El evento se llama WikiWomenCamp, y tiene como finalidad fortalecer la red de mujeres que trabajamos en los proyectos, a través de aprendizajes mutuos, intercambios y análisis de nuestras trayectorias, interacciones, dificultades, etc. en relación a nuestras actividades en Wikimedia, considerando la brecha de género que atraviesa a casi todos ellos.

Más información sobre el evento se puede encontrar en: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWomenCamp (en inglés)

A continuación de WikiWomenCamp, compartiremos una jornada de conferencias y mesas de debate sobre brecha de género en Wikipedia y otros proyectos, el 26 de mayo, con reconocidos académicos de Argentina y otros países. El programa detallado se puede revisar en: http://wikimedia.org.ar/wiki/WikiGénero

El próximo sábado 26 de mayo de 2012, Wikimedia Argentina invita a participar en el evento WikiGénero, un encuentro destinado a pensar y analizar las brechas de género en los proyectos como Wikipedia.

Investigaciones realizadas entre editores de la enciclopedia indican que sólo el 9% de las contribuyentes son mujeres, lo que da cuenta de una brecha de género preocupante en los proyectos.

El evento tiene dos objetivos principales: por un lado informar, sensibilizar y discutir acciones posibles al interior de la comunidad de Wikipedistas de la comunidad argentina y global, ya que contaremos con la presencia de mujeres de distintos países, participantes de WikiWomenCamp (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWomenCamp), un evento previo que trabaja en una línea similar.

Por otro lado, WikiGénero se propone iniciar articulaciones con organizaciones de mujeres, especialmente aquellas relacionadas con temas de comunicación, medios, y tecnología, para recibir sus miradas sobre el tema y pensar en acciones conjuntas.

WikiGénero pretende abrir un espacio de diálogo que nos permita analizar las causas de tales brechas así como pensar estrategias para ampliar la participación de mujeres en los proyectos. ¿Por qué se produce esta brecha? ¿Qué impacto tiene en los contenidos de Wikipedia? ¿Es coherente con otras brechas en el campo de las nuevas tecnologías? ¿Cuáles son las barreras de participación para las mujeres en Wikipedia? ¿Cuáles serían las mejores estrategias para visibilizar e incidir positivamente para reducir estas brechas?

Contaremos con la participación de investigadoras/es, académica/os, activistas de organizaciones de género y contribuyentes a los proyectos de Wikimedia, entre quienes destacamos la presencia de Sue Gardner, Directora Ejecutiva de la Fundación Wikimedia, Anuradha Uduwage, investigador del Group Lens, equipo responsable de uno de los estudios más detallados sobre la brecha de género en Wikipedia, Diana Maffia, filósofa y feminista, así como miembros de la Comunidad de Wikimedia en Argentina y la región, y activistas de género de nuestro país.

Más información sobre el evento, y la temática podés encontrar en: http://wikimedia.org.ar/wiki/WikiG%C3%A9nero

Notas:

1- http://www.grouplens.org/node/466

——————————————————————————-

Mujeres de Wiki tomar

Paula Carri

Un estudio de la Fundación Wikimedia puso en evidencia que sólo el 13 por ciento de las figuras biografiadas en Wikipedia son mujeres. En la categoría edición, el panorama no es más alentador: sólo 9 por ciento de quienes escriben esos artículos son de sexo femenino. Estos números impulsaron la creación del WikiConcurso Mujeres Iberoamericanas, una iniciativa para promover la creación y edición de artículos referidos a mujeres iberoamericanas con trayectorias relevantes. El 8 de marzo se anunciaron los ganadores: los presentamos en esta nota.

Este Concurso Wikipedia 10 – Wikimedia Argentina forma parte de los festejos del décimo aniversario de Wikipedia en español. Organizado por Wikimedia Argentina, tiene como objetivo fomentar la creación y ampliación significativa de artículos sobre mujeres iberoamericanas.

¿Cómo participar?

El concurso será individual, y puede participar cualquier usuario registrado en Wikipedia, con excepción de los jurados. El concurso empieza el día domingo 22 de mayo de 2011 (a las 00:00 UTC). La inscripción de nuevos participantes estará abierta durante el concurso. Los participantes anotarán sus artículos creados en una subpágina especial indicando en una lista sus artículos creados por orden de fecha (véase sección Lista de participantes).

