sweet, smiling Mena. One could almost feel the puckering through our computers.

Women can disagree, yes, even angrily and passionately, and still be feminine/womanly/women. Where did we lose this right? When we decide that women must be mannered at all times?

Bah.

Categories
Diversity

SxSW Panel 2

I can’t go into details yet, but there might be changes on the SxSW panel. I’m still waiting to hear from some of the players, and when I do, I’ll post something online.

Not that I think anyone is going to SxSW just because of this panel, or even because I was going to be there.

update

Kathy Sierra won’t be participating on the panel, and I haven’t heard if we hope to bring someone else in, go with the folks we have, or cancel.

Categories
Diversity

Neutrogena wouldn’t do that

One of the most wickedly ironic moments this week was reading in Robert Scoble’s weblog about how he and Shel Israel–two men–gave a talk about weblogging to PR and marketing folks at L’Oreal: a company whose clientele is almost exclusively women.

Turns out that L’Oreal, the world’s largest cosmetics maker, is one of Microsoft’s best customers. But we were there to talk about corporate blogging. We talked about how to use Technorati/Feedster/Pubsub/IceRocket to watch what anyone in the world says about L’Oreal’s products.

Here you go L’Oreal, pick this up in Technorati–when you get off the clueless train that is.