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…

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.

I never looked at it like that... makes it seem pretty systemic

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.

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.

Wikipedia deletes pages about women. Saying the women aren’t famous enough. Also, notoriously had a page for authors with no women and a separate page for women authors.

Two times someone created a Wikipedia entry for me and twice it has been deleted. You can see it was linked from here: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OOCS…

I have lots of thoughts! My decade in the Wikipedia-sphere has given me some good insights and battle scars. It’s a bit like lobbying — knowing how to work within the system to change the system. Tomorrow I think I’ll pull some guidelines/tips together to share. Go team.