El tiempo para crear los artículos en este concurso será hasta el 1 de octubre a las 0:00 UTC.

Pueden escribirse o ampliarse artículos sobre cualquier mujer iberoamericana de relevancia enciclopédica. Si no sabés por donde empezar, podés consultar estas listas de artículos sobre mujeres propuestos para crear (también podés ayudar ampliando o creando más listas). Es posible crear artículos de personas no incluidas en las listas, siempre y cuando cumplan las dos condiciones mencionadas arriba.

Más info en: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiconcurso/Concurso_Wikipedia_10_-_Wikimedia_Argentina

Artículo en inglés (si conocen la traducción/o les interesa hacerla por favor dejen comentario!)

Sue Gardner

The New York Times piece on Wikipedia’s gender gap has given rise to dozens of great online conversations about why so few women edit Wikipedia. I’ve been reading ALL of it, because I believe we need to understand the origins of our gender gap before we can solve it. And the people talking –on science sites and in online communities and on historian’s blogs– are exactly the ones we should be listening to, because they’re all basically one degree of separation from us already, just by virtue of caring enough to talk about the problem.

So below is a bunch of comments, culled from discussions on many different sites — people talking about experiences on Wikipedia that make them not want to edit. Please note I’ve only included quotes from women, and I’ve aimed to limit the selections to first-person stories more than general speculation and theorizing.

1) Some women don’t edit Wikipedia because the editing interface isn’t sufficiently user-friendly.

“Wikis are not very friendly – that’s for sure! I guess I also in the rare 15% because I have not only edited but created Wikipedia pages in the past! Like you, I wish the interface was nicer but I think the whole wiki-point is “stripped down” or perhaps it’s just “for geeks only”.” [1]

2) Some women don’t edit Wikipedia because they are too busy.

“Want to know why I’m not editing Wikipedia? I’m busy doing science.” [2]

It’s true that study after study after study has found that around the world, women have less free time than men.

But it’s worth also noting though, that a 1992 survey investigating why women didn’t participate much in an academic discussion list found that women were in fact LESS likely to describe themselves as “too busy” to contribute, than men.

“Both men and women,” study author Susan Herring wrote, “said their main reason for not participating was because they were intimidated by the tone of the discussions, though women gave this reason more often than men did. Women were also more negative about the tone of the list. Whereas men tended to say that they found the “slings and arrows” that list members posted “entertaining” (as long as they weren’t directed at them), women reported that the antagonistic exchanges made them want to unsubscribe from the list. One women said it made her want to drop out of the field altogether.” [3]

3) Some women don’t edit Wikipedia because they aren’t sufficiently self-confident, and editing Wikipedia requires a lot of self-confidence.

“I think my experience may explain some of it – I’ve never edited anything because I’ve never felt I had the necessary expertise in a subject. It was always “oh, I’m sure there’s someone who knows a lot more than me! Besides, who am I to go change what the person before me has written?” Which, now that I think about it, is a very socialised-female kind of behaviour. Boys don’t tend to be encouraged to doubt themselves and defer to others nearly as much.” [4]

“I thought I’d do something about [the gender gap], by updating a wikipedia page on an institution I’ve attended (one of the few things I have felt knowledgeable enough about to contribute to in the past). Sure enough, since I last looked (over a year ago) someone has updated the page to say that women are required to wear skirts and dresses. It’s not true, (although it may be wishful thinking on the part of some old-fashioned administrators). Still . . . I hesitated to correct it . . . because . . . because it’s already on the page . . . because I might be wrong . . . because someone more knowledgeable or influential might have written that . . .” [5]

Not everyone feels self-doubting, though:

”It’s not that it intimidates me. It’s more than, well, if I spend three hours carefully composing a concise article on something, complete with blasted citations and attention to formatting consistency, the chances of it being poof!gone the next day are still high, and on top of all my work I don’t get anything back apart from the ineffable sensation of contributing to humanity’s knowledge base. I want friends who will excitedly inform me how pleased they were by my penultimate paragraph, dammit. I want a way to team up with someone who knows the markup and can help iron out problems before stuff gets published. I want a social backbone to keep me contributing and caring, one that doesn’t depend on the frequency of my contributions. Contests for “best article about birds in November”. Basically, give me a LJ-flavored wikipedia editors fan community.” [6]

4) Some women don’t edit Wikipedia because they are conflict-averse and don’t like Wikipedia’s sometimes-fighty culture.

