For a pet project, I'm looking to list out some women who were active and influential in the web from 1995-2002, and not coming up with very many. Enlighten me, please?
225
131
66
211
. @jenville @rachelandrew @karenmcgrane @fantasai, Elizabeth Castro, Kathy Sierra… There are tons. Or were. Many were driven away. Most have had credit for our work stolen by men. Few have Wikipedia entries. Too often, projects that want to promote women, only want 20-somthngs.
10
18
5
145
@mholzschlag, of course! Yes, Kathy Sierra. @wendyabc. So many talented women.
9
1
48
One of these years we might just get up the guts to map the work we invented and pioneered to the men who get all the public credit for it. Like… OOCSS being renamed and repackaged — talked about as the “new brand” by everyone while, uh, Nicole you were doing it *long* before…
6
5
3
64
I’ve also been trying to muster up the guts to write about the sexism measured in Twitter follower stats: mholzschlag 28k / zeldman 357k; karenmcgrane 43k / beep 91k; stubbornella 36k / snookca 53k; standardista 9k / meyerweb 106k; fantasai 2k / tabatkins 4k… on and on.
9
12
7
78
It’s a vicious circle. We can’t get verified, because we don’t have enough followers. We aren’t on Wikipedia, because we don’t seem to matter. People don’t give us credit because they see these men getting all the attention first. And we aren’t on Wikipedia. We aren’t verified.
11
17
1
81
Are we sure that's why Twitter isn't verifying? Do they give specific reasons? I would very much like to get to the bottom of this. Also ... can we write our own Wikipedia pages? Because we should.
2
5
they're feeding you b.s. - someone made a page for me in the last quarter century (I don't know when) and updates come infrequently but I see them. So there's precedence here, and they need a slap in the wake up face. What makes "famous *enough*" (Outing the truth comes to mind).
Jan 14, 2018 · 2:20 PM UTC