Notes from off-wiki discussion
Not all points by me:
- one purpose of the wiki is to introduce geek women to tools, analysis and strategies (relatively) well known in feminism that can be useful to them
- in scope: summaries of and feminist analysis/critique of anti-feminist viewpoints
- out of scope: non/anti-feminist viewpoints not clearly marked as such and not accompanied by feminist critique
- out of scope: non/anti-feminist viewpoints stated as if they are the editorial position of the wiki
- "We do not maintain a neutral point of view; a feminist viewpoint being framed as the editorial point of view is specifically okay and encouraged; a non-feminist or anti-feminist viewpoint being framed as that is not okay"
- Basically "our feminism will be intersectional or it will be bullshit", with credit to Flavia Dzodan
- It's always very hard to draw the line around "geek", but maybe something about how we concentrate on feminist analysis of anything participants identify as "geeky" or "geek culture", rather than of all culture and society.
- I also wonder if we should have explicit positions on a few things. Eg: we are not sympathetic to TERF viewpoints, we are not sympathetic to health or body policing (some people do see this as feminist), others?
- I think I've now merged in the points above and everything I can recall from that discussion. And yes, imho we could definitely use more points re: what we consider consistent with our view of intersectional feminism.
- If anyone has any ideas re organization & sections, I'd love to see or hear them. I...mostly like how things sit right now? But it doesn't feel like everything quite fits together yet. ^_^; RickScott (talk) 13:55, November 16, 2013 (UTC)
Just a few things I noticed but don't necessarily have an opinion on how to address ( already made quite a few edits about things I did feel I knew how to address):
- "strategies (relatively) well known in feminism" seems a little off to me, making it sound like feminism is some sort of closed club. How about just "feminist tools, analyses, and strategies" or even "tools, analyses, and strategies that some feminists have developed"?
- the phrase "geek women" appears several times, but perhaps some women in the audience for the wikis might like to identify as geeks, but don't feel they have "earned" the label (and perhaps are afraid they're actually Fake geek girls.) Maybe at least one of the occurrences could acknowledge larval-stage geeks (maybe not in those exact words :-)
- "explore other oppressions" makes it seem (to me) a little like sexism is getting portrayed as the main oppression and all other oppressions as secondary. Maybe just delete the word "other"?
- I've made the changes. In the case of larval stage women, I've used the phrase "women interested in geeky topics", which should apply to people who don't self-identify as geeks for a number of reasons (eg, people getting into coding for professional purposes may be interested in our commentary on coding, but not really see themselves anywhere on a geek trajectory) Thayvian (talk) 00:17, February 25, 2014 (UTC)
Time to go live?
We have this as out of scope: "educational content that can be found elsewhere and is aimed primarily at people who have not directly experienced sexism and misogyny". How does some of our older content, eg Feminism 101 fit into this? Should it? Thayvian (talk) 00:25, February 25, 2014 (UTC)
- IMO, it's fine to keep that content on the wiki, but my intention in adding that wording was to discourage bogging down non-101-level articles with lengthy explanations of every term. Does that make sense? Monadic (talk) 00:27, February 25, 2014 (UTC)
Writing guidelines: names?
Do we have a uniform consensus on how we address people by name? I presume we're looking for a somewhat formal tone, along the lines of "full name for the first mention; last name for subsequent mentions" -- eg "Jean Smith, CEO of Acme, said that... ...Smith summarily fired the entire marketing team."
Tech tends to be somewhat informal, and I certainly lean towards the casual side of the T-V distinction, but I don't know that that's what we're aiming for here. =) RickScott (talk) 07:15, April 26, 2014 (UTC)