There is lots of evidence to suggest this is true.

“My research into the gender dynamics of online discussion forums found that men tend to be more adversarial, and to tolerate contentious debate, more than women,” said Susan Herring to a reporter from Discovery News. “Women, in contrast, tend to be more polite and supportive, as well as less assertive … and (they) tend to be turned off by contentiousness, and may avoid online environments that they perceive as contentious.” [7]

This assertion is supported by women themselves — both those who don’t edit Wikipedia, and those who do:

“[E]ven the idea of going on to Wikipedia and trying to edit stuff and getting into fights with dudes makes me too weary to even think about it. I spend enough of my life dealing with pompous men who didn’t get the memo that their penises don’t automatically make them smarter or more mature than any random woman.” [8]

“Wikipedia can be a fighty place, no doubt. To stick around there can require you to be willing to do the virtual equivalent of stomping on someone’s foot when they get in your face, which a lot of women, myself included, find difficult.” [9]

From a commenter on Feministing:

“I agree that Wikipedia can seem hostile and cliquish. Quite simply, I am sensitive and the internet is not generally kind to sensitive people. I am not thick-skinned enough for Wikipedia.” [10]

“From the inside,” writes Justine Cassell, professor and director of the Human-Computer Interaction Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, “Wikipedia may feel like a fight to get one’s voice heard. One gets a sense of this insider view from looking at the “talk page” of many articles, which rather than seeming like collaborations around the construction of knowledge, are full of descriptions of “edit-warring” — where successive editors try to cancel each others’ contributions out — and bitter, contentious arguments about the accuracy of conflicting points of view. Flickr users don’t remove each others’ photos. Youtube videos inspire passionate debate, but one’s contributions are not erased. Despite Wikipedia’s stated principle of the need to maintain a neutral point of view, the reality is that it is not enough to “know something” about friendship bracelets or “Sex and the City.” To have one’s words listened to on Wikipedia, often one must have to debate, defend, and insist that one’s point of view is the only valid one.” [11]

“I think [the gender gap] has to do with many Wikipedia editors being bullies. Women tend to take their marbles and go home instead of putting a lot of effort into something where they get slapped around. I work on biographies of obscure women writers, rather under the radar stuff… contribute to more prominent articles makes one paranoid, anyone can come along and undo your work and leave nasty messages and you get very little oversight.” [12]

“I used to contribute to Wikipedia, but finally quit because I grew tired of the “king of the mountain” attitude they have. You work your tail off on an entry for several YEARS only to have some pimply faced college kid knock it off by putting all manner of crazy stuff on there such as need for “reliable” sources when if they’d taken a moment to actually look at the reference they’d see they were perfectly reliable! I’m done with Wikipedia. It’s not only sexist but agist as well.” [13]

5) Some women don’t edit Wikipedia because the information they bring to Wikipedia is too likely to be reverted or deleted.

From a commenter on Pandagon:

“When I read about the shortage of women writing for Wikipedia, I immediately thought of this article and the ensuing discussion and the extent to which I do not have the time or emotional energy to fight this fight, over and over.” [14]

Another commenter on the same forum:

“Even if I don’t explicitly identify as female in my Wikipedia handle (and I don’t), I still find myself facing attitudes of sexism and gender discrimination, attempts at silencing, “tone” arguments, and an enforced, hegemonic viewpoint that attempts to erase my gender when editing.” [15]

Barbara Fister writes in Inside Higher Ed magazine:

“Since the New York Times covered the issue, I’ve heard more stories than I can count of women who gave up contributing because their material was edited out, almost always because it was deemed insufficiently significant. It’s hard to imagine a more insulting rejection, considering the massive amounts of detail provided on gaming, television shows, and arcane bits of military history.” [16]

From a commenter on Feministing:

“There was a discussion about [women contributing to Wikipedia] on a violence against women prevention list-serve I am on. The issue was that the Wikipedia entries on the Violence Against Women Movement and Act were very misleading, incorrect in some cases, and slightly sarcastic and minimizing to the work of women rights advocates. Every time an advocate would try to make corrections and update the entries, it would be removed and edited back to it’s original misleading version. I think many advocates felt like it was pointless to try and change it-or didn’t have the same kind of time and energy around it that these majority male editors have to maintain sexist and incorrect posts.” [17]

From a Wikipedia editor at Metafilter:

“I can add all kinds of things to male YA authors’ pages with minimal cites and no one says a word. Whereas, every time I try to add a female YA author, or contribute to their pages, I invariably end up with some obnoxious gatekeeper complaining that my cites from Publisher’s Weekly and School Library Journal aren’t NEARLY enough, and besides, this author isn’t SIGNIFICANT enough to have an entry, who cares if she published three books? They’re not NOTEWORTHY. Meanwhile, 1-Book Nobody Dude’s Wikipedia page is 14 printable pages long.” [18]

6) Some women don’t edit Wikipedia because they find its overall atmosphere misogynist.

“One hostile-to-women thing about Wikipedia I have noticed is that if a movie has a rape scene in it, the wiki article will often say it was a sex scene. When people try to change it, editors change it back and note that unlike “sex”, the word “rape” is not neutral, so it should be left out according to NPOV. Example (this one actually ended up changing “sex” to “make love”, which, oh wow.), example. There are probably more but it’s pretty depressing to seek them out. (It’s not true in cases where the movie is explicitly about rape, like the rape revenge genre that’s got its own page, but please don’t tell me that should assuage my concerns.) There are a few other things I’ve found frustrating about Wikipedia, but discovering that feature was really jarring and made me feel unwelcome there.” [19]

A Wikipedia editor commenting at the blog Shiny Ideas:

“Any woman identified as a woman who edits Wikipedia and dares to stumble into some territory some male or group of males has staked out will quickly find that the double standard lives and they will be criticized and their words twisted, even when men who say the same things are ignored or cut some slack. If they dare to persist in holding their ground or acting as equals in the conversation the criticism may escalate to insults and off and on wiki harassment. If a woman complains about a man’s incivility in its various complaint forums, her complaints are not as likely to be taken as seriously as when men complain about other men or about the occasional woman who rocks their world with incivility equal to their own.” [20]

7) Some women find Wikipedia culture to be sexual in ways they find off-putting.

From a comment on the Atlantic Monthly site from a female Wikipedia administrator:

“Thankfully, I have never been harassed (much) based on my gender. But, for example, an editor with whom I frequently collaborate used to maintain a gallery of hot chicks in bikinis as a subpage of his userpage. It was ultimately deleted after a deletion discussion, but he was totally oblivious to the fact that things like that create an environment where women do not feel welcome.” [21]

“For what it’s worth, I am offended by the existence of pornography, for a variety of reasons none of which involve my being squeamish about sex,” said a female Wikipedian on the Gender Gap mailing list. “I am not offended by including pornographic images on articles about those types of images. Indeed, I expect Wikipedia to have images illustrating articles whenever possible; I don’t see why we should make an exception for articles about sexuality.” [22]

Another female editor:

“In my personal experience, when I have come across material I found offensive I was discouraged from editing in the immediate area (or even commenting) and leaving my name in any way associated with the material. I personally would never generalize this discouragement to other areas of the wiki however. It hasn’t always been explicit material that I have found unpalatable. But I have always felt that there is level of material (of many varieties) on the wikis that I cannot not strongly object to as counter-mission that I wish to campaign for it’s deletion, but that I object to enough on a personal level that I will not do anything to help curate it. Certainly my participation in certain topical areas is discouraged by this. But I don’t know that this fact should be seen as problematic. Isn’t necessary that there be some pieces of material on the Wikimedia projects for every single individual to find objectionable and offensive?” [23]

And another:

“I do not find sexually explicit images offensive. There is nothing inherently unencyclopedic about an explicit image, and often they do a better job than a line drawing might (see Coital Alignment Technique, for example. If that line drawing actually gives you an idea of what’s going on, you have better x-ray vision than me. A photo would work far better).” [24]

Some women whose primary language has grammatical gender find being addressed by Wikipedia as male off-putting.

From a female Portuguese Wikipedian:

“I have no problem with the male “Usuário” (in portuguese). And sincerely, I don’t think the fact of see a male word will push me out Wikippedia. We are quite used to use a male word in portuguese when we don’t know the gender of someone, but yes, would be nice to see a “Usuária” in my page ” [25]

And from a female German Wikipedian:

“I’m one of those women Wikimedia would like to encourage (I’m interested, but I haven’t edited much more than a few typing errors anonymously). I don’t think male words will push people out of Wikipedia – that is, they won’t push out the women that are already in. But I do think that female words could encourage some of the women who are still hesitating and unsure. It says: “Yes, we’re talking to you!” I don’t feel unwanted if someone doesn’t use the female words. But I don’t feel wanted either. I someone does use female words, it feels like it’s more directed to me.” [26]

9) Some women don’t edit Wikipedia because social relationships and a welcoming tone are important to them, and Wikipedia offers fewer opportunities for that than other sites.

From a commenter at Metafilter:

“Although I mostly avoid editing wikipedia because of the rampant jerkwad factor, and partially because I can’t be bothered to learn the markup to my meticulous satisfaction, a large part of my reason for not contributing my highly esoteric knowledge is that I’m busy contributing elsewhere. Fandom stuff keeps me really busy – we have our own ways of archiving and record keeping and spreading knowledge, and it’s all very skewed towards female. The few times I’ve touched wikipedia, I’ve been struck by how isolating it can feel. It’s a very fend for yourself kind of place for me. Anywhere else online, my first impulse is to put out feelers. I make friends, ask for links to FAQs and guides, and inevitably someone takes me under their wing and shows me the ropes of whatever niche culture I’m obsessed with that month. It’s very collaborative, and prioritizes friendships and enjoyment of pre-existing work over results. Wikipedia isn’t like that, as far as I’ve experienced. There’s no reciprocal culture; to just plunge oneself into the thick of things and start adding information can be highly intimidating, and there’s no structure set up to find like-minded people to assist one’s first attempts. Instead I just find lots and lots of links to lots of information-dense pages.” [27]

Edited on Sunday at noon to add: This post is being talked about on Twitter, which is prompting me to add a little more caveating here. First, I want to be clear that some women obviously do in fact edit Wikipedia: 13% of Wikipedia editors are female. I probably should’ve done a better job calling out that this post is quoting mostly women who’ve tried editing and have stopped, who never tried because of various barriers/impediments, and those who edit despite barriers/impediments. I’m grateful to the women who edit Wikipedia today, whatever their motivations or feelings about Wikipedia may be, and the last thing I want to do is make them feel ignored or invisible or like they don’t matter. Second, a couple of people on Twitter are commenting that a lot of the reasons cited here by women also apply to men. That’s absolutely true. I think Wikipedia needs to become more welcoming and accessible to everyone, and I think the quotations from women here point us towards problems that are experienced by lots of people.

[1] Source: A comment left on Mo’s Blog, “Hey gals, let’s all go edit Wikipedia!”
[2] Source: Comment from Katherine on the Discover magazine story “On Friendship Bracelets and Ninja Turtles: Wikipedia’s Gender Gap”
[3] Source: Susan C. Herring, New York Times, A Difference of Communication Styles
[4] Source: Commenter, Feministing, Quick Hit: Only 13% of Wikipedia Contributors Are Women
[5] Source: Commenter, Feministing, Why Are Only 13% of Wikipedia Contributors Women
[6] Source: From a discussion at Metafilter titled Wikipedia, Snips & Snails, Sugar & Spice?
[7] Source: Cristen Conger, Discovery News, Is There a Gender Gap Online
[8] Source: From a discussion at Pandagon titled Chronicling the Abuses
[9] Source: From a discussion at Metafilter titled Wikipedia, Snips & Snails, Sugar & Spice?
[10] Source: Commenter, Feministing, Quick Hit: Only 13% of Wikipedia Contributors Are Women
[11] Source: Justine Cassell, New York Times, Editing Wars Behind the Scenes
[12] Source: A commenter named Joyce at the NPR blog, commenting on the Eyder Peralta post Facing Serious Gender Gap, Wikipedia Vows To Add More Women Contributors
[13] Source: A commenter named Sabrina at the NPR blog, commenting on the Eyder Peralta post Facing Serious Gender Gap, Wikipedia Vows To Add More Women Contributors
[14] Source: From a discussion at Pandagon titled Chronicling the Abuses
[15] Source: From a discussion at Pandagon titled Chronicling the Abuses
[16] Source: Barbara Fister, Inside Higher Ed, Women and Wikipedia
[17] Source: Commenter, Feministing, Quick Hit: Only 13% of Wikipedia Contributors Are Women
[18] Source: From a discussion at Metafilter titled Wikipedia, Snips & Snails, Sugar & Spice?
[19] Source: From a discussion at Metafilter titled Wikipedia, Snips & Snails, Sugar & Spice?
[20] Source: from a discussion at Shiny Ideas blog, Women and Wikipedia
[21] Source: Comment from a female Wikipedia administrator, The Atlantic Monthly, What Makes Wikipedia Special? Ctd.
[22] Source: From a poster at the Wikimedia Foundation’s gender gap mailing list, February 14, 2011
[23] Source: From a poster at the Wikimedia Foundation’s gender gap mailing list, February 14, 2011
[24] Source: From a poster at the Wikimedia Foundation’s gender gap mailing list, February 16, 2011
[25] Source: From a poster at the Wikimedia Foundation’s gender gap mailing list, February 5, 2011
[26] Source: From a poster at the Wikimedia Foundation’s gender gap mailing list, February 5, 2011
[27] Source: From a discussion at Metafilter titled Wikipedia, Snips & Snails, Sugar & Spice?

vía: http://paorespublica.blogspot.com/2010/10/basta-de-trata.html

descargar  (pdf)  > 1er ebook X0y1 #ensayos sobre género y ciberespacio

Documentación del encuentro X0y1, que tuvo lugar en 2009 en España.

“El propósito del I Encuentro X0y1 será abordar las relaciones entre las prácticas discursivas y artísticas sobre género e Internet, desde diferentes teorías políticas y crítico-sociales que reflexionan sobre la construcción sociocultural de la diferencia sexual y la sociedad en red.

Presentado en el marco del proyecto X0y1, este encuentro pretende, además, incentivar la producción artística, creativa y de investigación sobre representación visual y construcción identitaria en la cultura digital, sobre sus lecturas estéticas y políticas. Quiere, en ese sentido, estimular el pensamiento crítico sobre la construcción de la diferencia sexual en las redes, sobre las representaciones culturales, económicas y sociales que “ejemplifican” y afectan a nuestras posibilidades de “ser” y relacionarnos en el ciberespacio, a nuestra construcción subjetiva en los otros, una construcción cada vez más mediada por las pantallas.”

http://fosschix.blogspot.com/

Desde Colombia nos invitaron a participar virtualmente charlando sobre mujeres y software libre.

Entre otras cosas, comentamos las iniciativas de Software Libre Pasión de Mujeres, el talller de Intercambio tecnológico feminista de APC en Buenos Aires en 2009 (realizado completamente con software libre), la capacitación de la Red Nosotras en el mundo, Proyecto Nómade y también les conté sobre algunos proyectos de artistas colombianos: los amigos de SLOW y el proyecto Wiring.

La invitación nos cuenta sobre la intención y quienes organizan:

La Comunidad Colombiana de Mujeres que promueven el Software y la Libre Cultura – FOSSchixco y la Fundación Casa del Bosque – FCBosque organizan el primer Encuentro Púrpura: Mujeres y Tecnología, evento que se realizara el sábado 7 de agosto desde las 2:00 p.m en las instalaciones de la FCBosque. Este es un evento abierto y de carácter gratuito en el que se espera contar con la participación de mujeres de todas las áreas del conocimiento para que abordemos temas específicos relacionados con la participación de la mujer en el actual mundo tecnológico.

Es una excelente noticia conocer otros grupos de mujeres en Latinoamérica que se interesan por el software libre y por la participación de las mujeres en la comunidad. ¿podremos armar una red en el futuro próximo?

Por lo pronto, a las “mujeres” colombianas, les llamó la atención que este blog se llarama “chicas” y no mujeres.

Sinceramente, no me había puesto a pensar que para alguien tuviera importancia la diferencia de sentido que tienen ambos términos al menos en Argentina. Por supuesto que no significan lo mismo, pero “chicas” por estos lados, es una forma coloquial de llamarnos a las mujeres, entre nosotras, entre amigas. Es un modo informal, que supongo que quedó porque nos sonaba menos “serio” que mujeres. Igualmente habrán notado que el subtítulo del blog es “mujeres y tecnologías libres …”

En fin, me quedé pensando, porque las cuestiones de como nombrarnos es un tema siempre problemático para las mujeres. Los comentarios son bienvenidos!

Por favor, votemos sólo por una opción de las 4 disponibles:

Caro

Aquí está la versión original. Nada más como referencia.

———————————